Cool.
If anyone is interested in presenting a paper they should say so.
If anyone has comment on the format for discussion below please say so.
1. Please do not nominate papers you're not prepared to present.
2. Papers should be accessible to everybody by some easy means ie free access, available on erowid or maps bibliography or similar.
3. Presenting
A)Presenting will entail reading and trying to understand the paper, then writing a digest of it. Summarizing
i) Brief Background on the paper - why it's important
ii) Overall hypothesis, what they're trying to do
iii) Hypothesis for each experiment, brief comment on method employed, results (did they prove their hypothesis?), their discussion. Then your comments and criticism.
iv) Their overall conclusions
v) Any final comments or criticism you have on the paper.
Presenting should be as succinct as possible. I'd recommend covering i-iv in one post (succinct/brief, well formatted with bullet points etc) and a separate post with your comment and criticism.
B) Please note that the article or your interpretation of it may attract criticism and respond respectfully to this.
4. Responding
Further responses can then allow people to raise problems people they have understanding the material which we can then help each other to understand (this is one of the primary purposes of journal club). Also we can have further comment and criticism and of the paper or suggest alternative interpretations.
5. Timescale
I anticipate it taking a week to pick a paper, then allow a week to read it and presenter to prepare. Then discussion for two weeks (it can continue beyond that of course). I think one paper per month is a good rate.
Then we can call for fresh papers and allow renomination of previous ones that haven't been discussed.