The following questions should be answered: Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. Could I replicate the results using the information in the Methods and the description of the analysis? I also carefully look at the explanation of the results and whether the conclusions the authors draw are justified and connected with the broader argument made in the paper.
Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? The ecological generaliziability for the study is fairly high. Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies.
If there are things I struggle with, I will suggest that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more solid or broadly accessible.
To me, it is biased to reach a verdict on a paper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example. The nature of the sport could also be critical. When diving in deeper, first I try to assess whether all the important papers are cited in the references, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself.
The researchers mention that the scales were given in a variety of settings. When I recommend revisions, I try to give clear, detailed feedback Critiquing a scientific research paper guide the authors. Is the sample selection adequate? My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third person.
This often requires doing some background reading, sometimes including some of the cited literature, about the theory presented in the manuscript. Who conducted the research? I see it as a tit-for-tat duty: Evaluate the Text After you have read the article and answered the questions in the previous section, you should have a good understanding of the research undertaken.
One should review the paper justly and entirely on its merit, even if it comes from a competing research group. How are such data interpreted? I try to stick to the facts, so my writing tone tends toward neutral. A MANOVA was used to analyze the data for differences between male and female coaches with regard to leadership behaviors.
Are stylistic concerns, logic, clarity and economy of expression addressed? Are the methods robust and well controlled? Also, I take the point of view that if the author cannot convincingly explain her study and findings to an informed reader, then the paper has not met the burden for acceptance in the journal.
Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. So if you have not fully understood something in the paper, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. The sample was nonrandom, including coaches that were chosen on a volunteer basis.
An additional set of questions regarding the personal history of the coach in question could have helped reduce many of these threats. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry.
What are the social, political, technological, medical implications of this research? Review the results as presented in the text while referring to the data in the tables and diagrams.
If you make a practice of signing reviews, then over the years, many of your colleagues will have received reviews with your name on them.
I would really encourage other scientists to take up peer-review opportunities whenever possible.How to review a paper. and organizations around the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Science and a critique of. this!out.!In!other!words!this!sounds!greaton!paper!butitdoesn’ttranslate!as!easily!to!everyday!
Journal Article Critique Example Author: Political Science / Public. Whilst all these features are considered in this article, the focus is on presenting a systematic and comprehensive way of critiquing research papers.
The information provided should be of use to the many radiographers, associated health professionals and undergraduate and postgraduate students embarking on research projects.
Critiquing scientific papers You are asked to review and critique scientific papers in this course. If you have little experience in reading scientific papers, then you might follow guidelines list below, FAIRNESS and OBJECTIVITY If the research reported in this paper is flawed, criticize.
CRITIQUING RESEARCH ARTICLES. tudent. C. L. earning. S. entre. A critique is a systematic way of objectively reviewing a piece of research to highlight both its strengths and.
The ﬁrst part, "Researching the Critique," outlines the steps involved in selecting and evaluating a research article. The second part, "Writing your Critique," .Download