writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it
DESCRIPTION
NRES 720 How I Write a Review Paper (Not the only way, but a way that has been very rewarding for me.) Dale W. Johnson Spring 2013. Chapter 8 in the book gives great guidelines for the mechanics and ethics ( plagarism , source attribution) of writing review papers. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
NRES 720How I Write a Review Paper
(Not the only way, but a way that has been very rewarding for me.)
Dale W. JohnsonSpring 2013
Chapter 8 in the book gives great guidelines for the mechanics and ethics (plagarism, source attribution) of writing review papers.
This lecture will complement that by attempting to encourage you to write your own review papers, starting now. Nothing but good can come from this effort. (How many things in life can you say that about?)
![Page 2: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it• You are not too young to do it. Old guys are often too lazy to
do it and want to write books citing their own work instead.
• Reading 50-100 papers is in fact very tedious and time consuming. Face this fact. Bulldoze through it.
• If you take the time to do it, you will find that you are the world expert – or at least one of them - on the subject.
• And it is my experience, at least, that review papers get accepted much more often than regular science study papers.
• This in turn will likely lead to:• Speaking invitations• Grant money• Reputation building
![Page 3: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Techniques for reviewing the literature
• Google and Google Scholar• Other search engines and library resources (Amy
Shannon) • Sequential “skimming”• Note taking• Meta Analysis (?)• Synthesis
![Page 4: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Google and Google Scholar
• Wonderful tools for recent and classic literature• Not so great for older, more obscure but potentially
very relevant literature – you still need to look at
literature cited sections for this!• Worthless for data sets that were collected for
another purpose but might be useful to you
![Page 5: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The volume of literature on your review subject can be daunting. You should view yourself as a bulldozer: relentless, unstoppable, mowing down all obstacles in its path.
And there are shortcuts.
References relevant to a review on biofuels
![Page 6: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Sequential “skimming” – my technique
Skim abstract for key
words/phrases
Read abstract, skim tables and figures
Find any?Yes No
Put in reserve pile
Items of even remote interest?
Yes
Make notes (bullets on paper, 3 x 5
cards)
No
Make a small note and put in possibles pile
Items considerable interest?
Yes
Read the entire paper in depth, make
extensive notes, put in definites pile
Put in probables pile
No
![Page 7: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
I am doing a review on the effects of atmospheric N deposition on soil exchangeable calcium and acidification. Skim this in 10 seconds and tell me where it goes in the decision tree.
ABSTRACT
Soil C and nutrient contents were estimated for eight watersheds in two sites (one high elevation, Bull, and one low elevation, Providence) in the King’s River Experimental Watersheds in the western Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Eighty seven quantitative pits were dug to measure soil bulk density and total rock content, while three replicate surface samples were taken nearby with a bucket auger (satellite samples) to the same depth as surface pit samples. Results showed that the higher elevation Bull watersheds had significantly greater C, N, and B contents and significantly lower extractable P, exchangeable Ca2+ Mg2+, and Na+ contents (kg ha-1) and lower pH than the lower elevation Providence watersheds. Soil NH4
+ and mineral N contents were high in both the Bull and Providence watersheds and could not be related to any measured soil property or attributed to known rates of atmospheric deposition. Nutrient analyses on satellite samples were comparable to those taken from pits when averaged on a watershed or site (Bull and Providence) scale, but quite variable on an individual grid point basis. Elevated Zn values from the quantitative pit samples suggested contamination by field sieving through a galvanized screen. Had the amount of large rocks within the soil sample not been accounted for with quantitative pit analyses, estimates of fine earth and associated C and nutrient contents (kg ha-1) would have been overestimated by 16 to 43%.
Keywords: Quantitative soil pit, carbon, nutrients, coarse fragments, Sierra Nevada Mountains
Carbon and Nutrient Contents in Soils from the King’s River Experimental Watersheds, Sierra Nevada Mountains, CaliforniaD. W. Johnsona*, C. T. Hunsakerb, D. W. Glassa, B. M. Raua, B.A. Roathc
![Page 8: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
I would give it a remote interest and skim on. Where does reading the full abstract get you to in the decision tree?
ABSTRACT
Soil C and nutrient contents were estimated for eight watersheds in two sites (one high elevation, Bull, and one low elevation, Providence) in the King’s River Experimental Watersheds in the western Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Eighty seven quantitative pits were dug to measure soil bulk density and total rock content, while three replicate surface samples were taken nearby with a bucket auger (satellite samples) to the same depth as surface pit samples. Results showed that the higher elevation Bull watersheds had significantly greater C, N, and B contents and significantly lower extractable P, exchangeable Ca2+ Mg2+, and Na+ contents (kg ha-1) and lower pH than the lower elevation Providence watersheds. Soil NH4
+ and mineral N contents were high in both the Bull and Providence watersheds and could not be related to any measured soil property or attributed to known rates of atmospheric deposition. Nutrient analyses on satellite samples were comparable to those taken from pits when averaged on a watershed or site (Bull and Providence) scale, but quite variable on an individual grid point basis. Elevated Zn values from the quantitative pit samples suggested contamination by field sieving through a galvanized screen. Had the amount of large rocks within the soil sample not been accounted for with quantitative pit analyses, estimates of fine earth and associated C and nutrient contents (kg ha-1) would have been overestimated by 16 to 43%.
