# data[].attributes.body
The steps of the experiment procedures are clear and concise. The writing is not so hard to understand.

# data[].attributes.body
Good things:
- a detailed list of the reagents

- simple& understandable procedure

Things could be improved:
- give concentration& volume for buffer& inhibitors
- common things e.g. "gloves" not required in the material list
-  specify how cells can be scraped out of the well e.g. draw a diagram

# data[].attributes.body
good things: pipette specificity, page number and date, materials list,
things to improve: more clarity/details (which lysis buffer?)
mark: 42-48 range

# data[].attributes.body
Well organised layout nice headings uses pg numbers. Got the basics needed for a report. The equipment list is noted.

# data[].attributes.body
student should use the exact time instead of a range of time

# data[].attributes.body
Clear, concise and appropriate language in the procedure.

Clear about certain conditions needed in materials and reagents.

# data[].attributes.body
figure 1 and 2 are raw data
no labels on the figures for 1 and 2
mark: 52-58 range

# data[].attributes.body
1A. Good things:
- Steps are straightforward, clear, and easy to follow.
- Past tense used.

1B. The things that can be improved.
- Didn’t specify the brands and details of the reagents.
- Time range used (“10-20 minutes”); should be more specific.

# data[].attributes.body
- pipettes are detailed
-titles and headings are easy to see
-date is included

# data[].attributes.body
It could be improved by having a statistical analysis, adding more detail so its more easily replicable and by providing collaborations

# data[].attributes.body
-concentrations and detail about lysis buffers and inhibitors
-quantifying how many drops of lysis buffer added

# data[].attributes.body
Mark: 65

# data[].attributes.body
2A raw: figure 1 and 2

# data[].attributes.body
Paddedrocedure very vague specific enough.  No quantirive values used or timing specifics

# data[].attributes.body
figure 1 and 2

# data[].attributes.body
dont really identify where the problem could have come from, or how to fix the problem they encountered.

# data[].attributes.body
Raw data: Figure 1& 2

Things to be improved:
- label columns& rows in Fig 1
- annotate the western blot e.g. add a ladder, label what are added in each lane
- add error bars to Figure 3

# data[].attributes.body
Good things
- Clear steps
- Included the date and title
- Page number included
- Written in past tense

Improve
- More specific with materials (e.g which inhibitor?, concentration?, how many drops?)
- More specific timing not the range

# data[].attributes.body
-labelling and annotating all figures and axis
-adding a key to explain the colours in the excel

# data[].attributes.body
Mark: 60%

Some materials and reagents are not given the volumes used, and some descriptions like "protease inhibitors" are not specific enough (what are the names of the inhibitors exactly?)

Procedure is concise and easy to follow, but occasionally the timings are vague such as "chilled on ice for 10-20 mins" (gives a range instead of exact time).

# data[].attributes.body
1a) Major information included: dates, title, materials etc.

1b) More detail is needed for the procedures and materials such as amount of ice etc.

1c) 58

# data[].attributes.body
A) Orgaised well with headings, date and page number. Procedure and timings are shown and written clearly.
B) It is missing some specific details; saying "a few drops" is too vague.

# data[].attributes.body
Good things
Specific times mentioned
They referred back to other page numbers
Did mention some specific measurements
Detailed equipment list

Bad things
Gloves don’t need to be mentioned
Be more specific about measurements of buffer and inhibitors and how many drops
Describe in more details their actions performed

# data[].attributes.body
A) - Good amount of detail included to make it easy to follow

B) - Could improve on including the concentrations of the reagents used in the procedure
- Materials commonly available in the lab like gloves do not need to be mentioned

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 1 and 2

# data[].attributes.body
-Good page organisation and formatting
-Page number and date
-Legible handwriting

# data[].attributes.body
2A. Figure 1 & 2 are raw data.

2B.
- Significant number in Figure 1 should be consistent.
- Label bars with their values on top.
- Annotate the Western blot

# data[].attributes.body
A.    Figures 1 and 2 are raw data

B.    Improvements - Headers and titles for table of raw data. Axis and sample labels for western blot. Add error bars for the graph. Formatting isn’t clear – doesn’t explain why different colours have been used.

# data[].attributes.body
Past tense
fair amount of detail
easy to follow

# data[].attributes.body
The lab book is dated
Pages numbered
Timings measured

Bad points:
Measurements are given
Some general information put down
Branding needed
Specific timings not given

# data[].attributes.body
- figures 1 & 2 are raw data
- the raw data should be labelled with information regarding the trials and substances used, and the band weight in the western blot.
- we would give a mark of ~50%

# data[].attributes.body
Neat and clearly laid out
Should specify the concentration of lysis buffer
Give time periods
Specify how many drops rather than few
Would get 65

