Critiquing a Research Article Checklist

Critiquing a Research Article Checklist

Your critiques should be in a narrative format (paragraphs!) and you should address these features of a research paper.  DO NOT cut-and-paste the checklist and then add responses – avoid bullet points unless they help organize a number of related comments (versus an exceedingly long list embedded in a paragraph).   Use Chapters 7& 10 of the text as guides.

______ Article Citation — give in full.  Use CSE or APA Citation Style (see:

https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/documentation/doccse/

For online publications, give the DOI.

________ Is the title of the article sufficiently descriptive?  If not, suggest a better title.

_______What is the Impact Factor  or H Index of the journal that published your article.  (E.g., the impact factor for “Cell” is in the mid 30’s.   Specialized Clinical journals have impact factors     between 2 and 6.  Journal web site may have impact factor, “Google” it or use“Scimago”: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php — Uses “H Index”

Title

_______ Succinct, clear and complete?  If not, how could the title be improved?

_______ Do key terms in the title match the paper’s hypothesis or question that is addressed?

Abstract or Summary

________ Does the abstract or summary accurately summarize the paper?  (Reread the               abstract after finishing the paper)  Are all components of an investigative research              paper present?

_________ Are all four parts of the report (Intro, Methods, Results, Discussion) adequately         represented?

Introduction

_________ What was the objective of the study?Is it also stated in the Abstract or Summary?  Is the background material presentedsufficient to provide a context for the study? What were the individual hypotheses?

_________ Is there a logical flow to the introduction?  Does it lead directly to the objectives or hypotheses?  Does it follow the “funnel” structure (General to Specific)?

Methods

_________ Summarize or outline the methods used. (General methods, not specifics!)

________ To the best of your knowledge, are the methods adequate for addressing the authors’ objectives or hypotheses? Are there techniques that would be better suited            for the goals of this study?

_________ Given the information presented, could a knowledgeable researcher repeat the          experiment?

_________ Are there positive and/or negative controls?  Are the controls adequate?

Results

__________ Is themain finding in the first paragraph? Or, was an overview presented first, then the main finding(s)?

_________ How is the Results section organized?  Subsections used?

_________ Is the order of results chronological or from most to least important?  Neither?

________ Does the narrative complement the figures/tables/graphs?

________ Do the figure titles and legends accurately describe the content of the figures?

_________ Are all figures referenced or referred to in the Results and/or Discussion section?

Discussion

_________ Was the discussion organized in “a pyramid” structure (Specific to General)?

_________ Did the authors start with an answer to research question or an interpretation of key findings, followed by supporting evidence?

_________Do the authors’ compare their findings with earlier publications?

_________Where there any unexpected findings?

________ Do the authors propose future research?  If so, what?

________ Was the last paragraph a conclusion/summary? How did the authors conclude the paper?

Overview

_______ What is your general impression of the structure and writing style of the paper?  Any recommendations?

________ What is the significance of this paper for your proposal