Lesson 03: Giving Feedback¶

Being a good audience member is a skill, and it matters. The quality of a journal club discussion depends as much on how the audience engages as on how well the paper was presented. This lesson covers how to participate usefully: asking good questions, offering constructive criticism, and making the presenter feel supported rather than interrogated.

---

Why your participation matters¶

As a junior researcher, you might feel like your questions or comments are not worth raising, that the senior people in the room will say the important things, and you should just listen.

This is backwards. Your questions are often the most valuable ones in the room, precisely because you are not yet an expert. A genuine question from someone who does not yet know the answer is more useful than a knowing remark from someone who has already thought it through.

If something is unclear to you, it is very likely unclear to others. Asking about it helps everyone, including the presenter.

---

Asking questions¶

A good question does one or more of the following:

• Clarifies something that was not explained clearly.
• Points to an assumption that seems worth examining.
• Connects the paper to something outside its scope.
• Expresses genuine scepticism about a result or method.

You do not need a fully formed thought to ask a question. "I do not quite understand how they got from X to Y. Can you walk through that?" is a good question. "This result surprised me. Did anyone expect it to come out this way?" is a good question. "I might be missing something, but does this contradict what [other paper] found?" is a good question.

---

Offering criticism¶

Journal club is one of the main places where papers get critically examined before the group acts on or builds upon their results. Honest criticism is part of its purpose.

Useful criticism is specific. "I am not convinced by this result" is a starting point, not a full thought. "I am not convinced by this result because the error bars seem too small for the sample size" is useful. "Figure 3 shows X, but that seems inconsistent with the assumption they made in the methods section" is useful.

Useful criticism is about the work, not the presenter. The presenter did not write the paper. They are sharing it with the group to think through together. Critique the paper's claims, methods, and conclusions, not the presenter's explanation of them.

It is also fine to be wrong. If you raise a criticism and someone explains why it is not a real problem, that is a good outcome. You have learned something, and the group has engaged with the question.

---

When you disagree with the paper¶

Scepticism is valuable. If a result seems implausible, a method seems flawed, or a conclusion seems overstated, say so.

A few ways to frame it:

• "I find it hard to believe this result because... does anyone else share that concern?"
• "The method here seems to assume [X]. Is that a safe assumption in this regime?"
• "The conclusion feels stronger than what the data actually shows. Am I reading that right?"

You are not obliged to accept a paper's conclusions just because it was published. Journal club exists partly to develop the critical reading skills needed to evaluate claims independently.

---

Supporting the presenter¶

The presenter has done the work of reading a paper carefully enough to share it with the group. That takes effort, and it takes courage, especially for junior researchers presenting for the first time.

A few habits that make a big difference:

• Ask questions in a way that invites explanation rather than puts the presenter on the spot. "Can you walk me through the main figure?" is friendlier than "What does the y-axis even mean?"
• If the presenter is not sure of something, do not pile on. Offer what you know if you can.
• If you disagree with the presenter's interpretation, frame it as a question or alternative view, not as a correction.

A room where people feel comfortable saying "I do not know" and "I might be wrong" is a room where everyone learns more. The tone of that room is set by how the audience behaves, not just the presenter.

---

Taking notes¶

Notes from journal club discussions are surprisingly useful later.

You do not need to transcribe the whole thing. A few lines are enough:

• The paper's central claim in one sentence.
• The strongest result shown.
• Questions that came up and were not resolved.
• Your own reaction: did you find it convincing?

These notes become useful when you encounter the paper again, cite it in your own work, or want to recommend it to someone. Attach them to the paper entry in your reference manager (see Managing Papers).

---

A note on building confidence¶

Asking questions in front of a group, especially one that includes senior researchers, feels risky. What if the question is obvious? What if someone thinks you missed something basic?

In practice, this almost never happens. People who ask genuine questions are seen as engaged and curious, not as uninformed. The question you were afraid to ask is usually the one three other people were also thinking.

Journal club is a low-stakes environment compared to a conference or a group meeting. It is one of the best places to practise speaking up, asking questions, and forming your own view of a paper. Use it for that.