critique of a research article example

Article Critique

Ai generator.

In the realm of academia and intellectual discourse, the art of critiquing articles holds significant importance. It not only refines one’s skills but also contributes to the growth of knowledge. A well-executed article critique showcases your ability to analyze, evaluate, and engage with scholarly work. This article delves into the concept of article critiques, offering insights into their purpose and benefits, along with a step-by-step guide on how to craft one effectively.

What is an Article Critique?

An article critique is a detailed evaluation and analysis of a scholarly article or research paper . It involves an objective assessment of the author’s arguments, evidence, methodology, and conclusions. An effective critique goes beyond summarizing the content; it delves into the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of the article. Developing this skill allows you to identify the characteristics that contribute to a compelling scholarly work, while also honing your ability to engage critically with academic literature.

Article Critique Format

1. introduction.

Article Information : Mention the title of the article, the author’s name, the source ( journal , magazine , etc.), and the publication date.
Thesis Statement : Summarize the main argument or purpose of the article.
Scope of the Critique : Briefly outline the main points you will discuss in your critique.

2. Summary of the Article

Main Points : Summarize the key points and arguments presented by the author.
Purpose and Scope : Explain the purpose of the article and the main topics covered.
Findings and Conclusions : Highlight the primary findings and conclusions drawn by the author.

3. Critical Analysis

A. structure and organization.

Introduction : Evaluate the effectiveness of the introduction. Does it set the stage for the article?
Body : Assess the organization of the main sections. Are the arguments and evidence presented logically?
Conclusion : Examine the conclusion. Does it effectively summarize the article and provide closure?

b. Content and Arguments

Clarity : Determine if the article is clear and easy to understand.
Evidence : Analyze the evidence used to support the arguments. Is it relevant and convincing?
Consistency : Check for logical consistency in the arguments.

c. Research Methodology

Approach : Evaluate the research methods used in the article. Are they appropriate for the research question ?
Data Collection : Assess the reliability and validity of the data collection methods.
Analysis : Examine the thoroughness and accuracy of the data analysis .

d. Writing Style

Tone : Assess the appropriateness of the tone for the target audience.
Language : Evaluate the use of language. Is it precise and concise?
Grammar and Syntax : Check for grammatical correctness and syntactical clarity.

e. Contribution to the Field

Originality : Determine the originality of the article. Does it offer new insights?
Impact : Assess the potential impact of the article on the field. Does it advance knowledge or understanding?

4. Personal Response

Strengths : Identify the strengths of the article. What did the author do well?
Weaknesses : Point out the weaknesses or areas for improvement.
Overall Impression : Provide your overall impression of the article.

5. Conclusion

Summary : Summarize your main points of critique.
Recommendation : Offer any recommendations for future research or improvements to the article.

6. References

Citation : Provide a full citation of the article in the appropriate format (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).
Additional Sources : Include citations for any additional sources referenced in your critique.

Examples of Article Critique For Students

Psychology article critique.

Reference: Smith, J. A., & Brown, R. L. (2022). The impact of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance. Journal of Psychological Research , 34(2), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1001/jpsychres.2022.01.001 Introduction In their article “The Impact of Sleep Deprivation on Cognitive Performance,” Smith and Brown (2022) examine the effects of sleep deprivation on various cognitive functions. The authors aim to highlight the importance of adequate sleep for maintaining cognitive health and performance. Summary Smith and Brown (2022) conducted a series of cognitive tests on participants who were sleep-deprived for 24 hours. The results indicated significant declines in memory retention, attention span, and problem-solving skills among the sleep-deprived group. The article also discusses potential long-term consequences of chronic sleep deprivation on brain health. Critique Smith and Brown (2022) provide compelling evidence linking sleep deprivation to cognitive decline. Their methodology is robust, featuring a well-defined participant group and controlled variables. However, the study’s sample size is relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the article does not sufficiently explore potential confounding factors, such as stress and caffeine intake, which could influence cognitive performance. Conclusion Overall, Smith and Brown (2022) effectively underscore the critical role of sleep in cognitive health. Despite some methodological limitations, their findings contribute valuable insights to the field of sleep research. Future studies should aim to address the identified limitations to strengthen the generalizability and applicability of the results.

Education Article Critique

Reference: Johnson, L. M., & White, P. D. (2023). The impact of technology integration on student learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology , 29(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeduc.2023.01.002 Introduction In the article “The Impact of Technology Integration on Student Learning Outcomes,” Johnson and White (2023) explore how incorporating digital tools and resources in the classroom affects students’ academic performance. The authors aim to identify both the benefits and challenges of technology integration in education. Summary Johnson and White (2023) evaluate various forms of technology integration, including interactive whiteboards, educational software, and online resources. They analyze the effects of these tools on student engagement, motivation, and achievement across different subjects and grade levels. The study presents data from several schools that have implemented these technologies, showing improvements in test scores and classroom participation. Critique The article by Johnson and White (2023) provides a comprehensive analysis of the positive impacts of technology on student learning. The use of multiple case studies strengthens the validity of their conclusions. However, the study’s focus on urban schools may not reflect the experiences of students in rural or underfunded schools, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the reliance on short-term data does not capture the long-term effects of technology integration on student learning. Conclusion Johnson and White (2023) make a compelling case for the positive impact of technology on student learning outcomes. While the article effectively demonstrates the benefits of digital tools, addressing the identified limitations would provide a more comprehensive understanding of technology integration in education. Future research should focus on long-term effects, diverse educational settings, and the challenges of teacher training and equitable access to technology.

Business Article Critique

Reference: Davis, K. L., & Roberts, J. H. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and business success: A review of recent research. Journal of Business Ethics , 38(4), 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbuseth.2021.02.003 Introduction In their article “Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Success: A Review of Recent Research,” Davis and Roberts (2021) explore how corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives impact business performance. The authors aim to demonstrate the benefits of CSR in enhancing corporate reputation and customer loyalty. Summary Davis and Roberts (2021) review several studies that analyze the outcomes of CSR initiatives across different industries. The article highlights positive correlations between CSR activities and financial performance, as well as improvements in brand reputation and customer satisfaction. The authors also discuss the potential challenges businesses face when implementing CSR programs. Critique Davis and Roberts (2021) provide a thorough review of the literature on CSR and its impact on business success. The article effectively synthesizes findings from various studies, supporting their argument that CSR can be beneficial for companies. However, the article could be improved by including more critical perspectives on CSR, such as potential drawbacks or instances where CSR initiatives have failed. Additionally, the authors do not provide detailed guidelines on how companies can measure the effectiveness of their CSR efforts. Conclusion Overall, Davis and Roberts (2021) make a strong case for the positive impact of CSR on business success. Their review underscores the importance of socially responsible practices in building a positive corporate image and achieving long-term profitability. Future research should address the limitations noted, particularly by exploring the challenges and failures of CSR initiatives and providing actionable metrics for evaluating their success.

Health Sciences Article Critique

Reference: Nguyen, M. T., & Kim, H. S. (2020). The effects of a plant-based diet on cardiovascular health: A systematic review. Journal of Nutritional Science , 17(3), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutrsci.2020.03.005 Introduction In the article “The Effects of a Plant-Based Diet on Cardiovascular Health: A Systematic Review,” Nguyen and Kim (2020) investigate the impact of plant-based diets on heart disease prevention and management. The authors aim to provide evidence supporting dietary recommendations for cardiovascular health. Summary Nguyen and Kim (2020) review multiple studies comparing the cardiovascular outcomes of individuals on plant-based diets versus those on omnivorous diets. Their findings suggest that plant-based diets are associated with lower cholesterol levels, reduced blood pressure, and decreased incidence of heart disease. The authors discuss potential mechanisms, such as reduced intake of saturated fats and increased consumption of fiber and antioxidants. Critique Nguyen and Kim (2020) present a comprehensive review of the cardiovascular benefits of plant-based diets. The inclusion of various studies strengthens the validity of their conclusions. However, the review would benefit from a more balanced discussion of potential challenges, such as the risk of nutrient deficiencies and the social and cultural barriers to adopting a plant-based diet. Additionally, the article focuses primarily on short-term studies, and more research on the long-term sustainability of these diets is needed. Conclusion Overall, Nguyen and Kim (2020) provide strong evidence supporting the cardiovascular benefits of plant-based diets. Their systematic review contributes valuable insights to the field of nutritional science. Future research should address the limitations identified, particularly regarding long-term sustainability and potential challenges in adhering to plant-based diets.

Social Sciences Article Critique

Reference: Lopez, G. R., & Thompson, S. L. (2021). Urban poverty and social policy: Examining the effectiveness of welfare programs. Journal of Social Policy , 43(2), 180-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.04.007 Introduction In the article “Urban Poverty and Social Policy: Examining the Effectiveness of Welfare Programs,” Lopez and Thompson (2021) analyze the impact of various welfare programs on reducing urban poverty. The authors aim to assess the effectiveness of these programs in improving the socioeconomic conditions of urban populations. Summary Lopez and Thompson (2021) evaluate several welfare programs, including food assistance, housing subsidies, and employment training initiatives. Their analysis reveals mixed outcomes, with some programs showing significant positive effects on poverty reduction, while others have minimal impact. The authors discuss factors contributing to these varied results, such as program design, implementation quality, and participant engagement. Critique Lopez and Thompson (2021) provide a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of welfare programs in addressing urban poverty. The article’s strength lies in its comprehensive evaluation of multiple programs and consideration of various influencing factors. However, the study relies on data from a limited number of cities, which may not be representative of broader urban contexts. Additionally, the authors could have included more qualitative data to provide deeper insights into the lived experiences of program participants. Conclusion Overall, Lopez and Thompson (2021) offer valuable insights into the effectiveness of welfare programs in reducing urban poverty. Their findings highlight the need for well-designed and effectively implemented programs to achieve meaningful poverty reduction. Future research should aim to include a more diverse range of urban settings and incorporate qualitative data to enrich the understanding of program impacts.

Examples of Thesis Statements for Article Critiques

Psychology article critique thesis statements.

“The article successfully links mindfulness practices to reduced anxiety levels, yet it overlooks the potential variability in individual responses, which could affect the generalizability of the results.”
“While the study provides significant insights into the effects of social media on adolescent self-esteem, its cross-sectional design limits the ability to infer causality.”

Literature Article Critique Thesis Statements

“The article provides a nuanced analysis of the themes of isolation in ‘Frankenstein,’ but its limited engagement with contemporary critical perspectives reduces its impact.”
“Although the article offers a compelling interpretation of symbolism in ‘Moby Dick,’ its narrow focus on literary devices neglects the broader socio-political context of the novel.”

Business Article Critique Thesis Statements

“The article effectively highlights the benefits of agile project management in tech startups, but it fails to consider the potential downsides, such as the risk of scope creep and resource strain.”
“Despite presenting a well-researched argument for the advantages of remote work, the article’s lack of empirical data on long-term productivity effects weakens its conclusions.”