Keywords: Quantitative soil pit, carbon, nutrients, coarse fragments, Sierra Nevada Mountains
Carbon and Nutrient Contents in Soils from the King’s River Experimental Watersheds, Sierra Nevada Mountains, CaliforniaD. W. Johnsona*, C. T. Hunsakerb, D. W. Glassa, B. M. Raua, B.A. Roathc
![Page 9: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Note: This is basically a report on soil characteristics and only mentions atmospheric N deposition in passing. Maybe useful background, but not right on the target.
It would go into the possibles file.
ABSTRACT
Soil C and nutrient contents were estimated for eight watersheds in two sites (one high elevation, Bull, and one low elevation, Providence) in the King’s River Experimental Watersheds in the western Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Eighty seven quantitative pits were dug to measure soil bulk density and total rock content, while three replicate surface samples were taken nearby with a bucket auger (satellite samples) to the same depth as surface pit samples. Results showed that the higher elevation Bull watersheds had significantly greater C, N, and B contents and significantly lower extractable P, exchangeable Ca2+ Mg2+, and Na+ contents (kg ha-1) and lower pH than the lower elevation Providence watersheds. Soil NH4
+ and mineral N contents were high in both the Bull and Providence watersheds and could not be related to any measured soil property or attributed to known rates of atmospheric deposition. Nutrient analyses on satellite samples were comparable to those taken from pits when averaged on a watershed or site (Bull and Providence) scale, but quite variable on an individual grid point basis. Elevated Zn values from the quantitative pit samples suggested contamination by field sieving through a galvanized screen. Had the amount of large rocks within the soil sample not been accounted for with quantitative pit analyses, estimates of fine earth and associated C and nutrient contents (kg ha-1) would have been overestimated by 16 to 43%.
Keywords: Quantitative soil pit, carbon, nutrients, coarse fragments, Sierra Nevada Mountains
Carbon and Nutrient Contents in Soils from the King’s River Experimental Watersheds, Sierra Nevada Mountains, CaliforniaD. W. Johnsona*, C. T. Hunsakerb, D. W. Glassa, B. M. Raua, B.A. Roathc
![Page 10: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
• Paper notes – flexibility for where to review (outside, on the bus, plane….)
• I like notebook paper with Author, date as if a citation then some very brief notes
• Spreadsheets have the advantage of being sortable by subject, but inconvenient on bus, plane, etc.
• After you are all finished, make some meta-notes and try to see where things coalesce and where the gaps are
• Start writing at this point and do not try to get the first draft right; plan on many drafts.
Note taking
![Page 11: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Synthesis• After you are all finished with notes, make some
meta-notes and try to see where things coalesce and where the gaps are
• Start writing at this point and do not try to get the first draft right; plan on many drafts. Be objective!!
• As you write, go back to 1) key papers and 2) possibles and probables for data sets that may be of use even if they were not intended for what you want.
![Page 13: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Meta Analysis
A response to criticisms of the traditional, ‘narrative’ review:• Influenced by unstated reviewer biases.• Conflicting conclusions possible from
reviews of the same literature.• Inefficient, often biased, literature sampling.• Lack of statistical rigor.• Simple vote counting with no account of the rigor
(sample size or other factors) of any individual study
![Page 14: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
A review paper based on simple vote counting
![Page 15: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Simple histograms tell us nothing about quality of each study (for example, the number of replicates can range from 1 to 20
![Page 16: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Meta Analysis
![Page 20: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 22: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
![Page 23: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Now we can assign some error bars on the overall patterns, weighting each study by the number of replicates or whatever other factor is relevant.
![Page 24: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Meta Analysis
Meta Analysis disadvantages• Has to be based on data common to many
studies• Not conducive to really new insights based
on accumulated knowledge• No substitute for the “traditional literature
review” where ideas rather than data are reviewed
![Page 28: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Pay attention to older papers
•There is much reinventing of the wheel out there
•Good ideas and sound results are not limited to the age of the computer and internet
•Example: the concept of “Progressive Nitrogen Limitation” for forest growth response to elevated CO2
![Page 30: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Progressive Nitrogen Limitation of Ecosystem Responses to Rising Atmospheric CarbonDioxide
YIQI LUO, BO SU, WILLIAM S. CURRIE, JEFFREY S. DUKES, ADRIEN FINZI, UELI HARTWIG, BRUCE HUNGATE,
ROSS E. MCMURTRIE, RAM OREN, WILLIAM J. PARTON, DIANE E. PATAKI, M. REBECCA SHAW, DONALD R. ZAK,
AND CHRISTOPHER B. FIELD
A highly controversial issue in global biogeochemistry is the regulation of terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration by soil nitrogen (N) availability. This controversy translates into great uncertainty in predicting future global terrestrial C sequestration. We propose a new framework that centerson the concept of progressive N limitation (PNL) for studying the interactions between C and N in terrestrial ecosystems. In PNL, available soil N becomes increasingly limiting as C and N are sequestered in long-lived plant biomass and soil organic matter. Our analysis focuses on the role of PNL in regulating ecosystem responses to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, but the concept applies to any perturbation that initially causes C and N to accumulate in organic forms. This article examines conditions under which PNL may or may not constrain net primary production and C sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems. While the PNL-centered framework has the potential to explain diverse experimental results and to help researchers integrate models and data, direct tests of the PNL hypothesis remain a great challenge to the research community.
