# Journal Club: [paper title] – YYYY-MM-DD

> Structured paper discussion – claim, evidence, method, and whether
> you should change what you do because of it.

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Paper | [title] |
| Authors / venue | [authors, journal/conf, year] |
| Presenter | @name |
| DOI / link | [link] |
| Discussion date | YYYY-MM-DD |

## One-sentence claim

[The paper's central claim in your own words – if you can't, you
haven't read it closely enough.]

## Question & context

- Research question: [what they ask]
- Prior state: [what was known / assumed before]
- Why it matters: [who cares and why]

## Method

- Design: [RCT / cohort / simulation / qualitative]
- Data: [N, source, collection period]
- Analysis: [techniques used]

## Key results

| Finding | Evidence | Strength |
|---------|----------|----------|
| [result] | [figure/table] | Strong / Weak |

## Critique

- **Strengths**: [what makes the evidence credible]
- **Weaknesses**: [confounders, generalizability, method gaps]
- **Missing**: [what the paper doesn't answer]
- **Would it replicate?**: [yes/no + why]

## Discussion prompts

1. [question to argue about]
2. [question]

## Verdict

- Believe the claim: yes / partially / no
- Changes practice: [what we do differently, if anything]
- Follow-up: [papers to read, experiments to run]