Health Sciences Article Critique Thesis Statements

“The article convincingly argues for the role of gut microbiota in mental health, though it would benefit from a more thorough exploration of the mechanisms underlying this relationship.”
“While the study provides strong evidence for the benefits of intermittent fasting on metabolic health, its reliance on short-term studies limits the understanding of long-term effects.”

Education Article Critique Thesis Statements

“The article makes a strong case for the use of gamification in education to enhance student motivation, yet it neglects to address potential challenges related to accessibility and equity.”
“Despite effectively demonstrating the positive impacts of project-based learning on student engagement, the article lacks consideration of the additional resources and training required for successful implementation.”

Environmental Science Article Critique Thesis Statements

“The article offers a comprehensive review of the impacts of deforestation on climate change, but it would be strengthened by incorporating more case studies from diverse geographic regions.”
“While the article effectively discusses the potential of urban green spaces to mitigate air pollution, it underestimates the complexities of urban planning and maintenance costs.”

Social Sciences Article Critique Thesis Statements

“The article provides valuable insights into the influence of cultural norms on gender roles, but its limited geographic focus restricts the applicability of its findings to a global context.”
“Although the study sheds light on the relationship between economic inequality and crime rates, its reliance on correlational data makes it difficult to draw definitive causal conclusions.”

Example of Article Critique About Education

Article Title : The Impact of Technology Integration on Student Learning Outcomes Introduction The article “The Impact of Technology Integration on Student Learning Outcomes” investigates how the use of digital tools and resources in the classroom influences students’ academic performance. The research aims to identify the benefits and potential drawbacks of incorporating technology into educational settings. Summary The study evaluates various forms of technology integration, including interactive whiteboards, educational software, and online resources. It examines their effects on student engagement, motivation, and achievement across different subjects and grade levels. The article presents data from several schools that have implemented these technologies, showcasing improvements in test scores and classroom participation. Critique The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the positive impacts of technology on student learning. The use of multiple case studies strengthens the validity of its conclusions. However, the article could improve by addressing some critical aspects: Sample Size and Diversity : The study primarily focuses on schools in urban areas, which may not reflect the experiences of students in rural or underfunded schools. Expanding the sample size to include a more diverse range of schools would enhance the generalizability of the findings. Longitudinal Data : The research relies heavily on short-term data, which may not capture the long-term effects of technology integration on student learning. Longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the sustained impact of these tools. Teacher Training and Support : While the article highlights the benefits of technology, it overlooks the challenges teachers face in integrating these tools effectively. Providing adequate training and ongoing support is crucial for the successful implementation of technology in the classroom. Equity and Access : The article briefly mentions the digital divide but does not delve into how disparities in access to technology can affect educational outcomes. A more thorough examination of equity issues would provide a balanced perspective on the advantages and limitations of technology integration. Conclusion Overall, the article makes a compelling case for the positive impact of technology on student learning outcomes. It effectively demonstrates how digital tools can enhance engagement and academic performance. However, to provide a more comprehensive understanding, future research should address the limitations identified, particularly regarding sample diversity, long-term effects, teacher support, and equity issues. By doing so, the research could offer more actionable insights for policymakers and educators striving to harness the full potential of technology in education.

More Examples & Samples Article Critique in PDF

1. quantitative article critique.

2. Article Critique Guidelines

4. Critiquing Research Articles

4. Article Review & Critiques

5. Instructions for Article Critiques

6. Critique of an Academic Article

7. Critique and Review of Research Articles

8. Article Critique Assignment

9. Book Review or Article Critique

10. Press Article Critique

Purpose of Article Critique

An article critique serves multiple essential purposes in both academic and professional contexts. Below, we delve into the primary objectives of conducting an article critique, which are vital for developing critical thinking, analytical skills, and subject-specific knowledge.

1. Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Critical Evaluation:

Encourages students and professionals to go beyond surface-level reading.
Promotes a deeper understanding of the material by questioning the validity and reliability of the arguments presented.

Analytical Reasoning:

Helps in identifying logical fallacies, biases, and unsupported claims.
Facilitates the assessment of evidence and methodologies used in the article.

2. Enhancing Understanding of Subject Matter

In-Depth Analysis:

Requires a thorough examination of the article’s content, including the main arguments, evidence, and conclusions.
Enhances comprehension of complex concepts and theories within a specific field.

Contextual Awareness:

Places the article within the broader context of existing literature.
Identifies gaps in the research and suggests areas for further investigation.

3. Improving Academic Writing Skills

Structured Writing:

Teaches students how to organize their thoughts coherently.
Develops skills in writing clear, concise, and structured critiques.

Evidence-Based Arguments:

Encourages the use of evidence to support evaluations and opinions.
Helps in the practice of citing sources correctly and ethically.

4. Facilitating Peer Review and Feedback

Constructive Criticism:

Provides a framework for giving and receiving constructive feedback.
Enhances collaborative learning by engaging in discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of an article.

Quality Assurance:

Plays a crucial role in academic publishing and professional fields by ensuring the quality and credibility of published work.
Helps maintain high standards in research and scholarship.

5. Encouraging Lifelong Learning

Continual Improvement:

Fosters a habit of continuous learning and improvement.
Keeps individuals updated with the latest research, trends, and advancements in their field.

Adaptability:

Prepares students and professionals to adapt to new information and changing paradigms.
Cultivates a mindset that is open to questioning and re-evaluating established knowledge.

Components of an Article Critique

An effective article critique includes several key components to ensure a thorough evaluation and analysis. Below are the main components:

Provide an overview of the article.
Introduce the main thesis and key points.

Components:

Title and Author: State the article’s title and author.
Publication Details: Include publication name, date, etc.
Thesis Statement: Summarize the article’s main argument.
Purpose of the Critique: Explain your objective.
Summarize the article’s content.
Main Points: Highlight key arguments.
Methodology: Describe research methods briefly.
Findings and Conclusions: Outline main findings and conclusions.

3. Analysis

Critically examine the article’s structure, content, and logic.
Structure and Organization: Evaluate clarity and coherence.
Content Evaluation: Assess relevance and depth.
Argumentation: Analyze logical flow and evidence strength.
Methodology: Critique research methods and identify biases.
Sources and References: Evaluate quality and relevance of cited sources.

4. Evaluation

Assess the article’s overall contribution.
Strengths: Highlight strengths such as originality and depth.
Weaknesses: Identify weaknesses like gaps and biases.
Contribution to the Field: Discuss the article’s impact.
Summarize the critique and provide final thoughts.
Summary of Evaluation: Recap key points.
Overall Assessment: Provide a final judgment.
Recommendations: Suggest future research or improvements.
List sources cited in your critique.
Citations: Format according to the appropriate style (e.g., APA, MLA).

How to Write an Article Critique

Mastering the art of crafting an effective article critique requires a systematic approach. Here is a step-by-step guide to help you navigate this process with finesse.

Step 1: Reading and Observation

Before diving into the critique, thoroughly read the article. Take notes on the main points, observation , objectives , and tone of the article. Identify the author’s goals and the case study , if applicable. This step is crucial for grasping the nuances of the work.

Step 2: Analyzing Structure and Content

Evaluate the structure of the article. Identify the introduction, main arguments, supporting evidence, and conclusion. Examine the use of verbs and analogies , as well as the cause-and-effect relationships presented. Analyze how effectively the author communicates their ideas.

Step 3: Assessing Methodology and Evidence

Scrutinize the methodology used by the author. Is it appropriate for the objectives of the article? Evaluate the quality and relevance of the evidence presented. Consider whether the evidence supports the author’s claims adequately.

Step 4: Critical Evaluation

Engage in a critical evaluation of the article. Identify its strengths and weaknesses. Does the author effectively address counterarguments? Are there any gaps in the logic? Assess the overall coherence and effectiveness of the article’s presentation.

Why is article critique important?

It develops critical thinking, enhances understanding of the subject, improves academic writing skills, and provides constructive feedback.

What are the main components of an article critique?

Introduction, Summary, Analysis, Evaluation, Conclusion, and References.

How do I start an article critique?

Begin with an introduction that provides the article’s title, author, publication details, and a brief summary of its thesis and purpose.

What should be included in the summary?

Key points, research methods, findings, and conclusions of the article.

How do I analyze an article?

Examine the structure, content, logic, argumentation, methodology, and sources for clarity, relevance, and evidence strength.

What makes a good evaluation?

Balanced assessment of the article’s strengths and weaknesses, and its contribution to the field.

How should I conclude an article critique?

Summarize your findings, provide an overall assessment, and offer suggestions for improvement or future research.

How do I cite sources in an article critique?

Follow the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA) and ensure all references are correctly formatted.

What are common pitfalls to avoid in an article critique?

Avoid biased or overly negative reviews, lack of evidence for claims, and failure to provide a balanced perspective.

How can I ensure my critique is objective?

Use evidence to support your points, acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses, and avoid personal biases.

Text prompt

Instructive
Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Cite sources with ease

How to Critique an Article Right and Easy

Updated 03 Sep 2024

When an average person thinks about how to critique an article, they usually believe that the purpose is to find all the wrong points and be as critical as possible. Our guide helps to demystify the majority of questions related to the article critique. These basic rules, explanations, and an example can help you learn along. Even if you receive cryptic instructions from your college professor, our article critique guide will make things clearer as you continue!

What is an Article Critique?

In simple terms, an article critique is a type of essay writing where an author should provide sufficient, unbiased, critical evaluation of the article in question. Of course, it will involve at least a brief summary of the contents and information about the author's background (if it is necessary). Yet, it does not have to turn into a listing of the contents! Knowing how to summarize and critique an article means helping your audience see all the key points of the article along with the author's ideas, objectives, or major intentions. The main purpose of every article critique is to reveal the strengths and the weaknesses of the article by keeping the tone neutral in terms of personal considerations. Since it has to be written in formal language with a precise structure, one should follow the general academic pattern where analysis has the beginning or introduction, the body parts, and a strong conclusion that sums things up.

The trick is to read it more than once and describe how it makes you feel through the lens of academic objectives and the general academic value. Speaking of the purpose, composing an article critique, you have to describe the main ideas of the author. Provide a brief description of why it is important in your specific context. Next, remember to mention all the interesting aspects that help to reveal the value of the article. Finally, talk about the author's intention and vision regarding the subject. The final part of the article critique must offer a summary of the main purpose. Learning how to write a critique of an article, remember that your conclusion is the important part where you can let the audience know whether you agree or disagree with the author. It is the place to provide supporting thoughts and references either from the article or another academic source. Need a dissertation service? Try us.

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step?

The writing process of the article critique is simpler than it seems. It is only necessary to know where to start and how to align your critique when you are dealing with complex academic writing. Therefore, follow these simple four steps as you learn how to do an article critique:

Take Enough Time to Read The Article. Such an approach is necessary to understand every idea described in your reading material. It may be challenging at times to understand it. Check it again or read it aloud to see if it makes more sense. When in doubt, you can consult similar sources or articles that further explain the subject. Consider the readability and clarity of the article as you criticize it.
Take Notes. When the article feels clear to you and you understand (more or less!) what it is about, it is high time to read it again in a bit different way and take notes to help yourself move along. For example, if you encounter something interesting or an argument that moves you, you should consider it as something that is worth being discussed. You can either quote the part or use it as argumentation to prove your point.
Turn Your Notes Into Outline. Your notes are there for a reason. You can implement them into your structure and use your points as the topic sentences as you discuss the important parts. As you let your article critique evolve, provide opinions or leave comments to help your audience understand things clearer.
Your Opinion Comes Here. This is where you should summarize your thoughts and explain whether you like the article or if it has too many weak and unclear parts. Of course, your ideas should be supported with a piece of clear evidence.

