General preparation information, not official recruitment criteria. Confirm arrangements with the recruiting organisation and review professional reasoning with an experienced colleague. Practice scores do not predict recruitment outcomes.
Appraise a paper without overstating it
Begin with the research question and study design, then explain the population, outcome measures, findings and limitations. Distinguish association from causation and a statistically significant result from a clinically meaningful one.
Check denominators, uncertainty and possible bias before summarising. If a method is unfamiliar, say what you understand and what you would need to clarify. Do not invent an interpretation to maintain a polished answer.
- What question does the study address?
- What does the design allow the researchers to claim?
- What uncertainty affects the interpretation?
Explain the same research for a different audience
A plain-English summary should explain the problem, what the researchers did and what the result may mean, without unexplained jargon. Keep limitations rather than removing them to make the finding sound decisive.
Ask someone outside the specialty to describe what they understood. Check whether your explanation implies a treatment benefit or a general population effect that the study did not show. This is an academic communication task, not patient-specific information.
- Explain terms rather than listing abbreviations.
- Keep the main limitation in the summary.
- Avoid unsupported claims about benefit.
Connect your record to the actual post
For each output, describe your question, contribution, methods, result and learning. Be accurate about authorship, publication status and the difference between a proposed project and completed work.
Read the advertised research theme and local team information. Outline interests as exploratory questions rather than promising a ready-made project. Discuss how you would seek supervision, involve patients or the public where appropriate and balance development needs.
- Match interests to the advertised theme.
- Name the skills you bring and those you need to learn.
- Explain your own contribution without inflating it.
Build a practice-and-review routine
Confirm the current interview arrangements in your invitation and official applicant information. The themes in this guide are preparation topics, not a forecast of the questions or an official marking scheme. Avoid relying on an old document for eligibility, evidence requirements or timings.
Answer one rehearsal question aloud, then review whether you answered the question, explained your own role and acknowledged uncertainty. Ask a supervisor or experienced colleague to check professional reasoning. Remove identifying patient and colleague details; never upload clinical records. Practice scores describe rehearsal only and do not predict recruitment outcomes.
- Read the current person specification and applicant guidance.
- Choose real examples and record the limits of the evidence.
- Practise a follow-up, not just the opening answer.
- Review with an experienced colleague before relying on the material.
Your next practice task
Choose an accessible paper. Give a scientific summary and a plain-English summary, each including a limitation. Ask a colleague to challenge your interpretation and attribution of your own research.
Questions to rehearse
- What does this study support, and what does it not show?
- What was your personal contribution to an academic output?
- How does your research interest connect to this advertised fellowship?
Original free rehearsal prompts, not official or recalled interview questions.
Sources and further reading
These sources support the broader preparation and professional context, not a universal scoring scheme. Check the latest official guidance for your own round and post; dated documents may have been superseded.