\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage[round]{natbib}
\let\cite\citep




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}










\begin{document}

\title{Preprint review: "The Trials of Randomized Control:~ Probability,
Intuition and the Dinosaur Risk~~~~~}



\author[1]{Arindam Basu}%
\affil[1]{University of Canterbury}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 10, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup








\sloppy


This paper~\cite{Basu} was a review of another paper on
randomised controlled trials. The author~

\par\null\par\null

\subsection*{Worksheet}\label{worksheet}

\emph{What is the main question the study attempts to answer?}

\emph{What is (are) the hypothesis(es)?}

\emph{What techniques/analyses do the researchers adopt to test their
hypothesis(es)?}

\emph{\emph{Why is this study relevant?}}

\emph{Write here any general comments you might have about the research
approach.}

\emph{Write here any specific comment you might have about experimental
approaches and methods used in the study.}

\emph{Write here any specific comment/note about figures in the paper
(this could be related to the way data are displayed and your ability to
understand the results just by looking at the figures).}

\emph{Write here any additional comment you might have (this includes
minor concerns such as typos and structure of the manuscript)}

\par\null

\subsection*{Overview and take-home
messages:}\label{overview-and-take-home-messages}

Write a short (1 paragraph) summary of what the main findings of the
research were and how this work has moved the field forward. This could
take the following structure:



\emph{``{[}First author{]} et al. have made significant advances in
{[}x, y and z{]} by showing that \ldots{} In addition, they have bridged
the gap in our knowledge about how {[}process i interacts with process
ii{]}. Although this work is of {[}significant{]} interest to the field,
there are some concerns that could be addressed in the next version.
These are outlined below.''}



\textbf{Positive feedback:}

\par\null

The authors have written in a simple language~



As the aim of the Preprint Journal Club is to support the authors by
providing constructive feedback, the reviewer(s) should also include
positive remarks to encourage future posting of preprints. Remember, the
authors are human too! To help guide you, here are a few questions you
might ask yourself after reading the preprint:



\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  \emph{What result did you find the most interesting and why?}
\item
  \emph{What did you learn from their research that really fascinated
  you?}
\item
  \emph{Did you think of any future exciting directions this research
  could take, or future experiments the researchers could try? Try to
  include experiments that are not critical to this particular preprint
  but the research area in general.}
\item
  \emph{Did you learn anythi}\textbf{}\emph{ng from this preprint that
  you would include in your future work? Examples could be a new
  technique, a new way of approaching an idea, a certain way of
  interpreting the type of data, a good way of summarising the results,
  the structure of the manuscript if it is clear and logical, etc.}
\item
  \emph{What ideas for further research are based on the preprint?
  {[}Note: this encourages preprint authors for their early sharing and
  promotes openness among reviewers as well.{]}}
\end{itemize}



Next are your concerns. Remember you are writing to another human being,
so be polite and realistic. Also, if you are unsure about something, be
honest and say you are unsure. This is a learning process, so don't feel
afraid to admit if you are not confident about your concerns, or part of
the work is out of your area of expertise.



\textbf{Major concerns:}

They have used a proprietary software to develop the tool and expect
that users will have access to iDevices. This may interfere or be
incomaptible with external validity of the research or the tool
application.~

Here the reviewer(s) should list 2-3 major concerns about the research
(if they exist). This may relate to:



\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  \emph{Does the title accurately reflect the results?}
\item
  \emph{Experimental design: were the techniques appropriate for the
  hypothesis? Were suitable controls included? Were new
  techniques/mutants/cell lines etc. sufficiently characterised to allow
  the study to be replicated? Were robust statistical methods used?}
\item
  \emph{Do the results support the authors' conclusions and, if not,
  what additional experiments would you suggest?}
\item
  \emph{Are there big flaws in the understanding of the current
  literature and interpretation of the literature that might undermine
  the interpretation of the current results?}
\end{itemize}



\textbf{Minor concerns:}



Here the reviewer(s) can mention 3-5 minor concerns that are not
critical to the understanding and conclusions of the research, but would
improve the overall flow or clarity of the manuscript. These concerns
might include the following questions:



\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  \emph{In general, was the manuscript easy to follow/did it have a
  logical flow? Were there a lot of typos that needed addressing?}
\item
  \emph{Does the abstract provide a concise summary of the hypotheses
  and main results?}
\item
  \emph{Were the methods sufficiently detailed to allow the experiments
  to be repeated?}
\item
  \emph{Were the figures clear and logically arranged? Were the figure
  legends sufficiently detailed to allow the figures to be understood
  without reading the main text?}
\item
  \emph{Are the figures representative of the data described in the
  results section?}
\item
  \emph{Did the authors make all their associated data openly available
  (e.g. sequencing data, coding)?}
\item
  \emph{Did the discussion address how their results move the field
  forwards?}
\item
  \emph{Were the citations thorough or were key references missing?}
\end{itemize}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\bibliography{bibliography/converted_to_latex.bib%
}

\end{document}