Bioscience 54: 731-739 (2004)
![Page 31: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
![Page 32: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Turner, J. 1981. Nutrient cycling in an age sequence of western Washington Douglas-fir stands. Ann. of Bot. 48: 159-169
.
![Page 33: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Turner, J. 1981. Nutrient cycling in an age sequence of western Washington Douglas-fir stands. Ann. of Bot. 48: 159-169
.
![Page 34: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Cool Ecosystem
Understory
Forest Floor
Foliage
Woody Biomass
Mas
s or
N (k
g ha
-1)
Time (years)
I II III
Stages of forest stand development:I. Increasing foliage mass, high increment, great demand for N from soilII. Foliage and litterfall reach steady-state; increment decreases dramatically
because only woody biomass increases; forest floor continues to increase and tie up nitrogen (progessive N limitation, PNL)
III. Senescence and decline, PNL continues
![Page 35: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
My own reviewsJohnson, D.W., and D.W. Cole. 1977. Anion mobility in soils: Relevance to nutrient
transport from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Research Series, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. EPA-600/3-77-068. 27 p.
Johnson, D.W., and D.W. Cole. 1980. Anion mobility in soils: Relevance to nutrient transport from terrestrial ecosystems. Environ. Int. 3: 79-90.
Johnson, D.W., J. Turner, and J.M. Kelly. 1982. The effects of acid rain on forest nutrient status. Water Resour. Res. 18: 449-461.
Johnson, D.W., H. Van Miegroet, D.W. Cole, and D.D. Richter. 1983. Contributions of acid deposition and natural processes to cation leaching from forest soils: A review. J. Air Pollut. Cont. Assoc. 33: 1036-1041.
Johnson, D.W. Sulfur Cycling in forests. 1984. Biogeochemistry 1: 29-44.Johnson, D.W., and D.D. Richter. 1984. Effects of atmospheric deposition on forest
nutrient cycles. Tappi J. 67: 81-85.Johnson, D.W., M.S. Cresser, S.I. Nilsson, J. Turner, B. Ulrich, D. Binkley, and D.W.
Cole. 1991. Soil changes in forest ecosystems: Evidence for and probable causes. Proceedings, Royal Society of Edinburgh 97B: 81-116.
Johnson, D.W. 1992. Effects of forest management on soil carbon storage. Water Air, and Soil Poll. 64: 83-120.
![Page 36: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
My own reviewsJohnson, D.W. 1992. Nitrogen retention in forest soils. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 1-12.Johnson, D.W., R.B. Susfalk, R.A. Dahlgren, and J.M. Klopatek. 1998. Fire is more
important than water for nitrogen fluxes in semi-arid forests. Environ. Sci. Pol. 1: 79-86.
Johnson, D.W., and P.S. Curtis. 2001. Effects of forest management on soil carbon and nitrogen storage: Meta Analysis. For. Ecol. Managem. 140: 227-238.
Johnson, D.W., R.B. Susfalk, T.G. Caldwell, J.R. Murphy, W.W. Miller, and R.F. Walker. 2004. Fire Effects on Carbon and Nitrogen Budgets in Forests. Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. Focus 4: 263-275.
Johnson, D.W. 2006. Progressive Nitrogen Limitation in Forests: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Long-term Responses to Elevated CO2. Ecology 87:64-75
![Page 37: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Johnson and Cole, 1977
Invited ReviewJohnson and Cole, 1980
NSF Proposal funded
Johnson et al 1982
Solicited Review (paid for)
1st EPRI Proposal funded
2nd EPRI/EPA/SCS Proposal funded ($12.5 M, 5 yrs)
Multiple publications, reviews, book
More funding by EPA
Invited Review for EPA (based on dissertation)
Basic Research
The Acid Rain Bonanza Days
![Page 38: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Johnson 1992 (Nitrogen)
Found old (1940’s era) Swedish papers dealing with abiotic N retention
Wrote proposal (nearly got scooped)
NSF Proposal funded (via Indy Burke)
Several publications
![Page 39: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Johnson 1992 (Soil C)
Widely cited, many invited talks, projects on harvesting effects on
soil C and nutrients
Funded again for update, used meta analysis
Multiple additional publications
Review funded by NCASI
Johnson and Curtis, 2001
Even more widely cited, many invited international talks,
projects on harvesting effects on soil C and nutrients
![Page 40: Writing a review paper is tedious but well worth it](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568163a5550346895dd4ad57/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Johnson 1985 (Sulfur)
Well cited, projects sulfur associated with acid rain
research
Review for symposium and new journal
(Biogeochemistry)
Johnson 2006(N and CO2)
Invited post-script for CO2 work
Nice compliments, no followup as yet
And so on.
My experience is that it is well worth the effort