Remember that if you have used any other reference or consulted external information beyond the article in question, always mention it on your Bibliography / References page. Every part of your article critique should be written in a proper way and sometimes qualified dissertation help online is just what you need to keep all your worries aside.

Save your time! We can take care of your essay

Proper editing and formatting
Free revision, title page, and bibliography
Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Learn About Article Critique Format & Structure

Unless it is specified otherwise, your article critique should follow this template:

Outline. This is what your introduction should look like since you have to provide background information about the article and explain the author's main points without turning it into a summary. Approach things from the critical point of view.
Thesis Statement. Your thesis statement should explain the value of the article or methodology if you are dealing with a research article critique.
Article's Purpose. This part is your body paragraphs part where you have to brainstorm the author's ideas and crash-test them against the common knowledge. See what is good, what is insufficient, and what parts are the most important for achieving a certain purpose set by the author.
Additional References. If you are dealing with a research article, it may be necessary to consult relevant external research papers to prove the importance and methodology of the article before you explain your opinion.
Conclusion/Summary With Your Opinion. The conclusion part of the article critique is usually the most challenging. It is where you have to explain your opinion. The trick is just saying how the article has made you feel, how it has helped you, or what flaws you have found, always providing relevant evidence.

Without a doubt, you may have to provide a different structure, yet following the structure above is the perfect balance where you express both your findings, opinion, and the general variables. Remember that your article critique must cover not only the negative points that you encounter but the positive discoveries as well.

How to Write an Article Critique: Journal vs Research Article

The major difference between writing a research article critique and dealing with the general journal article is the approach that you have to take. As a rule, research articles represent empirical or primary sources. It means your critique style must consider the introduction provided by the author, the methods that have been used, the samples and surveys, the results of the certain research, and the discussion of the outcomes that have been achieved.

Now dealing with the general review articles that mostly represent secondary sources with an already included synthesis of certain information, you should work with the topic and its importance for the general audience. In other words, the purpose is always different. You should provide more of a summary than the analytical research work. Coming back to the research article critique,try to study the problem and see if the author makes some statement. Then, focus on review of the relevant literature, and hypothesis or research questions set by the author.

Remember to review the Bibliographical information if it is provided and explain whether it poses importance for the review and if all the information mentioned in the article has been properly referenced. Remember you should also provide references for your quotes and references in your article critique in relevant writing style (APA, MLA, or Chicago) to avoid possible plagiarism issues.

The Article Critique Example

As an example of the article, let us take " Contribution of Psychoacoustics and Neuroaudiology in Revealing Correlation of Mental Disorders With Central Auditory Processing Disorders " that has been presented in 2003 by V. Iliadou and S. Lakovides. Below is the short passage, an article critique sample that will help you get an idea of how it’s done:

The article represents interesting and innovative research in the field of Psychoacoustics by focusing not only on the aspects of Neuroaudiology but also dealing with the electrical activity of the auditory pathways. The authors have dealt with the challenges of Central Auditory Processing Disorders, meaning that the article relates to the field of Psychiatry. This particular MEDLINE research has been conducted by turning to over 564 papers to establish the methodology and sufficient samples to maintain the importance of psychoacoustic elements through the lens of neurological or mental disorders. What makes this research special is the use of various tests and experiments that have been done with the help of auditory simulation methods. All the sources provided are properly referenced and offer sufficient background regarding the reasons why particular scientific aspects have been highlighted. The authors provide a unique balance between psychoacoustic and electrophysiologic tests based on the type of lesion chosen. It must be noted that the various types of mental disorders have been taken into consideration to provide well-weighted research. The article meets its purpose of providing varied research based on the works of skilled experts in Psychiatry, Neurology, Neuropsychology, and Pediatric Psychology among other sciences. The value of the article also lies in the importance of addressing numerous learning challenges like dyslexia, ADHD, and autism differently because the auditory aspect is explored at greater depth. Although the educational factor is mentioned briefly as the article is more evidence-based, it leaves enough space for relevant scientific research.

As you can see, the purpose is to explain and show why the article is important and what exactly makes it special. Try offering related evidence from the critique article either with the quotes or by paraphrasing.

Affordable & Reliable Writing an Article Critique Help

If the concept of article critique still seems too confusing to you or you would like to get your critique assignment checked in terms of clarity, style, or plagiarism, the help is out there. Regardless if you need to learn how to write an article review or struggle with critique writing, we know how to make things easier. Turn to our writers who are ready to help you 24/7. Keep your challenges resolved, meet the deadlines and avoid plagiarism. Just place your order with EduBirdie and let our professionals deal with even the most complex article critique or any other college task.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback, related blog posts, how to write a movie review: tips for aspiring critics.

If you wish to know how to write a movie review, then you are on the right page. A movie review forms part of essays college students writes. While...

How to write a report: essential steps and formatting requirements

Completing a report paper is an essential skill students often need throughout their academic journey. Creating a clear and well-organized document...

Best Capstone Project Ideas for Students across subjects

The most challenging aspect of crafting a top-tier capstone project is often getting started. The initial hurdle involves selecting a strong, impac...

Join our 150K of happy users

Get original papers written according to your instructions
Save time for what matters most

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
3 Article Critique Outline
4 Article Critique Formatting
5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

A brief summary of the article .
A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
The purpose of the study
The research question or questions
The methods used
The outcomes
The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
Free unlimited checks
All common file formats
Accurate results
Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
Use evidence from to support your points.
Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally, not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
Hypothesis or aims of the study
Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
Were there any obvious biases?
If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Assign mandatory training and keep all your records in-one-place.

Help and Feedback

Publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

All eBooks & Audiobooks
Academic eBook Collection
Home Grown eBook Collection
Off-Campus Access
Literature Resource Center
Opposing Viewpoints
ProQuest Central
Course Guides
Citing Sources
Library Research
Websites by Topic
Book-a-Librarian
Research Tutorials
Use the Catalog
Use Databases
Use Films on Demand
Use Home Grown eBooks
Use NC LIVE
Evaluating Sources
Primary vs. Secondary
Scholarly vs. Popular
Make an Appointment
Writing Tools
Annotated Bibliographies
Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

Writing an article SUMMARY
Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
Was the sample too small to generalize from?
Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

<< Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
Next: Citing Sources >>
Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2024 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

How to Write It
Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
Did the results support their hypothesis?
Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews . Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles . Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Writing well

How to write a critique

Starting well
How to write an annotated bibliography
How to write a case study response
How to write an empirical article
How to write an essay
How to write a literature review
How to write a reflective task
How to write a report
Finishing well

Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued.

Study the work under discussion.
Make notes on key parts of the work.
Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work.
Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.

Example template

There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or Canvas site for guidance from your lecturer. The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one example.

Introduction

Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:

name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator
describe the main argument or purpose of the work
explain the context in which the work was created - this could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience
have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be - for instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.

Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.

Critical evaluation

This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.

A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.

Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:

Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?

This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.

To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your evaluation of the work.

This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:

a statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work
a summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation was formed
in some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.

Reference list

Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style to use.

Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
Mainly focused on the critical evaluation of the work?
Systematically outlined an evaluation of each element of the work to achieve the overall purpose?
Used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my assessment of elements of the work?
Formed an overall evaluation of the work, based on critical reading?
Used a well structured introduction, body and conclusion?
Used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation; and appropriate referencing style?

Further information

University of New South Wales: Writing a Critical Review
University of Toronto: The Book Review or Article Critique

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.

How to Review a Journal Article

For many kinds of assignments, like a literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your qualified opinion and evaluation of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple summary of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes, annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?

Evaluating Methods

How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?

Evaluating Data

Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.

How to Critique an Article: Mastering the Article Evaluation Process

Did you know that approximately 4.6 billion pieces of content are produced every day? From news articles and blog posts to scholarly papers and social media updates, the digital landscape is flooded with information at an unprecedented rate. In this age of information overload, honing the skill of articles critique has never been more crucial. Whether you're seeking to bolster your academic prowess, stay well-informed, or improve your writing, mastering the art of article critique is a powerful tool to navigate the vast sea of information and discern the pearls of wisdom.

How to Critique an Article: Short Description

In this article, we will equip you with valuable tips and techniques to become an insightful evaluator of written content. We present a real-life article critique example to guide your learning process and help you develop your unique critique style. Additionally, we explore the key differences between critiquing scientific articles and journals. Whether you're a student, researcher, or avid reader, this guide will empower you to navigate the vast ocean of information with confidence and discernment. Still, have questions? Don't worry! We've got you covered with a helpful FAQ section to address any lingering doubts. Get ready to unleash your analytical prowess and uncover the true potential of every article that comes your way!

What Is an Article Critique: Understanding The Power of Evaluation

An article critique is a valuable skill that involves carefully analyzing and evaluating a written piece, such as a journal article, blog post, or news article. It goes beyond mere summarization and delves into the deeper layers of the content, examining its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. Think of it as an engaging conversation with the author, where you provide constructive feedback and insights.

For instance, let's consider a scenario where you're critiquing a research paper on climate change. Instead of simply summarizing the findings, you would scrutinize the methodology, data interpretation, and potential biases, offering thoughtful observations to enrich the discussion. Through the process of writing an article critique, you develop a critical eye, honing your ability to appreciate well-crafted work while also identifying areas for improvement.

In the following sections, our ' write my paper ' experts will uncover valuable tips on and key points on how to write a stellar critique, so let's explore more!

Unveiling the Key Aims of Writing an Article Critique

Writing an article critique serves several essential purposes that go beyond a simple review or summary. When engaging in the art of critique, as when you learn how to write a review article , you embark on a journey of in-depth analysis, sharpening your critical thinking skills and contributing to the academic and intellectual discourse. Primarily, an article critique allows you to:

Evaluate the Content : By critiquing an article, you delve into its content, structure, and arguments, assessing its credibility and relevance.
Strengthen Your Critical Thinking : This practice hones your ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in written works, fostering a deeper understanding of complex topics and critical evaluation skills.
Engage in Scholarly Dialogue : Your critique contributes to the ongoing academic conversation, offering valuable insights and thoughtful observations to the existing body of knowledge.
Enhance Writing Skills : By analyzing and providing feedback, you develop a keen eye for effective writing techniques, benefiting your own writing endeavors.
Promote Continuous Learning : Through the writing process, you continually refine your analytical abilities, becoming an avid and astute learner in the pursuit of knowledge.

