• An overview of all these topics will be covered during the keynote lecture series. This should provide enough background to help you to choose one topic which particularly interests you. This is my topic:How might lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) species improve bone healing and implant integration into host tissue?

• You should critically review the current literature on your chosen subjects by selecting interesting and current predominantly RESEARCH papers

• use 0-2 REVIEW papers and 20-23 original RESEARCH papers – which should include those 4 RESEARCH papers that you will discuss in your oral presentation). The review papers should only be used for the brief Background/Introduction.

• Use “key words” in your literature searching to guide you to relevant papers (e.g. use PubMed Read and analyse these papers making sure you understand the rationale behind the work being described and the message being conveyed. You will probably read some papers that you decide not to use – be selective – be critical. Remember – recent reviews can re-enforce your understanding and can be a good starting point by giving you an idea of the state – of – art knowledge of a subject. Also, do not hesitate to use textbooks to read around a topic but note that the review must refer to RESEARCH papers (not Review). It is up to you to choose whatever slant you wish to put on your critique as long as it is relevant to the topic.

• Since it is a review of current knowledge make sure that 12 of your research papers are from the past 5 years (e.g. 2014-to date).

1. Your research review should follow a similar structure to articles in the Current Opinions series. Have a look at any papers in this series to get an idea of what is required. It can be downloaded through SCIENCE DIRECT but is also in the Library.
2. The whole Research Review should be 2500 words or less. The text can include diagrams and tables – figure and table legends are included in the word count. However, the reference list is NOT included in the word count.

1. Abstract
All reviews should be prefaced by an abstract of 120 words or less. The abstract is important: it should contain sufficient information for the reader to be able to appreciate the relevance of the full article when read alone. It should include background information and specific examples of recent advances, rather than promises that a particular subject ‘will be discussed’ – the scope of the review should instead appear at the end of the introduction. References should not be included. Abbreviations should be avoided as far as possible.
2. Introduction
The introduction should be accessible to a wide variety of scientists by avoiding the use of jargon and concepts not familiar to non-specialists. It should outline the time period covered and the scope of the review, including the importance of and rationale behind your article. The introduction should include only the 2 background references.
3. Main text of review
Divide your article into clearly defined sections. Each subsection is given a brief heading. Each heading should appear on its own separate line. Subsections should be used as much as possible when cross-referencing text: refer to the subsection by heading as opposed to simply ‘the text’.
Use concise, logical subheadings to provide clear links between the different sections and guide the reader through your review. Please write all abbreviations in full on first use, and use the abbreviation thereafter.
4. Conclusions
The conclusions section should summarise the topics discussed and describe future directions.
5. References
Please follow the UWE Harvard referencing style. Go to and select Referencing on the menu listed. Chose UWE Harvard (

1. Plagiarism is a serious offence carrying a heavy penalty. The essential element of plagiarism is putting forward the work of another as one’s own. All copied or closely paraphrased passages should be referenced. All figures and diagrams (whether slightly modified or not) must have their source quoted in the legend. All input from others must be acknowledged, including personal communications from lecturers and fellow students. It will help you to avoid omitting these acknowledgements if you are careful to write down lists of all the material consulted during preparation of a piece of work. Further, when you are taking notes from that material, it is best to indicate copied items in quotation marks, or with a symbol in the margin as you write. This will distinguish it from your own summaries of other information read at the same time. ( ;;
2. ‘SafeAssign is a electronic tool that compares your work with previously submitted papers and published works from several databases. Once your work is submitted in SafeAssign, a report will be generated that indicates the percentage of your work that matches existing sources. The SafeAssign report also shows the suspected source for each section of the paper that returns a match, allowing you to easily investigate whether the text was properly attributed.’ For further information go to the following sites: ttp://;;

3. The draft of your review can be uploaded to SafeAssign (you will find it on Blackboard under this module) if you wish to check for plagiarism.

4. The final version of your review that you will hand in for marking has to be uploaded to SafeAssign.

5. Thus, two SafeAssign pages will be visible on Blackboard, Draft SafeAssign where you can upload your draft and Final Safe Assign where you have to upload the final version of your work. Please note that you can only upload your work once on each Draft SafeAssign and Final SafeAssign. The Draft Safe Assign will only work until the end of week 45. The Final Sefe Assign will become active after the beginning of week 46 so that you don’t use the wrong versions for your draft.