• choose an interesting and appropriate media item
  • provide a good rationale for studying the item.
  • Great article - on an interesting topic.
  • Good summary of position
  • You should give some context and rationale: how many people would be affected by this advice, how much is spent on these medicines etc - moving this up out of the neuro context would help convince the reader to read on.
  • Marred by typos/spelling errors: “...response to a published metanalysis (Fouriner et al. 2009) which examined the effectivness ...”
Neuroscientific Context
  • identify the key aspects of the media item to explore further
  • provide a concise and up-to-date summary of the relevant areas of neuroscience.
  • show evidence of independent research.
  • This starts out really well with a great bit of background on diagnosis and serotonin.
  • Then it sort of runs out of steam. There could have been more discussion on the validity of the serotonin model of depression; or better, a consideration of what placebo effect is, and especially the significance of 'placebo washout'; or a look at why the JAMA article needed access to raw data reducing eligible studies down to only six etc etc
  • 2.2.2 seems to repeat the material from 2.1.2
  • Not much research using recent papers to check the assertions
  • demonstrate an understanding of the intention of the media item
  • identify its likely target audience, and determine whether the information is pitched appropriately
  • critically analyse the extent to which simplifications compromise the veracity of the message
  • discuss whether the item is presented in an unbiased manner
  • This section is quite good
  • Intention is treated well
  • Should be some coverage of the appropriateness of language and simplifications
  • No references given in 3.4 and it doesn't seem to link to any findings in part 2
  • Some reflection/searching on whether Friendman has a link to the Pharma industry (funded studies etc) would have been helpful
  • demonstrate an ability to use search engines effectively
  • clearly outline the basis for selecting the media item.
  • References in the list are not mentioned in the text e.g. Schlaepfer, Mayberg..
  • The rationale was OK, but more explicit discussion of the sourcing of references would have been good. The older version covers this better
  • Seemed to be good co-operation in teamwork and evidence of discussion. Would be better to document some of the reasons for the changes in the history section.
  • However this didn't translate into a polished finished product. There were lots of good ideas here, including a good initial article, good background, but the fundamental question around why the JAMA study should/shouldn't be trusted didn't really get tackled head on.