# data[].attributes.body
1A) Good

Clearly laid out in a list, easy to read, titles/subtitles stand out

Specific pipette tips

Include page numbers

Each step clearly described

1B) Bad

Not specific times, ranges only

Didn’t include specific names of reagents

More specific details about each step

Included obvious things on procedure e.g. gloves

63

# data[].attributes.body
They could have provided some more context and explanation behind each Figure, and maybe produced other different ways of displaying the data, as well as adding a scale and labels for the axes for Figure 2

# data[].attributes.body
2A) Figure 1 and 2 are raw data

2B) Improved:

Annotation of column of rows - add units

Annotation Western Blot w/ sizes, antibody used, etc. + ladder

Add error bars to the graph

53

# data[].attributes.body
2B: Rows and columns in Figure 1 should be labelled
Ladder should be included in Western blot in Figure 2
Label name of sample in Western blot

# data[].attributes.body
2A) Figure 1 and 2

2B) Labelling is missing for both raw data, unclear and difficult to interpret. Ladder for figure 2 is missing. Error bars are missing for the processed data figure 3.

2C) 45

# data[].attributes.body
1A
date
page number

1B
More specific in materials
Volumes of buffer are not shown
no attribution of collaboration

2A. Figure 1 and 3
2B. No axis on the Western Blot (no labels)

3. Only mentioned that it has been contaminated without suggesting a possible cause.

# data[].attributes.body
-mention what they think went wrong and how they can improve this to prevent contamination again

# data[].attributes.body
3A) 0-38

They only talked about what went wrong but not why and how to fix it.

Didn’t address problem and where it came from

Didn’t attempt to suggest as to how to solve the problem.

To Improve:

Suggest why they think they went wrong

Suggest how they would improve/fix the problem

35

# data[].attributes.body
-No quantities listed in the materials and reagents
-Timings not given
-Gloves don't need to be listed in the equipment list

# data[].attributes.body
add concentrations and volumes
no time ranges, only specific times
don't need to mention gloves

# data[].attributes.body
Mark: 42-48%

Raw data (Figure 1 and 2) lacking annotations so unclear to the reader what the data is showing.

# data[].attributes.body
Figures 1 & 2 are raw data

# data[].attributes.body
62

# data[].attributes.body
- Suggest which specific step may have went wrong.
- Suggest possible solutions to their problem: e.g. avoid contamination: no double dipping, make sure equipment are disinfected before and after use.

# data[].attributes.body
- they have clearly identified the issues
- they should explain possible causes of error as well as improvements for future experiments

# data[].attributes.body
1B:
don't need to include common tools(gloves)
quantity of inhibitor added should be specific
time for cooling should be specific
for the ingredient part, the amount of reagent should be included

# data[].attributes.body
2a. Figures 1 and 2
2b. Axis labels missing for figure 1 and 2

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: Unnecessary detail such as gloves in materials section, in protocol section there was no specification of measurements which means the experiment is not reproducible.  42-48 %

Q2: Figure 1 and 3 were good and well-labelled. Figure 2 was not labelled at all so we did not know which protein was run and what are the size of the fragments. 52-58%

Q3. Identified there was a problem but did not identify its cause or how to improve. Troubleshooting failed. 42-48%

# data[].attributes.body
-add a key to explain the different colours in the table in Figure 1
-add a title to the table

# data[].attributes.body
A
- Clear procedure of the experiment.
- Listed all steps and reagents
- well organised
- written in past tense

B
- hard to follow
- when and how vacuum aspirator is used is not mentioned
- specific time length for chiliing tubes is not mentioned(10-20 mins)
- no detailed explanation of each step
- the amount of buffer and each inhibitor are not mentioned

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 1 and 2 have good raw data but figure 3 is missing labels
50

# data[].attributes.body
2A. Raw data shown in figures 1 and 2
2B. Improvements: Labelling the table and the western blot as it is difficult to understand what is being shown. There is also no ladder for the western blot and controls are not indicated. Figure 3 could be improved by adding error bars.

# data[].attributes.body
They should also include solutions to their problems aside from just stating what went wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
A) Figures 1 and 2 are raw data. Figure 3 is not raw data.
B) For figure 1, there is no information on what is in each well. For figure 2, there is no ladder so the base pair lengths cannot be known, and no description of what was in the sample and which antibody was used. Because of these reasons the data is of very little use as it cannot be understood.

# data[].attributes.body
-       equipment was stated with good presicion (ie specific micropipettes, microcentrifuge tubes and etc).

-       Sequence of steps were accurate and clear.
-past-tense used

-       Unnecessary stuff like gloves were stated in the materials&reagents – they exist in every lab anyways.

-       Few drops in procedure not detailed enough.

-       Inhibitors not specified in the procedure (may be okay since they were included in the procedure: add both inhibitors would be better)

-       Insufficient details regarding centrifugation.

-       Time required for cooling is stated as a range. the student  should record the exact amount of tine

52-58 %

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 1 and 2

# data[].attributes.body
They could have identified and explained what error in their protocol led to contamination. Furthermore, they could have suggested ways to improve their experiment in avoiding contamination
42-48%

# data[].attributes.body
The issues were identified (contaminated yoghurt). However, it does not consider likely causes for yoghurts being contaminated and steps moving forwards. As well as the impact of it on the data obtained and evaluation of its occurrence.

