Research-group meetings, presentations, journal clubs, online blogs and literature seminars — these are the usual ways for labs to keep abreast of the scientific literature. But they often lack in-depth contributions from many participants. Postdocs and students may view literature updates as a chore rather than as a stimulating intellectual exercise.

To ensure incisive and deliberative discussions among all participants, we have pursued a new approach — adopting debates as the format for literature updates during our weekly group meetings. These debates provide not only an opportunity to learn about the topical literature, but also a way for group members to develop vital soft skills, such as working as a team and presenting data.

Our research group, undergraduates included, is divided into three sub-groups: 'pro', 'con' and 'jury'. The members switch sub-groups each week. The jury chooses a research paper published as a communication in the most recent edition of Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS), a week before the group meeting. The pro group argues that the paper meets the publication criteria in terms of novelty, significance, broad interest and scholarly presentation. The con group argues otherwise. Both teams base their arguments on a critical analysis of the data provided in the paper and prior literature.

Each team has three minutes per speaker and three minutes for closing arguments. After closing arguments, the jury can ask questions related either to the arguments or to the paper. Each group has two minutes to answer the jury's question and to defend against the arguments made by the other group. Then jury members vote for a winner in a secret ballot. The principal investigator does not participate but offers post-debate comments on the validity of arguments made, essential points that should have been discussed and areas that need improvement.

Although each paper has already been published in JACS, the jury has historically shown no bias for the pro group. The debates have actually led us to dispute the conclusions of a few papers, including the accuracy of cartoons or figures in the papers. In a couple of cases, we contacted the principal authors to provide our post-debate viewpoints.

Through such debates, our group members have developed the ability to work as a team, dissect scientific arguments, listen to opposing viewpoints without prejudgements, overcome personal bias on a topic and provide a professional response based on the data. They have learned to engage in constructive criticism and adopt a healthy scepticism. These skills are valuable not only for their own research projects, but also in the development of students for their chosen careers.