How to Critique an Article: Steps to Follow

The process of crafting an article critique may seem overwhelming, especially when dealing with intricate academic writing. However, fear not, for it is more straightforward than it appears! To excel in this art, all you require is a clear starting point and the skill to align your critique with the complexities of the content. To help you on your journey, follow these 3 simple steps and unlock the potential to provide insightful evaluations:

Step 1: Read the Article

The first and most crucial step when wondering how to do an article critique is to thoroughly read and absorb its content. As you delve into the written piece, consider these valuable tips from our custom essay writer to make your reading process more effective:

Take Notes : Keep a notebook or digital document handy while reading. Jot down key points, noteworthy arguments, and any questions or observations that arise.
Annotate the Text : Underline or highlight significant passages, quotes, or sections that stand out to you. Use different colors to differentiate between positive aspects and areas that may need improvement.
Consider the Author's Purpose : Reflect on the author's main critical point and the intended audience. Much like an explanatory essay , evaluate how effectively the article conveys its message to the target readership.

Now, let's say you are writing an article critique on climate change. While reading, you come across a compelling quote from a renowned environmental scientist highlighting the urgency of addressing global warming. By taking notes and underlining this impactful quote, you can later incorporate it into your critique as evidence of the article's effectiveness in conveying the severity of the issue.

Step 2: Take Notes/ Make sketches

Once you've thoroughly read the article, it's time to capture your thoughts and observations by taking comprehensive notes or creating sketches. This step plays a crucial role in organizing your critique and ensuring you don't miss any critical points. Here's how to make the most out of this process:

Highlight Key Arguments : Identify the main arguments presented by the author and highlight them in your notes. This will help you focus on the core ideas that shape the article.
Record Supporting Evidence : Take note of any evidence, examples, or data the author uses to support their arguments. Assess the credibility and effectiveness of this evidence in bolstering their claims.
Examine Structure and Flow : Pay attention to the article's structure and how each section flows into the next. Analyze how well the author transitions between ideas and whether the organization enhances or hinders the reader's understanding.
Create Visual Aids : If you're a visual learner, consider using sketches or diagrams to map out the article's key points and their relationships. Visual representations can aid in better grasping the content's structure and complexities.

Step 3: Format Your Paper

Once you've gathered your notes and insights, it's time to give structure to your article critique. Proper formatting ensures your critique is organized, coherent, and easy to follow. Here are essential tips for formatting an article critique effectively:

Introduction : Begin with a clear and engaging introduction that provides context for the article you are critiquing. Include the article's title, author's name, publication details, and a brief overview of the main theme or thesis.
Thesis Statement : Present a strong and concise thesis statement that conveys your overall assessment of the article. Your thesis should reflect whether you found the article compelling, convincing, or in need of improvement.
Body Paragraphs : Organize your critique into well-structured body paragraphs. Each paragraph should address a specific point or aspect of the article, supported by evidence and examples from your notes.
Use Evidence : Back up your critique with evidence from the article itself. Quote relevant passages, cite examples, and reference data to strengthen your analysis and demonstrate your understanding of the article's content.
Conclusion : Conclude your critique by summarizing your main points and reiterating your overall evaluation. Avoid introducing new arguments in the conclusion and instead provide a concise and compelling closing statement.
Citation Style : If required, adhere to the specific citation style guidelines (e.g., APA, MLA) for in-text citations and the reference list. Properly crediting the original article and any additional sources you use in your critique is essential.

How to Critique a Journal Article: Mastering the Steps

So, you've been assigned the task of critiquing a journal article, and not sure where to start? Worry not, as we've prepared a comprehensive guide with different steps to help you navigate this process with confidence. Journal articles are esteemed sources of scholarly knowledge, and effectively critiquing them requires a systematic approach. Let's dive into the steps to expertly evaluate and analyze a journal article:

Step 1: Understanding the Research Context

Begin by familiarizing yourself with the broader research context in which the journal article is situated. Learn about the field, the topic's significance, and any previous relevant research. This foundational knowledge will provide a valuable backdrop for your journal article critique example.

Step 2: Evaluating the Article's Structure

Assess the article's overall structure and organization. Examine how the introduction sets the stage for the research and how the discussion flows logically from the methodology and results. A well-structured article enhances readability and comprehension.

Step 3: Analyzing the Research Methodology

Dive into the research methodology section, which outlines the approach used to gather and analyze data. Scrutinize the study's design, data collection methods, sample size, and any potential biases or limitations. Understanding the research process will enable you to gauge the article's reliability.

Step 4: Assessing the Data and Results

Examine the presentation of data and results in the article. Are the findings clear and effectively communicated? Look for any discrepancies between the data presented and the interpretations made by the authors.

Step 5: Analyzing the Discussion and Conclusions

Evaluate the discussion section, where the authors interpret their findings and place them in the broader context. Assess the soundness of their conclusions, considering whether they are adequately supported by the data.

Step 6: Considering Ethical Considerations

Reflect on any ethical considerations raised by the research. Assess whether the study respects the rights and privacy of participants and adheres to ethical guidelines.

Step 7: Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses

Identify the article's strengths, such as well-designed experiments, comprehensive, relevant literature reviews, or innovative approaches. Also, pinpoint any weaknesses, like gaps in the research, unclear explanations, or insufficient evidence.

Step 8: Offering Constructive Feedback

Provide constructive feedback to the authors, highlighting both positive aspects and areas for improvement for future research. Suggest ways to enhance the research methods, data analysis, or discussion to bolster its overall quality.

Step 9: Presenting Your Critique

Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.

By following these steps on how to critique a journal article, you'll be well-equipped to craft a thoughtful and insightful piece, contributing to the scholarly discourse in your field of study!

Wednesday Addams

Mysterious, dark, and sarcastic

You’re the master of dark humor and love standing out with your unconventional style. Your perfect costume? A modern twist on Wednesday Addams’ gothic look. You’ll own Halloween with your unapologetically eerie vibe. 🖤🕸️

Got an Article that Needs Some Serious Critiquing?

Don't sweat it! Our critique maestros are armed with wit, wisdom, and a dash of magic to whip that piece into shape.

An Article Critique: Journal Vs. Research

In the realm of academic writing, the terms 'journal article' and 'research paper' are often used interchangeably, which can lead to confusion about their differences. Understanding the distinctions between critiquing a research article and a journal piece is essential. Let's delve into the key characteristics that set apart a journal article from a research paper and explore how the critique process may differ for each:

Publication Scope:

Journal Article: Presents focused and concise research findings or new insights within a specific subject area.
Research Paper: Explores a broader range of topics and can cover extensive research on a particular subject.

Format and Structure:

Journal Article: Follows a standardized format with sections such as abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
Research Paper: May not adhere to a specific format and allows flexibility in organizing content based on the research scope.

Depth of Analysis:

Journal Article: Provides a more concise and targeted analysis of the research topic or findings.
Research Paper: Offers a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis, often including extensive literature reviews and data analyses.
Journal Article: Typically shorter in length, ranging from a few pages to around 10-15 pages.
Research Paper: Tends to be longer, spanning from 20 to several hundred pages, depending on the research complexity.

Publication Type:

Journal Article: Published in academic journals after undergoing rigorous peer review.
Research Paper: May be published as a standalone work or as part of a thesis, dissertation, or academic report.
Journal Article: Targeted at academics, researchers, and professionals within the specific field of study.
Research Paper: Can cater to a broader audience, including students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public.
Journal Article: Primarily aimed at sharing new research findings, contributing to academic discourse, and advancing knowledge in the field.
Research Paper: Focuses on comprehensive exploration and analysis of a research topic, aiming to make a substantial contribution to the body of knowledge.

Appreciating these differences becomes paramount when engaging in the critique of these two forms of scholarly publications, as they each demand a unique approach and thoughtful consideration of their distinctive attributes. And if you find yourself desiring a flawlessly crafted research article critique example, entrusting the task to professional writers is always an excellent option – you can easily order essay that meets your needs.

Article Critique Example

Our collection of essay samples offers a comprehensive and practical illustration of the critique process, granting you access to valuable insights.

Tips on How to Critique an Article

Critiquing an article requires a keen eye, critical thinking, and a thoughtful approach to evaluating its content. To enhance your article critique skills and provide insightful analyses, consider incorporating these five original and practical tips into your process:

1. Analyze the Author's Bias : Be mindful of potential biases in the article, whether they are political, cultural, or personal. Consider how these biases may influence the author's perspective and the presentation of information. Evaluating the presence of bias enables you to discern the objectivity and credibility of the article's arguments.

2. Examine the Supporting Evidence : Scrutinize the quality and relevance of the evidence used to support the article's claims. Look for well-researched data, credible sources, and up-to-date statistics. Assess how effectively the author integrates evidence to build a compelling case for their arguments.

3. Consider the Audience's Perspective : Put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience and assess how well the article communicates its ideas. Consider whether the language, tone, and level of complexity are appropriate for the target readership. A well-tailored article is more likely to engage and resonate with its audience.

4. Investigate the Research Methodology : If the article involves research or empirical data, delve into the methodology used to gather and analyze the information. Evaluate the soundness of the study design, sample size, and data collection methods. Understanding the research process adds depth to your critique.

5. Discuss the Implications and Application : Consider the broader implications of the article's findings or arguments. Discuss how the insights presented in the article could impact the field of study or have practical applications in real-world scenarios. Identifying the potential consequences of the article's content strengthens your critique's depth and relevance.

Wrapping Up

In a nutshell, article critique is an essential skill that helps us grow as critical thinkers and active participants in academia. Embrace the opportunity to analyze and offer constructive feedback, contributing to a brighter future of knowledge and understanding. Remember, each critique is a chance to engage with new ideas and expand our horizons. So, keep honing your critique skills and enjoy the journey of discovery in the world of academic exploration!

Tired of Ordinary Critiques?

Brace yourself for an extraordinary experience! Our critique geniuses are on standby, ready to unleash their extraordinary skills on your article!

What Steps Need to Be Taken in Writing an Article Critique?

What is the recommended length for an article critique.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

How to Critique a Journal Article

Most scholars and practitioners are passionate about learning how to critique a journal article. Journal article critique is a formal evaluation of a journal article or any type of literary or scientific content. As a careful, complete examination of a study, journal article critique judges the strengths, weaknesses, logical links, meanings and significance of the content presented in an article. The core aim of performing a journal article critique is to show whether or not the arguments and facts that the author provided are reasonable to support their main points. A writer of a journal article critique is expected to identify a scientific article and subject it to a critical discussion based on their point of view, but following a set of conventional guidelines.

Features of a Good Article Critique

When doing a journal article, you are expected to do the following for each section of a research article :

Explain what was done right with evidence from the journal article being critiqued.
Explain what was not done right, possible reasons, and what ought to have been done.
Explain what you think could have been done or what you could do to make it better.
Given a brief recommendation for future researchers.

