HOW TO CRITIQUE A JOURNAL ARTICLE So your assignment is to critique a journal article.

This handout will give you a few guidelines to follow as you go. But wait, what kind of a journal article is it: an empirical/research article, or a review of literature? Some of the guidelines offered here will apply to critiques of all kinds of articles, but each type of article may provoke questions that are especially pertinent to that type and no other. Read on. First of all, for any type of journal article your critique should include some basic information: 1. Name(s) of the author(s) 2. Title of article 3. Title of journal, volume number, date, month and page numbers 4. Statement of the problem or issue discussed 5. The authors purpose, approach or methods, hypothesis, and major conclusions. The bulk of your critique, however, should consist of your qualified opinion of the article. Read the article you are to critique once to get an overview. Then read it again, critically. At this point you may want to make some notes to yourself on your copy (not the librarys copy, please). The following are some questions you may want to address in your critique no matter what type of article you are critiquing. (Use your discretion. These points dont have to be discussed in this order, and some may not be pertinent to your particular article.) 1. Is the title of the article appropriate and clear? 2. Is the abstract specific, representative of the article, and in the correct form? 3. Is the purpose of the article made clear in the introduction? 4. Do you find errors of fact and interpretation? (This is a good one! You wont believe how often authors misinterpret or misrepresent the work of others. You can check on this by looking up for yourself the references the author cites.) 5. Is all of the discussion relevant? 6. Has the author cited the pertinent, and only the pertinent, literature? If the author has included inconsequential references, or references that are not pertinent, suggest deleting them. 7. Have any ideas been overemphasized or underemphasized? Suggest specific revisions. 8. Should some sections of the manuscript be expanded, condensed or omitted? 9. Are the authors statements clear? Challenge ambiguous statements. Suggest by examples how clarity can be achieved, but do not merely substitute your style for theauthors. 10. What underlying assumptions does the author have? 11. Has the author been objective in his or her discussion of the topic? In addition, here are some questions that are more specific to empirical/research articles. (Again, use your discretion.) 1. Is the objective of the experiment or of the observations important for the field? 2. Are the experimental methods described adequately? 3. Are the study design and methods appropriate for the purposes of the study? 4. Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable a reader to duplicate them? (Another good one! Youd be surprised at the respectable researchers who cut corners in their writing on this point.) 5. Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate? 6. Do you find any content repeated or duplicated? A common fault is repetition in the text of data in tables or figures. Suggest that tabular data be interpreted of summarized, nor merely repeated, in the text. A word about your style: let your presentation be well-reasoned and objective. If you passionately disagree (or agree) with the author, let your passion inspire you to new heights of thorough research and reasoned argument. First of all, in looking for an instructional website on how to write a critique of a journal article, I found nothing online giving the steps to take to structure a critique of a journal article. So, here goes; what I'm going to do is give you the elements of putting together a journal article critique below from an old instructional course book

for political science writers. The following steps are taken from The Political Science Student Writer's Manual, 4th Edition, by Gregory M. Scott and Stephen M. Garrison: 1. The first step is to select an appropriate journal article; the best articles are taken from scholarly journals. 2. Browse journals until you find a topic that interests you; this makes for a better critique. 3. Select an article that fits your current level of knowledge. Do not include statistics unless you are versed in those statistics. 4. Try to select articles that are current; pick an article written within the preceding 12 months. 5. Writing the critique will cover five areas, after you have read the article thoroughly: thesis, methods, evidence of thesis support, contribution to the literature, recommendations. 6. Tips on the five elements: (1) Clearly state the thesis. (2) Under methods, answer the following questions. "What methods did the author use to investigate the topic? Were the appropriate methods used? Did the author's approach to supporting the thesis make sense? Did the author employ the methods correctly? Did you discover any errors in the way the research was conducted?" (3) Evidence of Thesis Support: "What evidence did the author present in support of the thesis? What are the strengths of the evidence? What are the weaknesses? How did the author support the thesis?" (4) Contribution to the literature: "Conduct your own research and include at least five other authors on the subject. Evaluate the contribution that your selected article makes to a better understanding of the subject." (5) Recommendation: "Summarize your evaluation of the article. Who will benefit from reading this article? What will the benefit be? How important and extensive is that benefit? Clearly state your evaluation of the article in the form of a thesis for your own critique." 7. Find yourself a paper format in which to put your critique and follow assigned or selected citing methods, as well, when giving support for your thesis or quoting your source materials.

Critique 2 Scientific Journal Article Due on 4 October 2006 Attach a title page that only includes the name of the article, the source of the article, the authors name(s), and your name. This does not count towards the 2-page maximum. 1. Introduction:  Briefly discuss relevant background information relating to the nutritional issue or problem presented in the article; this might include a short summary of the article.  State the authors thesis or assertion (main point). 2. Analysis: What is the authors purpose for writing (inform, persuade, recommend, etc)? Who do you believe the authors target audience is? What are the authors supporting points? Do they directly support the main idea? Are they based on research; or are they simply someones opinion?  Briefly discuss the research methodology (is it an epidemiological study, a case-control study, or a human intervention trial?; what is the sample size, and is it adequate?; Are there any control groups? Are any placebos used?; Is it a double blind study?; Are any correlations or causes mentioned in the concluding remarks?) See chapter 1 in your textbook for information relating to research methodology. If you cannot answer these questions, your article is probably not appropriate for this assignment. See me for approval. 3. Relevance and Applicability:   

   

Is the authors article effective? Why or why not? Do you agree with the authors conclusions? Why or why not? What implications do the main points and conclusions present to the health care professional / nutritionist? How could you use the authors findings in your practice as a health care professional? Can you apply the findings to your own diet and health? If so, how? If not, why not? Would you recommend this article to others? Why or why not?

4. Compare and Contrast  How does the information presented in this article compare to the information presented in your popular press article? You do not need to refer to any specific information in either article; instead, compare the tone of the articles, the difficulty in reading/understanding the information presented, the intended audiences, and the number of people reached by the article, etc. Which is more reliable and accurate? Why? Evaluation Criteria for Critique 2 Overall Appearance Are the four required sections addressed and labeled? (Introduction, Analysis, Relevance/Applicability, Compare & Contrast) Format Is the paper double-spaced with a 1 margin & a font of 11 or 12? Does the paper have a title page and no more than 2 additional pages? (5 point penalty for each additional page) Is a copy of the article attached Content of the critique Introduction Is the problem presented clearly? Is there sufficient information given to catch the readers attention? Is the authors thesis statement stated? Analysis Is there a thorough analysis of the article? Are all four points listed on previous page addressed? Relevance/Applicability Is there a well-thought out and clearly expressed opinion of the article? Has the articles main issue(s) been related to the real-world? Is the critique easy to understand; does it appear to have been proofread (few typos, misspellings, etc.)? Compare & Contrast Has the accuracy of the journal article been compared to the accuracy of the popular article? 5 Points 5

10

15