The leading indicators of bias include the ignoring of contrary evidence and misappropriating evidence, and are the biggest enemy to a writer that is learning how to critique a research article. Once you have this done and have asked a friendly colleague to look over it and give you feedback, you will be ready to submit the review to a good journal in your field. Aim to be concise but to back up everything you say with evidence. For example, in reporting a study of the effect of an experimental diet on the skeletal mass of the rat, consider first giving the data on skeletal mass for the rats fed the control diet and then give the data for the rats fed the experimental diet. In genetics studies include the strains or genetic stocks used. It is your way of making the whole process of creating an article critique simple and fun, following all the common rules and regulations. After I have finished reading the manuscript, I let it sink in for a day or so and then I try to decide which aspects really matter.
I then delve into the Methods and Results sections. If you find yourself repeating lots of information about the experimental design when describing the data collection procedure s , likely you can combine them and be more concise. How did I solve the problem? I've heard from some reviewers that they're more likely to accept an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad about rejecting invitations from more specialized journals. A word's definition can completely change the meaning of a sentence, especially if a particular word has several definitions. Evaluate each section of the article — Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion — highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each section. In the mouse behavior paper, for example, you would begin the Introduction at the level of mating behavior in general, then quickly focus to mouse mating behaviors and then hormonal regulation of behavior. Create a unique symbol to differentiate between parts of the text that might be confusing, important, or inconsistent.
Be sure you understand exactly what you are being asked to do. Very few spelling or grammatical errors. I always ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. For tips on how to take notes on the piece your critiquing, read on! The content of the paper is right on track. Again, make note of any questions you have or any information that does not seem to make sense. It is true that if the author twists the data to fit their agenda, the article may be biased.
It is not unreasonable to suppose that coaches of female athletes, particularly at the junior high and high school levels, will demonstrate more social support than those of male athletes. Most of the time is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes. I try hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks. Describe how the data were summarized and analyzed. Do not be confused by the term critique: it does not mean that you only look at the negative aspects of what the researcher has done.
I used to sign most of my reviews, but I don't do that anymore. Summary is complete, but lacks clarity. What kind of information is produced by using the technique? I will turn down requests if the paper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review. I also try to cite a specific factual reason or some evidence for any major criticisms or suggestions that I make. In my experience, they are unlikely to write a poor quality review; they might be more likely to accept the invitation, as senior scientists are typically overwhelmed with review requests; and the opportunity to review a manuscript can help support their professional development. In this Article: A critique of an article is the objective analysis of a literary or scientific piece, with emphasis on whether or not the author supported the main points with reasonable and applicable arguments based on facts. It's easy to get caught up in simply summarizing the points of an article without truly analyzing and challenging it.
Describe any problems you had with the authors premise, methods, or conclusions. These steps are based on a detailed description of how to analyse and evaluate a research article provided by Wood 2003 in her lab guide. Are there discrepancies between the results in the text and those in the tables? The introduction should briefly summarize your critique while providing any necessary information for the reader to understand it, including information about the article itself. A larger sample with regard to all categories would have aided in the data analysis, particularly when looking for possible interactions between gender and coaching level. Evaluation can take the form of a written submission of the critique of the article by each individual in the group, ensuring accountability. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry.
But I only mention flaws if they matter, and I will make sure the review is constructive. Those observations are then analyzed to yield an answer to the question. It should certainly have a Conclusions section: what should change as a result of what you have found and discussed in your review? I try to write my reviews in a tone and form that I could put my name to, even though reviews in my field are usually double-blind and not signed. This is not always easy, especially if I discover what I think is a serious flaw in the manuscript. It is sometimes helpful to use a red pen to make your markings stand out. Thus, students are provided with an exemplar of what a scientific critique looks like. Often, good review papers will include figures that combine results from the literature that you have searched through to tell readers something new, either through new, collated representations of data that show new, emergent relationships, or through new conceptual models that will help others to think about the topic in a new way and structure future research.
I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process. Rather, try to identify the various strengths and weaknesses in the piece under review. This guide is not meant to be a straight-jacket, but rather something to turn to when you don't know how to start writing your review, or to check when you're not sure whether you've finished it. The sample was nonrandom, including 162 coaches that were chosen on a volunteer basis. With additional information, the researchers may have been able to use a modified matching system when analyzing the results. The sections appear in a journal style paper in the following prescribed order: Experimental process Section of Paper What did I do in a nutshell? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Although you might occasionally include in this section tables and figures which help explain something you are discussing, they must not contain new data from your study that should have been presented earlier. Sometimes, this may be clearly stated, such as in a research article.
In general, provide enough how much, how long, when, etc. Criticism There is a clear understanding of the authors' interpretation, of the implications of the results for the hypothesis. Avoid writing in an overzealous or obnoxiously passionate tone, as doing so can be a turn-off to many readers. For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Don't feel like you have to condense the entire paragraph into the topic sentence, however. Seeds exposed to the 2-day treatment had the highest cumulative germination 84% , 1. Modeling the process of deconstructing a journal for students is key to ensuring they will experience success with this task.
The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper Why a Scientific Format? All these things are done by authors in a bid to make their conclusions to come off different from the way they are, while also imparting their own foundation-less opinions in the article. Research Critique 1 Jamber, E. Does the title or legend accurately describe the content? Although you may read some general background references encyclopedias, textbooks, lab manuals, style manuals, etc. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 313-322. How to Review a Scientific Paper How to Review a Scientific Paper by Purpose of this document This document is intentionally brief. I like to use two sittings, even when I am pretty sure of my conclusions.