What this means is that you must first of all know exactly the nature of structure and content that you expect from a journal article. Without this knowledge, it will be difficult to critique a journal article and write a quality piece of writing from it. Having done these, your journal article critique will reflect the following characteristics.

i). It should have a unique opinion discussion

Article critique does not represent a simple summary of an article. Most students make a mistake of writing a mere summary of the research article after they read it. It is worth noting that journal articles already have summaries and that is not what readers actually want, but a unique opinion and discussion is what counts as a quality journal article critique.

ii). Evidence

As a writer, you are not expected to provide just your impressions of the article, but also evidence that sets expressions as well. Of course you are not asked to write a new content, but as you write your viewpoint of it, it is critical to support them with evidence.

iii). Identification of the Main Idea

Ensure that you identify the main idea of the article. Each journal article is published to transmit a specific idea that gives it a purpose. Furthermore, remember to clarify the background and significance.

iv). Dual Direction

Do not focus only on the issues that a given article has raised, but also give attention to the important issues that it has left out. There could some content or explanations that you could expect a journal article to present, but that was left out. Explain it and tell the difference it could have caused.

Areas of Journal Article Critique

Article critique fundamentally focuses on evaluating all the sections of a an article to determine its consistency with the scientific research and writing standards. Thus, each section of an article is subjected to critique as follows:

Introduction

Check the extent to which the title of the article interest and allow you to have an immediate idea of the content of the research.
Identify the authors of the research article and/or parties that conducted the research is published.
Identify and apprise the journal in which the article the article is published.
Evaluate the introduction in terms of how it describes the purpose and background of the study.
Explain if the research question is consistent with the purpose of the study.
Recognize the potential effect of the research article to your current practice.

Literature Review

Find out if the sources of literature review in the article are current (i.e published within the last 5-10 years).
Evaluate the theories used in relation to relevance to the independent and dependent variables. Ask yourself if the theories explain the phenomenon under investigation.
Check whether if the literature reviewed is relevant to the research (some content of the literature may be pulled randomly and may not reflect the variables of the study.

Methodology

Identify and explain the research design that enabled the creation of a journal article being critiqued.
Check the research method that was adopted and evaluate its appropriateness to the research question and context. For example, questionnaires may not be appropriate among illiterate populations.
Evaluate the method of sampling and explain if it is appropriate to the topic and population characteristics.
Check the possibility of biases in the sample. If biased, explain the reason and what could be done to prevent biases from occurring.
Appraise the size of the sample in relation to the population and desired significance levels.
Identify and critique the tools that were used to collect data, procedures through which data was collected, and their validity, reliability and accuracy.
Find out if the researchers got ethical approval to conduct the study and if not, why.
Overall, explain if the methods of research have been explained adequately.

Results and Findings

Check how data was analyzed.
Briefly explain the main findings of the research.
Evaluate the way in which results are displayed (Is it done in a clear and understandable manner?)
Check if the authors have discussed the results in relation to the original problem they identified in the introduction section.
Find out if the findings have been related to the literature review and consistencies/inconsistencies identified and explained. (Have the authors cited only the pertinent literature?)
Check if the conclusion captures all aspects of the study from introduction to the end.
Analyze the nature of conclusions presented and if they answer the research question.
Analyze and explain the main strengths and weaknesses of the study.
Identify what you think is the main limitations of the study and if they were identified by the authors.
Check if the author(s) provided suggestions for future research.
Go through the references and check if they consistently adhere to a given referencing style.

From the above discussion, it is evident that journal article critique is an involving activity that require active reading, developing an outline, questioning authors’ main points, identifying contradictions, writing down the content of the critique, and revising it to make it perfect. You can now practice by downloading a few articles and trying to critique them. This will give you a good opportunity to learn from experience and perfect your article critique skills.

stratford-blog

Journal article publishing: typology of mixed methods types of legitimation, research paper publication in the information era, 10 comments.

Cancel reply

Your comment ...

Author Desk

Author Guidelines
Publication Charges
Modes of Payment
Review Process
Ethics and Malpractice
Online Submissions
Procedure of Publication Process
Copyright Agreement

DOI NO. 10.53819

Journal Indexing

Download Files

Manuscript Template
Journals Articles

Author’s Copyright

The author retains the copyright of the published manuscript.

2023 – 2024 IMPACT FACTOR

Availability of the published manuscript.

The published manuscript is available in both Online and in Print. Authors requiring hard-copy print of the issue in which their paper appears can make orders and this will be processed on demand.

Peer review guide
Submission guide
Online Submission
Journal Publication process
Book Publication Process
Business & Management
Journal of Procurement & Supply Chain
Journal of Finance and Accounting
Journal of Strategic Management
Journal of Entrepreneurship & Project Management
Journal of Marketing and Communication
Journal of Economics
Social Sciences
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management
Journal of Human Resource & Leadership
Journal of Sociology, Psychology & Religious Studies
Journal of Public Policy & Governance
Journal of Education
Information Technology
Journal of Information and Technology
Agriculture
Journal of Agriculture
Medicine & Healthcare
Journal of Medicine, Nursing & Public Health
Journal of pharmacy & Biochemistry
Life Sciences
Journal of Biological Sciences
Editorial board
Journal System
Journals Store
Books store
Submission: [email protected]

You cannot copy or paste content on this page.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Can Med Educ J
v.12(3); 2021 Jun

Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

Écrire, lire et revue critique, douglas archibald.

1 University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;

Maria Athina Martimianakis

2 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Why reviews matter

What do all authors of the CMEJ have in common? For that matter what do all health professions education scholars have in common? We all engage with literature. When you have an idea or question the first thing you do is find out what has been published on the topic of interest. Literature reviews are foundational to any study. They describe what is known about given topic and lead us to identify a knowledge gap to study. All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1 , 2 In fact, for this editorial we have had to review the literature on reviews . Knowledge and evidence are expanding in our field of health professions education at an ever increasing rate and so to help keep pace, well written reviews are essential. Though reviews may be difficult to write, they will always be read. In this editorial we survey the various forms review articles can take. As well we want to provide authors and reviewers at CMEJ with some guidance and resources to be able write and/or review a review article.

What are the types of reviews conducted in Health Professions Education?

Health professions education attracts scholars from across disciplines and professions. For this reason, there are numerous ways to conduct reviews and it is important to familiarize oneself with these different forms to be able to effectively situate your work and write a compelling rationale for choosing your review methodology. 1 , 2 To do this, authors must contend with an ever-increasing lexicon of review type articles. In 2009 Grant and colleagues conducted a typology of reviews to aid readers makes sense of the different review types, listing fourteen different ways of conducting reviews, not all of which are mutually exclusive. 3 Interestingly, in their typology they did not include narrative reviews which are often used by authors in health professions education. In Table 1 , we offer a short description of three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ.

Three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ

Type of Review	Description	Examples of published HPE articles using review methodology
Systematic Review	Often associated with Cochrane Reviews, this type of review aims to answer a narrowly focused question and uses a predetermined structured method to search, screen, select, appraise and summarize findings.	Tang KS, Cheng DL, Mi E, Greenberg PB. Augmented reality in medical education: a systematic review. Can Med Ed J. 2020;11(1):e81. And in this issue: of the CMEJ: Bahji A, Smith J, Danilewitz M, Crockford D, el-Guebaly N, Stuart H. Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review. . 2021; 12(3) 10.36834/cmej.69739
Scoping Review	Aims to quickly map a research area, documenting key concepts, sources of evidence, methodologies used. Typically, scoping reviews do not judge the quality of the papers included in the review. They tend to produce descriptive accounts of a topic area.	Kalun P, Dunn K, Wagner N, Pulakunta T, Sonnadara R. Recent evidence on visual-spatial ability in surgical education: A scoping review. . 2020 Dec;11(6):e111. Refer to Cacchione and Arksey and O’Malley and for more details.
(Critical) Narrative Review	Narrative reviews are expert interpretations and critiques of previously published studies. They are not intended to be exhaustive in their review of evidence, but rather synthetic and generative. Research questions can be narrow or broad and are often theoretically derived. They may constitute a synthesis of existing models or schools of thoughts or generate a new interpretation or way of thinking.	Examples of authors applying (Critical) Narrative reviews: Ng, S. L., Kinsella, E. A., Friesen, F., & Hodges, B. (2015). Reclaiming a theoretical orientation to reflection in medical education research: a critical narrative review. (5), 461–475. 10.1111/medu.12680 For more information: Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (6), e12931–n/a. 10.1111/eci.12931 Ferrari, R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. . 2015;24(4):230-235. doi:10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329

More recently, authors such as Greenhalgh 4 have drawn attention to the perceived hierarchy of systematic reviews over scoping and narrative reviews. Like Greenhalgh, 4 we argue that systematic reviews are not to be seen as the gold standard of all reviews. Instead, it is important to align the method of review to what the authors hope to achieve, and pursue the review rigorously, according to the tenets of the chosen review type. Sometimes it is helpful to read part of the literature on your topic before deciding on a methodology for organizing and assessing its usefulness. Importantly, whether you are conducting a review or reading reviews, appreciating the differences between different types of reviews can also help you weigh the author’s interpretation of their findings.

In the next section we summarize some general tips for conducting successful reviews.

How to write and review a review article

In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are conducting. Systematic reviews tend to address very focused questions often summarizing the evidence of your topic. Other types of reviews tend to have broader questions and are more exploratory in nature.

Following your question, choose an approach and plan your methods to match your question…just like you would for a research study. Fortunately, there are guidelines for many types of reviews. As Cook points out the most important consideration is to be sure that the methods you follow lead to a defensible answer to your review question. To help you prepare for a defensible answer there are many guides available. For systematic reviews consult PRISMA guidelines ; 13 for scoping reviews PRISMA-ScR ; 14 and SANRA 15 for narrative reviews. It is also important to explain to readers why you have chosen to conduct a review. You may be introducing a new way for addressing an old problem, drawing links across literatures, filling in gaps in our knowledge about a phenomenon or educational practice. Cook refers to this as setting the stage. Linking back to the literature is important. In systematic reviews for example, you must be clear in explaining how your review builds on existing literature and previous reviews. This is your opportunity to be critical. What are the gaps and limitations of previous reviews? So, how will your systematic review resolve the shortcomings of previous work? In other types of reviews, such as narrative reviews, its less about filling a specific knowledge gap, and more about generating new research topic areas, exposing blind spots in our thinking, or making creative new links across issues. Whatever, type of review paper you are working on, the next steps are ones that can be applied to any scholarly writing. Be clear and offer insight. What is your main message? A review is more than just listing studies or referencing literature on your topic. Lead your readers to a convincing message. Provide commentary and interpretation for the studies in your review that will help you to inform your conclusions. For systematic reviews, Cook’s final tip is most likely the most important– report completely. You need to explain all your methods and report enough detail that readers can verify the main findings of each study you review. The most common reasons CMEJ reviewers recommend to decline a review article is because authors do not follow these last tips. In these instances authors do not provide the readers with enough detail to substantiate their interpretations or the message is not clear. Our recommendation for writing a great review is to ensure you have followed the previous tips and to have colleagues read over your paper to ensure you have provided a clear, detailed description and interpretation.

Finally, we leave you with some resources to guide your review writing. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 We look forward to seeing your future work. One thing is certain, a better appreciation of what different reviews provide to the field will contribute to more purposeful exploration of the literature and better manuscript writing in general.

In this issue we present many interesting and worthwhile papers, two of which are, in fact, reviews.