# data[].attributes.body
- Did not list a cause
- Did not suggest how to overcome it
- Did not describe how contamination was identified

# data[].attributes.body
It should have been suggested what the cause of the problem was rather than simply stating the problem.
Moreover they should have mentioned likely improvements they could make for a repeat.

# data[].attributes.body
I have no idea what the number in figure 1 represent, and have no idea what the image in figure is about.
Clear labelling and addition of axis should be considered to make a easy-to-understand figure

# data[].attributes.body
A)
- format of the document
- headings
- page number
- all materials are written
- writing is clear

B)
- missing specific amounts and measurements
- gloves is not necessary in materials list
- inhibitors not specified
- not formatted in clear steps but in a vague past tense account of events

# data[].attributes.body
WWW:
The procedure is easy to follow
Timings are mentioned in the procedure
Equipment list is detailed

EBI:
No mention of controls
Equipment, such as gloves, which do not directly correlate to the method can be left out.

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 1 & 2 are raw data.

# data[].attributes.body
1a. Included timings which is useful.
Procedure is written in a concise manner.
1b. Vague language - "protease inhibitors" mentioned but what type of inhibitor is not mentioned. Also time range 10-20 minutes used might make experiment hard to reproduce.

# data[].attributes.body
- clear and concise
- logical and accurate steps
- good layout
- use of page numbers

- not specific enough "a few drops" and "10-20 mins"
- no need to mention basic necessities (gloves)

# data[].attributes.body
Doesn't suggest what or why the contamination occured
Haven't suggested a way of solving the issue

# data[].attributes.body
They could suggest why the yoghurt had been contaminated rather than just saying the problem. They could also suggest what they could do next time to avoid having the same problem.

# data[].attributes.body
Mark: 42-48%

Student did not give reasons for why the yoghurt might have been contaminated, and therefore no steps to take next time to prevent the mistake.

# data[].attributes.body
A)
- Figures 1 and 2

B)
Figure 1:
- units are absent
- no legend explaining colour differences in numbers

Figure 2:
- annotations not present (weight, size of bands, column title, row titles)
- the picture should've been taken from the front (not clear enough from this angle)

# data[].attributes.body
1A.
- references to the manual rather than a copy-paste
- written in past tense
- clear structure and listing of steps and reagents/materials

1B.
- no measurements are provided in the procedure
- generic names are given in the materials/reagents e.g. protease inhibitor rather than the name of the inhibitor specifically used for this
- in step 3 of the procedure, the student fails to specify the time they employed and instead gives the time frame given in the manual

# data[].attributes.body
A) The student has not written down any of their possible ideas on why the procedure has gone wrong. They have only state what has happened, they have not actually performed a troubleshooting of the problem.This is not helpful as they would not know how to avoid this error occurring in future experiments.

# data[].attributes.body
2A - Figure 1 and 2
2B - The legend could be written below the figure rather than to the side, data is not labelled for the Western Blot, the table is not labeled.

# data[].attributes.body
A
- Figure 1 & 2

B
- rows and columns are not labelled (Fig. 1)
- no annotation of the western blot and no ladder(Fig. 2)
- no positive controls(Fig. 2)
- no error bars(Fig. 3)

# data[].attributes.body
How to improve:
- explain in more depth the smell (more descriptions) - How do you know it was contaminated?
- explore why it might have been contaminated
- suggest solutions on how to avoid this in the future

# data[].attributes.body
2a. Figure 1 and Figure 2.
2b. No labelling of base pair lengths next to bands on figure 2. No error bars or standard deviation.

# data[].attributes.body
In the excel table, the title of each column should be labeled
make sure that carrying the same number of replications under each condition

# data[].attributes.body
2A.
- Figure 1
- Figure 2

2B.
- Figure 1 lacks any labelling of what do the values of the cell mean
- Figure 2 is missing labelling of the lane, antibody employed and molecular weight of the band
- Figure 3, given that it is processed data, lacks standard error

# data[].attributes.body
Steps to solve errors have not been identified

# data[].attributes.body
They don't explain how they have been contaminated, or in what way the yogurt is contaminated, which is very vague.
They do not discuss ways in which contamination could be avoided.

# data[].attributes.body
suggest which step cause the contamination and how to avoid it

# data[].attributes.body
3A.
the student fails to discuss steps to overcome some pitfalls encountered. as discussed in the group, we suggested the student to:
- suggest ways, new methodologies, in which they could identify whether the variation of soya milk concentrations affects the outcome yoghurt
- consider whether other factors could have made the yoghurt contaminated
- go through the lab book and determine if human error could have lead to yoghurt contamination

# data[].attributes.body
-No solutions were provided to overcome the issue
-lack of details in how the procedure went wrong
-no evidence on how the problem came about
-should be written in third person point of view