The draft reports should be handed in on Canvas on Mon 26 Sept and one report to review will be assigned also via Canvas. The review should be handed in on Canvas on Mon 2 Oct.

Please note that no extension will be given to either of these deadlines.

Criteria for draft report (hand in in PDF format via Canvas)

The draft report must contain between 1000 and 1500 words and contain following sections:

introduction,
materials and methods and
results and discussion (preliminary).

The results and discussion should include a ROC plot and its interpretation. You must clearly state your research question in the introduction and answer it in the results and discussion.

Criteria for reviewing (hand in in PDF format via blackboard)

We have added guidelines for what you need to focus on when reviewing the draft report. You need to focus on both the content, but also the English language when you review the report. Further, you also need to check that the right information is in the right section and that the questions from the project tutorial are answered correctly. For figures and tables you need to check that all axes and lines points are explained in the caption. All figures and tables should also be referred to in the main text with an explanation of what can be seen from the figure/table.

Introduction:

Is there sufficient background of (PSI-)BLAST and the database? Please give comments both on the content, but also on the English language! You can refer to the lecture on scientific writing.
Are there references to previous studies from literature?
Is the research question specifically stated?

Materials and methods:

Is a flow chart included? Please give comments on the logics of this flowchart!
Is there sufficient information to reproduce the work?
Is it written in a precise manner with no unnecessary information that could go in to the introduction or result section?

Results and discussion:

Is a preliminary ROC plot and its interpretation included?
Is the research question answered fully?
Are the results compared to previous results from literature?
Is there a discussion of the (dis)advantages of using the chosen database as a gold standard for benchmarking homologs found with (PSI-)BLAST compared to the other two databases?