Major Contributions

A chance for reform: the environmental impact of travel for general surgery residency interviews by Fung et al. 18 estimated the CO 2 emissions associated with traveling for residency position interviews. Due to the high emissions levels (mean 1.82 tonnes per applicant), they called for the consideration of alternative options such as videoconference interviews.

Understanding community family medicine preceptors’ involvement in educational scholarship: perceptions, influencing factors and promising areas for action by Ward and team 19 identified barriers, enablers, and opportunities to grow educational scholarship at community-based teaching sites. They discovered a growing interest in educational scholarship among community-based family medicine preceptors and hope the identification of successful processes will be beneficial for other community-based Family Medicine preceptors.

Exploring the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: an international cross-sectional study of medical learners by Allison Brown and team 20 studied the impact of COVID-19 on medical learners around the world. There were different concerns depending on the levels of training, such as residents’ concerns with career timeline compared to trainees’ concerns with the quality of learning. Overall, the learners negatively perceived the disruption at all levels and geographic regions.

The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment? by Susan Humphrey-Murto and co-authors 21 considered factors that lead to the publication of studies supported by local medical education grants. They identified several factors associated with publication success, including previous oral or poster presentations. They hope their results will be valuable for Canadian centres with local grant programs.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical learner wellness: a needs assessment for the development of learner wellness interventions by Stephana Cherak and team 22 studied learner-wellness in various training environments disrupted by the pandemic. They reported a negative impact on learner wellness at all stages of training. Their results can benefit the development of future wellness interventions.

Program directors’ reflections on national policy change in medical education: insights on decision-making, accreditation, and the CanMEDS framework by Dore, Bogie, et al. 23 invited program directors to reflect on the introduction of the CanMEDS framework into Canadian postgraduate medical education programs. Their survey revealed that while program directors (PDs) recognized the necessity of the accreditation process, they did not feel they had a voice when the change occurred. The authors concluded that collaborations with PDs would lead to more successful outcomes.

Experiential learning, collaboration and reflection: key ingredients in longitudinal faculty development by Laura Farrell and team 24 stressed several elements for effective longitudinal faculty development (LFD) initiatives. They found that participants benefited from a supportive and collaborative environment while trying to learn a new skill or concept.

Brief Reports

The effect of COVID-19 on medical students’ education and wellbeing: a cross-sectional survey by Stephanie Thibaudeau and team 25 assessed the impact of COVID-19 on medical students. They reported an overall perceived negative impact, including increased depressive symptoms, increased anxiety, and reduced quality of education.

In Do PGY-1 residents in Emergency Medicine have enough experiences in resuscitations and other clinical procedures to meet the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum? Meshkat and co-authors 26 recorded the number of adult medical resuscitations and clinical procedures completed by PGY1 Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Emergency Medicine residents to compare them to the Competence by Design requirements. Their study underscored the importance of monitoring collection against pre-set targets. They concluded that residency program curricula should be regularly reviewed to allow for adequate clinical experiences.

Rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults by Anita Cheng and team 27 studied whether rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults helped residents prepare for difficult conversations with parents expecting complications with their baby before birth. They found that while rehearsal simulation improved residents’ confidence and communication techniques, it did not prepare them for unexpected parent responses.

Review Papers and Meta-Analyses

Peer support programs in the fields of medicine and nursing: a systematic search and narrative review by Haykal and co-authors 28 described and evaluated peer support programs in the medical field published in the literature. They found numerous diverse programs and concluded that including a variety of delivery methods to meet the needs of all participants is a key aspect for future peer-support initiatives.

Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review by Bahji et al. 6 identified addiction interventions to build competency for psychiatry residents and fellows. They found that current psychiatry entrustable professional activities need to be better identified and evaluated to ensure sustained competence in addictions.

Six ways to get a grip on leveraging the expertise of Instructional Design and Technology professionals by Chen and Kleinheksel 29 provided ways to improve technology implementation by clarifying the role that Instructional Design and Technology professionals can play in technology initiatives and technology-enhanced learning. They concluded that a strong collaboration is to the benefit of both the learners and their future patients.

In his article, Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process, 30 Simon Field provided guidelines for maximizing opportunities for successful promotion experiences. His seven tips included creating a rubric for both self-assessment of likeliness of success and adjudication by the committee.

Six ways to get a grip on your first health education leadership role by Stasiuk and Scott 31 provided tips for considering a health education leadership position. They advised readers to be intentional and methodical in accepting or rejecting positions.

Re-examining the value proposition for Competency-Based Medical Education by Dagnone and team 32 described the excitement and controversy surrounding the implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) by Canadian postgraduate training programs. They proposed observing which elements of CBME had a positive impact on various outcomes.

You Should Try This

In their work, Interprofessional culinary education workshops at the University of Saskatchewan, Lieffers et al. 33 described the implementation of interprofessional culinary education workshops that were designed to provide health professions students with an experiential and cooperative learning experience while learning about important topics in nutrition. They reported an enthusiastic response and cooperation among students from different health professional programs.

In their article, Physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal education: an innovative approach to teach medical students musculoskeletal assessment techniques, Boulila and team 34 described the implementation of physiotherapist-led workshops, whether the workshops increased medical students’ musculoskeletal knowledge, and if they increased confidence in assessment techniques.

Instagram as a virtual art display for medical students by Karly Pippitt and team 35 used social media as a platform for showcasing artwork done by first-year medical students. They described this shift to online learning due to COVID-19. Using Instagram was cost-saving and widely accessible. They intend to continue with both online and in-person displays in the future.

Adapting clinical skills volunteer patient recruitment and retention during COVID-19 by Nazerali-Maitland et al. 36 proposed a SLIM-COVID framework as a solution to the problem of dwindling volunteer patients due to COVID-19. Their framework is intended to provide actionable solutions to recruit and engage volunteers in a challenging environment.

In Quick Response codes for virtual learner evaluation of teaching and attendance monitoring, Roxana Mo and co-authors 37 used Quick Response (QR) codes to monitor attendance and obtain evaluations for virtual teaching sessions. They found QR codes valuable for quick and simple feedback that could be used for many educational applications.

In Creation and implementation of the Ottawa Handbook of Emergency Medicine Kaitlin Endres and team 38 described the creation of a handbook they made as an academic resource for medical students as they shift to clerkship. It includes relevant content encountered in Emergency Medicine. While they intended it for medical students, they also see its value for nurses, paramedics, and other medical professionals.

Commentary and Opinions

The alarming situation of medical student mental health by D’Eon and team 39 appealed to medical education leaders to respond to the high numbers of mental health concerns among medical students. They urged leaders to address the underlying problems, such as the excessive demands of the curriculum.

In the shadows: medical student clinical observerships and career exploration in the face of COVID-19 by Law and co-authors 40 offered potential solutions to replace in-person shadowing that has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They hope the alternatives such as virtual shadowing will close the gap in learning caused by the pandemic.

Letters to the Editor

Canadian Federation of Medical Students' response to “ The alarming situation of medical student mental health” King et al. 41 on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (CFMS) responded to the commentary by D’Eon and team 39 on medical students' mental health. King called upon the medical education community to join the CFMS in its commitment to improving medical student wellbeing.

Re: “Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology” 42 was written by Kirubarajan in response to the article by Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology by Black and team. 43 Kirubarajan applauded the development of the podcast to meet a need in medical education, and suggested potential future topics such as interventions to prevent learner burnout.

Response to “First year medical student experiences with a clinical skills seminar emphasizing sexual and gender minority population complexity” by Kumar and Hassan 44 acknowledged the previously published article by Biro et al. 45 that explored limitations in medical training for the LGBTQ2S community. However, Kumar and Hassen advocated for further progress and reform for medical training to address the health requirements for sexual and gender minorities.

In her letter, Journey to the unknown: road closed!, 46 Rosemary Pawliuk responded to the article, Journey into the unknown: considering the international medical graduate perspective on the road to Canadian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic, by Gutman et al. 47 Pawliuk agreed that international medical students (IMGs) do not have adequate formal representation when it comes to residency training decisions. Therefore, Pawliuk challenged health organizations to make changes to give a voice in decision-making to the organizations representing IMGs.

In Connections, 48 Sara Guzman created a digital painting to portray her approach to learning. Her image of a hand touching a neuron showed her desire to physically see and touch an active neuron in order to further understand the brain and its connections.

Open access
Published: 07 October 2024

Standardised reporting of burden of disease studies: the STROBOD statement

Brecht Devleesschauwer 1 , 2 ,
Periklis Charalampous 3 ,
Vanessa Gorasso 1 ,
Ricardo Assunção 4 ,
Henk Hilderink 5 ,
Jane Idavain 6 ,
Tina Lesnik 7 ,
Milena Santric-Milicevic 8 , 9 ,
Elena Pallari 10 ,
Sara M. Pires 11 ,
Dietrich Plass 12 ,
Grant M. A. Wyper 13 , 14 ,
Elena Von der Lippe 15 &
Juanita A. Haagsma 3

Population Health Metrics volume 22 , Article number: 28 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

223 Accesses

Metrics details

The burden of disease (BOD) approach, originating with the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study in the 1990s, has become a cornerstone for population health monitoring. Despite the widespread use of the Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) metric, variations in methodological approaches and reporting inconsistencies hinder comparability across studies. To tackle this issue, we set out to develop guidelines for reporting DALY calculation studies to improve the transparency and comparability of BOD estimates.

Methods and Findings

The development of the STROBOD statement began within the European Burden of Disease Network, evolving from initial concepts discussed in workshops and training sessions focused on critical analysis of BOD studies. In 2021, a working group was formed to refine the preliminary version into the final Standardised Reporting of Burden of Disease studies (STROBOD) statement, consisting of 28 items structured across six main sections. These sections cover the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and open science, aiming to ensure transparency and standardization in reporting BOD studies. Notably, the methods section of the STROBOD checklist encompasses aspects such as study setting, data inputs and adjustments, DALY calculation methods, uncertainty analyses, and recommendations for reproducibility and transparency. A pilot phase was conducted to test the efficacy of the STROBOD statement, highlighting the importance of providing clear explanations and examples for each reporting item.

Conclusions

The inaugural STROBOD statement offers a crucial framework for standardizing reporting in BOD research, with plans for ongoing evaluation and potential revisions based on user feedback. While the current version focuses on general BOD methodology, future iterations may include specialized checklists for distinct applications such as injury or risk factor estimation, reflecting the dynamic nature of this field.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The burden of disease (BOD) approach gained prominence in the 1990s, with the launch of the first Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. Today, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation has transformed the GBD study into a worldwide collaborative effort, generating estimates for 371 diseases and injuries, and 88 risk factors, in 204 countries and territories [ 1 ]. Furthermore, several countries are conducting national BOD studies, and several international organisations have embraced the BOD approach [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Central to this approach is the Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY), which allows integrating the impact of morbidity and mortality into a single population health indicator, thereby providing a more comprehensive basis for evaluating, comparing, and ranking the health impact of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. Motivated by the strength of the DALY metric, it is also increasingly used in cost-effectiveness analyses, health impact assessments, and quantitative microbial risk assessments [ 6 , 7 ].

