Analyze paper: Healthy Plant-Based Diets Are Associated with Lower Risk of All-Cause Mortality in US Adults

The goal of this review is to enhance your understanding of the sections of a published manuscriipt, provide examples of scientific writing styles and expand your critical thinking about data presentation. Another important aspect of manuscriipt review is answering the fundamental critical question: does the data support the author’s stated conclusions?
1. Analyze paper: Healthy Plant-Based Diets Are Associated with Lower Risk of All-Cause Mortality in US Adults (attached as pdf).
2. Write a critical review of the manuscriipt.
3. The written critique should be no more than 2 pages and follow the guidelines below.
a. 1 inch margins; double-spaced, Arial or Times New Roman 11 pt. font
b. Include a title
Instructions:
1. Begin by identifying the articles title authors, name of the journal and when it was published. In the introduction state the purpose of the study.
2. Start with a brief descriiption of the research design, methodology and presentation of the data. Comment on any strengths or weaknesses. The review should be more about your impressions of the manuscriipt rather than repeating what was stated by the authors.
3. Use headings to structure the critique.
4. Conclude with summing up the strengths and weaknesses of the publication and assessing its contribution to the advancement of knowledge.
5. Use past or present tense verbs consistently – do not change verb tense.
6. Some questions to consider with each section (below):
-Elements of a Research Critique and questions to ask/information to include:
1. Introduction: Do the authors set out a reasonable argument for the
hypothesis? Is there a clear objective and hypothesis?
2. Research methodology: Are the methods well described? Is the approach reasonable given the structure of NHANES data?
3. Results: Do the tables and figures describe the results? Is there a
potential alternative interpretation of the findings? Can the
findings be applied to other populations? Are they generalizable?
4. Discussion/conclusions: Do the results support the author’s conclusions? Is the information presented logically? Are the conclusions significant?
5. Writing quality/clarity: Is the manuscriipt easy to follow? Are there problems with grammar and punctuation?
6. Value: Does this manuscriipt advance our knowledge in the field of
nutrition? Are the results impactful?
Grading rubric:
-Logical and clear progression of thought: 5 points
-Writing style and effective communication of message: 5 points
-Correct spelling, sentence structure and grammar: 5 points
-Critical evaluation of the publication including strengths, weaknesses and if the results support the conclusions stated by the authors: 5 points