In-text citations should be made using the author-date system, which means that you only need to indicate name of the author, followed by the year of publication. You will much less likely make rookie mistakes. Different journals specify different lengths for their abstracts. Are the numbering and lettering large enough to be readable when reduced? You will be glad you did when it comes time to put your observations into a complete analytical paper. The main purpose of this article is. You should include any possible implications of the author's ideas in the conclusion of your critique. No citation will be approved unless it adheres to this style.
It is viewed as having virtually no chance of ever reaching a publishable standard , at least for this journal. A critical essay does not mean being overly critical, it rather involves being able to challenge points of view and asking questions. Before embarking on your writing process, you could outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts in a more coherent way. Your paper should be double-spaced, using 1-inch margins and Times New Roman font in 12 point. Possible implications of the author's arguments. Across all the review rounds, reviewers should strive to distinguish between what is perceived as correctable versus uncorrectable problems and between major versus minor concerns. The article name comes next, followed by the title of the journal in italics , volume number in italics and issue number in parentheses.
The reviewer should avoid language that can be easily misconstrued or that appears condescending, including obscure or loaded vocabulary as well as humo ur, irony, and sarcasm. It is important to provide a recap of your main points throughout the article, but you also need to tell the reader what your critique means for the discipline at large. Evaluate the article's main theme, supporting arguments and implications for further research. Many students feel that, because they are new to a discipline, they do not have enough knowledge to make judgements of other people's work. Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the order they appeared in the paper, providing page and paragraph numbers for most. I want to give them honest feedback of the same type that I hope to receive when I submit a paper. I like to use two sittings, even when I am pretty sure of my conclusions.
Include the author's conclusions in this section. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations. This paragraph should be between 150 to 250 words. You are such an inspiration to me! Authors need to know what they have done well and not just what they have done poorly. There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more ground as well.
You need to give the reader an idea of whether the author of an article based it on facts and credible information. Writing your Critique Two possible approaches You have completed your analysis and evaluation of the journal article. This is not always easy, especially if I discover what I think is a serious flaw in the manuscript. Does it build on other knowledge from the field? The better the paper, the finer detail you should go to. It is generally inappropriate to raise them in later review rounds if they already existed in the first draft submitted. What was and was not known at the time? All citations must be formatted in the same style as the examples below.
I'm critiquing the work, not the authors. Establish the Significance of the Research Finally, it is important to establish whether the research has been successful — has it led to new questions being asked, new ways of using existing knowledge? In most cases, new uncorrectable problems or new major concerns raised in later reviews should only apply to changes in a paper that have emerged through the authors' revision work. Then, I divide the review in two sections with bullet points, first listing the most critical aspects that the authors must address to better demonstrate the quality and novelty of the paper and then more minor points such as misspelling and figure format. Readers get a strong view of the rest of the paper from the first couple of paragraphs. I was looking for this certain info for a very long time.
Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question? Most of the time is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes. Focus on the important points, claims, and information. I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable. Is the experimental design sound? The introduction to your journal article must create a good impression. Write the publication year in parentheses followed by a period. Note relevant facts and findings of the article.
An Article Review is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison. Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? Personally, I don't think this is worth doing. Briefly indicate your reasons for the decision in the letter to the editor. I usually read the article with a pen in hand so that I can write my thoughts in the margins as I read. Avoid writing in an overzealous or obnoxiously passionate tone, as doing so can be a turn-off to many readers.