Although the general concept of the DALY metric is well established, there are various methodological choices and assumptions to be made when calculating DALYs [ 6 , 8 , 9 ]. Recent systematic literature reviews of European BOD studies have shown a wide variety in methodological assumptions used to quantify DALYs, but also important inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and particular assumptions [ 2 , 10 , 11 , 11 , 12 ]. For instance, studies differ in the choice of the reference life table for calculating Years of Life Lost (YLL) (e.g., aspirational versus national life expectancies [ 10 , 11 , 11 ]), in the use of specific sets of disability weights (e.g., GBD or national elicitation exercises [ 13 , 14 ]), or in the application of social weighting functions (i.e., age weighting and time discounting [ 2 , 11 ]). This methodological heterogeneity, and the lack of consistent reporting, hampers interpretation and comparability of BOD estimates, thereby limiting the power of the DALY metric as a tool for ranking and prioritisation. For instance, Wyper et al. [ 14 ] have documented that the choice of the reference population used in calculating age-standardised rates can have a major impact on the results, rankings, and conclusions.

To address this challenge, we introduce the Standardised Reporting of Burden of Disease studies (STROBOD) statement.

Aim and scope

The aim of the STROBOD statement is to serve as a standard protocol for reporting DALY calculations. The widespread application of the STROBOD statement will increase consistency and transparency in reporting of BOD studies, which will enhance usability of BOD estimates. The statement will furthermore serve as an educational tool, as it helps researchers and students to understand the different choices and assumptions that need to be made when calculating DALYs. The STROBOD statement is however not intended to serve as a tool to assess the quality of BOD studies or estimates.

The STROBOD statement focuses on the DALY methodology, and can be used in combination with other reporting guidelines. For instance, the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) can be used to describe input data and estimation methods for new global health estimates [ 15 ]. Likewise, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement can be used when reporting on health economic evaluations [ 16 ], of which a DALY calculation can be a subcomponent.

Development of the STROBOD statement

The basic idea of the STROBOD statement was proposed within the context of the European Burden of Disease Network (COST Action CA18218) [ 17 ].

A preliminary version of the statement was developed by BD in the context of workshops and training schools on the general concepts of BOD, where it was used as a tool to support an exercise on critical reading of BOD studies. This version included basic items on study setting, data adjustments, DALY methods, and uncertainty. Throughout the workshops and training schools, the relevance of the tool was established.

In 2021, a working group was established to further develop this preliminary version into an initial version of the STROBOD statement. This working group consisted of the Core Group members of the European Burden of Disease Network, and met online on regular intervals throughout 2023. In initial meetings, the organisation of the working group was defined, and the scope, purpose and structure of the statement was discussed. It was decided to include a pilot phase and an additional appendix with a detailed explanation of each item, including examples. The scope was defined to be generic, thereby excluding specific methods involving, for example, injury BOD calculations or comparative risk factors (for which add-on statements could be developed). The purpose was defined to be descriptive rather than normative. The structure was defined to be similar to existing statements such as GATHER and CHEERS.

Based on the discussions in the working group, it was decided to add a number of items to the preliminary version, so that the STROBOD statement would cover all relevant aspects of a scientific manuscript or report. We thus included sections on the title, abstract, introduction, results, discussion, and open science. The decision to include the latter section was made to emphasise that future BOD studies should be both easily accessible and reproducible. Specific adjustments were made to the items in the methods section. Detailed questions on different data adjustment steps were merged into one item, and an extra item was added on the listing of epidemiological input parameters. Likewise, items were added on the durations and conditional probabilities used in disease model(s), while the preliminary version only included items on disability weights. Discussions in the working group mainly were linked to the description of the items in the statement table. The supplementary file with detailed explanations and examples provided a way to accommodate requests for further detail (S2 Appendix).

To test the initial protocol, a pilot phase was run by applying it to peer-reviewed published BOD papers. The pilot was conducted by postgraduate supervised students of the Core Group members, while the set of papers used in this test differed widely in scope and complexity. The test applications further highlighted the need to provide clear and detailed explanations and examples for each of the items.

The STROBOD statement

STROBOD comprises a checklist of 28 items (Table 1 ). For each item, the authors need to specify on which page the relevant information can be found. An electronic version of the checklist and a more detailed explanation and elaboration document, describing the interpretation and rationale of each reporting item along with examples of good reporting, are available in the appendix (S2 Appendix).

The STROBOD reporting items are structured in six main sections – i.e., title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and open science (S3 Appendix). The title needs to clearly identify the study as a BOD assessment, to facilitate retrieval via database searches. The abstract needs to present key findings, while the introduction needs to present the policy relevance of the study. Most of the items of the checklist relate to the study methods. Authors need to define the study setting (in terms of causes, reference population, and reference year), and describe all data inputs, including methods for data adjustments. Specific DALY calculation methods include the Years Lost due to Disability (YLD) perspective, valuation used in Years of Life Lost (YLL) calculations, disease model with disability weights, durations and severity distributions, and possible multimorbidity adjustments and social weighting. Uncertainty analyses are recommended, and include assessing parameter uncertainty and performing scenario and sensitivity analyses. The results should be presented in a way that supports comparability, and should be discussed in light of previous evidence, in particular focussing on differences arising through different DALY methods or data manipulations. Finally, it is recommended to make the source code available, and describe funding source and conflict of interests.

Implications and limitations

This first version of the STROBOD statement provides a valuable new resource for BOD researchers and experts. We will actively promote its uptake and use, so that it can become a standard in the field. It is also intended that the STROBOD statement will be evaluated over time, and possibly revised in light of user experiences.

The STROBOD statement focuses on general BOD methodology. Specific applications, such as the estimation of DALYs for injuries or risk factors, require dedicated checklists. For instance, injury BOD studies are typically based on an integration of information on the cause-of-injury , which pertains to the intent and mechanism of injury, and the nature-of-injury , which pertains to the type of injury and the severity of their consequences [ 11 ]. Likewise, BOD studies for risk factors require additional information on the exposure to the concerned risk factor, and the associations with the concerned health outcomes. The integration of these additional inputs come with additional methodological challenges [ 18 ]. To address these specific needs, it is foreseen that the STROBOD statement can form the basis for add-on checklists dedicated to these specific applications. Although the STROBOD statement is intended for studies estimating DALYs, we encourage that studies exclusively estimating YLL, or YLD, can also adhere to the statement by completing the relevant checklist items. In addition to these add-on checklists, we also foresee that the STROBOD statement can be used in complement to other statements, such as GATHER [ 15 ]. Indeed, STROBOD has a specific focus on the DALY metric, while GATHER applies to any health metric—STROBOD thus provides specific detail on the methodological choices and assumptions specific to the DALY, which is a level of detail that exceeds the scope of GATHER. Vice versa, GATHER has a stronger focus on the statistical modelling techniques used to generate coherent global health estimates, which exceeds the scope of STROBOD.

The STROBOD statement supports reporting of BOD studies, but does not provide practical guidance on how to perform a BOD study or translate the results to end users. To understand the practical steps in a BOD study, researchers may refer to Devleesschauwer et al. [ 9 ] and also benefit from existing tools such as the software tool for burden of infectious disease calculations [ 19 ]. Knowledge translation of BOD estimates is an area of active development, and is described in more detail by Lundkvist et al . [ 20 ] and Cuschieri et al . [ 21 ].

The STROBOD statement was developed within the context of the European Burden of Disease Network, with specific inputs from the network’s Core Group. As a consequence, inputs from BOD experts from other continents were not sought, nor was the broader scientific community consulted. Despite the significant variability in the application of BOD methodology, we did not discern any distinct geographical patterns in this diversity. This suggests that our current working group possessed a sufficiently comprehensive perspective on BOD methodology and reporting requirements. Moreover, the decision to develop the statement exclusively with BOD experts was purposeful, given the specialized nature of this methodology within the broader scientific community. Nevertheless, we eagerly anticipate the implementation of the statement in the field, its incorporation into publications, and its use in future training initiatives.

To encourage the adoption of the STROBOD statement, we will proactively engage with the EQUATOR network and editors of relevant scientific journals to advocate for its endorsement as a standard practice in BOD studies. Future activities will also include an application of the statement to published papers, to structurally assess the completeness and quality of reporting of published BOD papers—and to assess how well the current version of the statement is understood by researchers. A first application of the statement to the GBD study (see S4 Appendix) highlighted that certain methodological choices, such as social weighting factors—explicitly excluded from GBD studies—may still hold relevance for national BOD studies and should be reported accordingly. Additionally, the use of the STROBOD statement underscored the importance of thoroughly documenting methodological decisions, including data sources and adjustments, as it significantly improves the transparency and clarity of BOD estimates. We are committed to learning from these experiences, and fostering ongoing discussions with experts and institutions from around the world. Based on these inputs, we anticipate making necessary revisions to the statement, and publishing improved versions of the statement, and extensions to specific topics.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

GBD 2021 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2024;403(10440):2133–2161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00757-8 . PMID:38642570

O’Donovan MR, Gapp C, Stein C. Burden of disease studies in the WHO European Region-a mapping exercise. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28(4):773–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky060 . ( PMID: 29697771 ).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Devleesschauwer B, Maertens C, de Noordhout G, Smit SA, Duchateau L, Dorny P, Stein C, Van Oyen H, Speybroeck N. Quantifying burden of disease to support public health policy in Belgium: opportunities and constraints. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1196. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1196 .

Hilderink HBM, Marjanne HD, Plasmans MJJC, Poos PED, Eysink RG. Dutch DALYs, current and future burden of disease in the Netherlands. Arch Public Health. 2020;78(1):85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-020-00461-8 .

Porst M, von der Lippe E, Leddin J, Anton A, Wengler A, Breitkreuz J, et al. The burden of disease in germany at the national and regional level. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2022;119(46):785–92. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0314 .

von der Lippe E, Devleesschauwer B, Gourley M, Haagsma J, Hilderink H, Porst M, et al. Reflections on key methodological decisions in national burden of disease assessments. Arch Public Health. 2020;78(1):137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-020-00519-7 .

Henrard S, Devleesschauwer B, Beutels P, Callens M, De Smet F, Hermans C, et al. The health and economic burden of haemophilia in Belgium: a rare, expensive and challenging disease. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-9-39 .

Murray CJ. Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72(3):429–45.

CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Devleesschauwer B, Havelaar AH, Maertens de Noordhout C, Haagsma JA, Praet N, Dorny P, et al. DALY calculation in practice: a stepwise approach. Int J Public Health. 2014;59(3):571–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-014-0553-y .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Charalampous P, Gorasso V, Plass D, Pires SM, von der Lippe E, Mereke A, et al. Burden of non-communicable disease studies in Europe: a systematic review of data sources and methodological choices. Eur J Public Health. 2022;32(2):289–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab218 .

Charalampous P, Pallari E, Gorasso V, von der Lippe E, Devleesschauwer B, Pires SM, et al. Methodological considerations in injury burden of disease studies across Europe: a systematic literature review. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1564. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13925-z .

Charalampous P, Haagsma JA, Gorasso V, Noguer I, Padron-Monedero A, Sarmiento R, et al. Burden of infectious disease studies in Europe and the United Kingdom: a review of methodological design choices. Epidemiol Infect. 2023;151: e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268823000031 .

Gorasso V, Nazaré Morgado J, Charalampous P, Pires SM, Haagsma JA, Santos JVI, et al. Burden of disease attributable to risk factors in European countries: a systematic literature review. Arch Public Health. 2023;81(1):116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-023-01119-x .

Charalampous P, Polinder S, Wothge J, von der Lippe E, Haagsma JA. A systematic literature review of disability weights measurement studies: evolution of methodological choices. Arch Public Health. 2022;80(1):91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-022-00860-z .

Haagsma JA, Polinder S, Cassini A, Colzani E, Havelaar AH. Review of disability weight studies: comparison of methodological choices and values. Popul Health Metr. 2014;12:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-014-0020-2 .

Wyper GMA, Grant I, Fletcher E, McCartney G, Fischbacher C, Stockton DL. How do world and European standard populations impact burden of disease studies? A case study of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Scotland. Arch Public Health. 2020;78:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-019-0383-8 .

Stevens GA, Alkema L, Black RE, Boerma JT, Collins GS, Ezzati M, et al. Guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting: the GATHER statement. Lancet. 2016;388(10062):e19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30388-9 .

Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346: f1049. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1049 .

Devleesschauwer B. European burden of disease network: strengthening the collaboration. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30(1):2–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz225 .

Plass D, Hilderink H, Lehtomäki H, Øverland S, Eikemo TA, Lai T, et al. Estimating risk factor attributable burden – challenges and potential solutions when using the comparative risk assessment methodology. Arch Public Health. 2022;80(1):148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-022-00900-8 .

Colzani E, Cassini A, Lewandowski D, Mangen MJ, Plass D, McDonald SA, et al. A software tool for estimation of burden of infectious diseases in Europe using incidence-based disability adjusted life years. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1): e0170662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170662 .

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Lundkvist A, El-Khatib Z, Kalra N, Pantoja T, Leach-Kemon K, Gapp C, et al. Policy-makers’ views on translating burden of disease estimates in health policies: bridging the gap through data visualization. Arch Public Health. 2021;79(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-021-00537-z .

Cuschieri S, Alkerwi A, Economou M, Idavain J, Lai T, Lesnik T, et al. Conducting national burden of disease studies and knowledge translation in eight small European states: challenges and opportunities. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00923-1 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the networking support from COST Action CA18218 (European Burden of Disease Network; www.burden-eu.net ), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology; www.cost.eu ). The authors would also like to thank Cláudia Cruz Oliveira and Carlotta Di Bari who tested the drafted STROBOD statement. We honour the memory of Dr. Ian Grant, a distinguished public health and burden of disease expert at Public Health Scotland, who contributed to the development of the STROBOD statement but sadly passed away during its preparation. This manuscript and the STROBOD statement stand as a testament to his invaluable contributions to the field.

This work benefited from networking within the context of COST Action CA18218 (European Burden of Disease Network; www.burden-eu.net ), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology; www.cost.eu ).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health Information, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Rue Juliette Wytsman 14, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

Brecht Devleesschauwer & Vanessa Gorasso

Department of Translational Physiology, Infectiology and Public Health, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium

Brecht Devleesschauwer

Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Periklis Charalampous & Juanita A. Haagsma

Egas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health & Science, Caparica, Portugal

Ricardo Assunção

National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands

Henk Hilderink

Department of Health Statistics, National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia

Jane Idavain

Department of Chronic Non-Communicable Diseases and Injuries, National Institute of Public Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Tina Lesnik

Institute of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

Milena Santric-Milicevic

Laboratory for Strengthening Capacity and Performance of Health Systems and Workforce for Health Equity, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

German Medical Institute, Limassol, Cyprus

Elena Pallari

National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

Sara M. Pires

Department for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Health Indicators, German Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany

Dietrich Plass

Clinical and Protecting Health Directorate, Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK

Grant M. A. Wyper

School of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany

Elena Von der Lippe

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: BD; Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: BD, PC, JH, VG, RA, HH, JI, TL, MSM, EP, SP, DP, GMAW, and EvdL. Agree with the manuscript’s results and conclusions: BD, PC, JH, VG, RA, HH, JI, TL, MSM, EP, SP, DP, GMAW, and EvdL. Drafted the checklist: BD, PC, JH, VG, RA, HH, JI, TL, MSM, EP, SP, DP, GMAW, and EvdL. All authors approved the final draft. All authors have read, and confirmed that they meet, ICMJE criteria for authorship.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brecht Devleesschauwer .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

DP, JAH and GMAW are Associate Editors of Population Health Metrics. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file1, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Devleesschauwer, B., Charalampous, P., Gorasso, V. et al. Standardised reporting of burden of disease studies: the STROBOD statement. Popul Health Metrics 22 , 28 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-024-00347-9

Download citation

Received : 13 April 2024

Accepted : 22 September 2024

Published : 07 October 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-024-00347-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Burden of disease
Disability-adjusted life years
European burden of disease network
Reporting guidelines

Population Health Metrics

ISSN: 1478-7954

General enquiries: [email protected]

IMAGES

how to write a article critique
👍 Research article analysis paper. How to Write a Journal Critique
Genuine Reasons for How to Critique a Research Article
How to Critique a Research Article
Article Critique
Methodology critique sample

VIDEO

How to critique a research article
'What is Criticism?' by Roland Barthes, Notes and Summary, MA English SEM 2, Poststructuralism, UGC
How to write an article review 1
الدرس السابع: كيفية نقد البحث العلمي؟ How to critique a research paper
How to write an article critique|| Explained in Filipino in the Easier and Clearer Ways
qualitative and quantitative research critique

COMMENTS

Writing an Article Critique
An article critique requires you to critically read a piece of research and identify and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ... A summary of a research article requires you to share the key points of the article so your reader can get a ... relevancy, and accuracy of the article, using specific examples from the article to ...
PDF Journal Article Critique Example
many examples of work written by those who have written on this subject in the past. Pesch cites people like Locke, Montesquieu, and Machiavelli. These are good, well-‐known examples. and authors and I think it adds a great deal credibility to the piece as a whole.
Article Critique
1. Introduction. Article Information: Mention the title of the article, the author's name, the source (journal, magazine, etc.), and the publication date. Thesis Statement: Summarize the main argument or purpose of the article. Scope of the Critique: Briefly outline the main points you will discuss in your critique.
How to Critique an Article. Guide With Structure & Example
Provide a brief description of why it is important in your specific context. Next, remember to mention all the interesting aspects that help to reveal the value of the article. Finally, talk about the author's intention and vision regarding the subject. The final part of the article critique must offer a summary of the main purpose. Learning ...
How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step
When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article: Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author's argument.
PDF Critique/Review of Research Article
1. Begin of briefly critique by identifying the article's title, author(s), date of publication, and the name. researchers. (see the your journal other publication in which app ared. In your introduction, you should also of the Table publication describe 1). or the If the in paper purpose which was it appeared and the credentials and not ...
(PDF) Critiquing A Research Paper A Practical Example
The results wer e discussed appropriat ely- No misinterpretation. 11. Streng ths motioned are the true strengths. 12. Limitations are r eported do not aff ec t the applicability of the study-. 13 ...
How to Critique a Research Article
Discussion. This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted.
PDF How to Write an Article Critique
How to Write an A. ticle CritiqueRead the article. Try not to make any notes when you rea. the article for the first time.2 Read the article again, paying close attention to the main point or thesis of the article and the support. points that the article. ses.o3 Read the article again. To write a thorough article critique you must have t.
Writing an article CRITIQUE
A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author's argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher's claims.
Writing Critical Reviews: A Step-by-Step Guide
the article, taking the main points of each paragraph. The point of the diagram is to. show the relationships between the main points in the article. Ev en better you might. consider doing an ...
How to Write an Article Critique Psychology Paper
To write an article critique, you should: Read the article, noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations. Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas. Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance. Critically evaluate the contents of the article ...
Article Critique: How to Critique an Article in APA
Any article critique example APA opens up with a cover page that shows a paper title, student name, college or university name and date. Next goes the abstract. This is the specific feature of APA style so do not skip it. Abstract is about half a page long and it sums up what will be presented in the critique, that is, main points of analysis ...
PDF Topic 8: How to critique a research paper 1
1. Use these guidelines to critique your selected research article to be included in your research proposal. You do not need to address all the questions indicated in this guideline, and only include the questions that apply. 2. Prepare your report as a paper with appropriate headings and use APA format 5th edition.
Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study
Because there are few published examples of critique examples, this article provides the practical points of conducting a formally written quantitative research article critique while providing a ...
PDF Writing an Article Critique
An article critique will require you to critically read a piece of research and identify and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the article. How is a critique different from a summary? A summary of a research article requires you to share the key points of the article so your reader can get a clear picture of what the article is about. A ...
QUT cite|write
How to write a critique. Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued. Study the work under discussion. Make notes on key parts of the work. Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work. Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or ...
How to Review a Journal Article
Example. Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article. Citation. Chik, A. (2012).
PDF Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article
Agreeing with, defending or confirming a particular point of view. Proposing a new point of view. Conceding to an existing point of view, but qualifying certain points. Reformulating an existing idea for a better explanation. Dismissing a point of view through an evaluation of its criteria. Reconciling two seemingly different points of view.
How to Critique an Article: Unleashing Your Inner Critic
Step 9: Presenting Your Critique. Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.
How to Critique a Journal Article
Thus, each section of an article is subjected to critique as follows: Introduction. Check the extent to which the title of the article interest and allow you to have an immediate idea of the content of the research. Identify the authors of the research article and/or parties that conducted the research is published.
PDF Step'by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research
to identify what is best practice. This article is a step-by step-approach to critiquing quantitative research to help nurses demystify the process and decode the terminology. Key words: Quantitative research methodologies Review process • Research]or many qualified nurses and nursing students research is research, and it is often quite difficult
Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews
All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1, 2 In fact, ... Type of Review Description Examples of published HPE articles using review methodology; Systematic Review: Often associated with Cochrane Reviews, this type of review aims to answer a narrowly focused ...
Qualitative Writing: Exploring Cul-de-Sacs and Alleys
Writing well, a high-stakes endeavor in academia, is critical for publication. Highlighting research methods, convincing readers of the validity of conclusions, and opening up new ways of knowing and doing by evocatively communicating moments of insight gleaned from interpretation of data are intrinsic to both quantitative and qualitative research.
Standardised reporting of burden of disease studies: the STROBOD
A pilot phase was conducted to test the efficacy of the STROBOD statement, highlighting the importance of providing clear explanations and examples for each reporting item. The inaugural STROBOD statement offers a crucial framework for standardizing reporting in BOD research, with plans for ongoing evaluation and potential revisions based on ...
Lack of sample diversity in research on adolescent depression and
Research on whether social media use relates to adolescent depression is rapidly increasing. However, is it adequately representing the diversity of global adolescent populations? We conducted a preregistered scoping review (research published between 2018 and 2020; 34 articles) to investigate the proportion of studies recruiting samples from the Global North versus Global South and assess ...