Critiquing Research Articles - A Guide for Students
Added on 2023-06-05
4 Pages2279 Words300 Views
|
|
|
CRITIQUING RESEARCH
ARTICLES
tudent
C
earning
L
S
entre
A critique is a systematic way of objectively reviewing a piece of research to highlight both its strengths and
weaknesses, and its applicability to practice. Professionals often need to be able to identify best current practice, and
the ability to evaluate and use published research is critical in achieving this. As such, it is a skill required in many
position descriptions. This guide suggests a detailed critique, such as is required in the health sciences, and possibly
other disciplinary areas. You are advised to check with your tutors and assignment guidelines as to what your
particular requirements are.
PUBLISHED RESEARCH
It is useful to have some background knowledge of the publishing process in order to understand published research
better. Researchers try to get their research published as a final step in the research process. They aim for
publication in professional journals to ensure the most appropriate readership and potential for contribution to
professional practice.
THE PUBLICATION PROCESS
Peer–reviewed journals are considered the best for publication because the contents are scrutinised by peers for
quality. Briefly, the process involves:
1. Submission of a manuscript to the journal.
2. The manuscript is reviewed by two experts in the field (without knowing the author(s)’ identity). The reviewers
each write a report referring to the article’s relevancy, the rigour of the research and its potential contribution to
the profession. The reviewers independently make recommendations as to whether it should be published or
requires further work.
3. An editorial board then accepts or rejects the paper based on the reviewers’ reports.
4. Authors may decide to adjust their article based on the reviewers’ reports and then resubmit to the same or a
different journal for further consideration for publishing. The paper will go through the same reviewing process.
CHOOSING AN ARTICLE TO REVIEW
Consider the following:
• Who is the target audience?
• Does it favour a particular research approach (paradigm)?
• Is there an editorial board? What are their qualifications?
• Is the peer-review process clearly explained?
• When was the article published?
• Is the article a seminal piece of research i.e. often cited by others?
NOTE: Not all publications follow such rigorous procedures before publishing, and not all work that is published is
truthful or trustworthy.
SOME USEFUL RESEARCH TERMINOLOGY
Research terminology can be off-putting to those not accustomed to it. Below are some terms that are useful to
understand:
• Ethics (ethical) clearance: when proposed research involves humans and/or animals, details of the research
and how it will be conducted must be approved by an Ethics Approval committee. This process aims to protect
the rights of humans and animals so that no harm occurs to either as a result of research.
• Identifying a ‘gap’: identifying a topic on which little or no research has been published, in order to come up with
a useful, original study.
• Reliability: an instrument’s ability to consistently & accurately measure the concept under study.
• Representativeness (of a sample): the degree to which a sample reflects the population from which it was
drawn.
• Rigour: trustworthiness of documentation, procedures and ethics to establish credibility and transferability.
• Theoretical framework: theories which provide boundaries for the study and guide all stages.
• Validity: the ability of an instrument to measure what it is supposed to measure.
Critiquing Research Articles 11/2012 © SLC 1 of 4
ARTICLES
tudent
C
earning
L
S
entre
A critique is a systematic way of objectively reviewing a piece of research to highlight both its strengths and
weaknesses, and its applicability to practice. Professionals often need to be able to identify best current practice, and
the ability to evaluate and use published research is critical in achieving this. As such, it is a skill required in many
position descriptions. This guide suggests a detailed critique, such as is required in the health sciences, and possibly
other disciplinary areas. You are advised to check with your tutors and assignment guidelines as to what your
particular requirements are.
PUBLISHED RESEARCH
It is useful to have some background knowledge of the publishing process in order to understand published research
better. Researchers try to get their research published as a final step in the research process. They aim for
publication in professional journals to ensure the most appropriate readership and potential for contribution to
professional practice.
THE PUBLICATION PROCESS
Peer–reviewed journals are considered the best for publication because the contents are scrutinised by peers for
quality. Briefly, the process involves:
1. Submission of a manuscript to the journal.
2. The manuscript is reviewed by two experts in the field (without knowing the author(s)’ identity). The reviewers
each write a report referring to the article’s relevancy, the rigour of the research and its potential contribution to
the profession. The reviewers independently make recommendations as to whether it should be published or
requires further work.
3. An editorial board then accepts or rejects the paper based on the reviewers’ reports.
4. Authors may decide to adjust their article based on the reviewers’ reports and then resubmit to the same or a
different journal for further consideration for publishing. The paper will go through the same reviewing process.
CHOOSING AN ARTICLE TO REVIEW
Consider the following:
• Who is the target audience?
• Does it favour a particular research approach (paradigm)?
• Is there an editorial board? What are their qualifications?
• Is the peer-review process clearly explained?
• When was the article published?
• Is the article a seminal piece of research i.e. often cited by others?
NOTE: Not all publications follow such rigorous procedures before publishing, and not all work that is published is
truthful or trustworthy.
SOME USEFUL RESEARCH TERMINOLOGY
Research terminology can be off-putting to those not accustomed to it. Below are some terms that are useful to
understand:
• Ethics (ethical) clearance: when proposed research involves humans and/or animals, details of the research
and how it will be conducted must be approved by an Ethics Approval committee. This process aims to protect
the rights of humans and animals so that no harm occurs to either as a result of research.
• Identifying a ‘gap’: identifying a topic on which little or no research has been published, in order to come up with
a useful, original study.
• Reliability: an instrument’s ability to consistently & accurately measure the concept under study.
• Representativeness (of a sample): the degree to which a sample reflects the population from which it was
drawn.
• Rigour: trustworthiness of documentation, procedures and ethics to establish credibility and transferability.
• Theoretical framework: theories which provide boundaries for the study and guide all stages.
• Validity: the ability of an instrument to measure what it is supposed to measure.
Critiquing Research Articles 11/2012 © SLC 1 of 4
W RITING THE CRITIQUE
Critical reviews for research are systematic. They begin at the title, and review each section until the reference list at
the end. It is useful to ask yourself questions about the purpose of each component of the article, and whether it
achieves that purpose.
THE TITLE
Does the title clearly indicate what the research is about, without being extremely long or too short to be informative?
Are the variables or theoretical issues stated and any relationships between them?
THE AUTHOR ( S )
What are the author(s)’ professional and academic qualifications? Have they published previously on a similar topic?
KEYWORDS
Some journals require keywords to help to identify main areas of focus. Are these informative and relevant?
T HE ABSTRACT
The purpose of an abstract is to provide a succinct summary of the contents of the article and is usually 50-250 words
in length, depending on journal requirements. It should contain enough information to enable a reader to decide
whether the article is of interest to them or not, so must be informative.
Ask yourself:
• Does it explain the purpose of the paper?
• Does it explain why the research was carried out?
• What was accomplished?
• What were the main findings?
• What is the significance of the research?
• What conclusions were reached?
THE INTRODUCTION
The introduction should orientate the reader to the study, by:
• giving a firm sense of what was done in the study
• introducing the question /problem
• developing the background of the study
• stating the purpose & rationale of the research.
Ask yourself:
• Is the research question/problem researchable?
• Is the problem important enough to justify the research?
• Is the background of the research relevant to the research question?
THE LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review should give an overview of the available literature which frames or surrounds the problem being
researched. It should look at the similarities and differences between the literature, as well as the strengths and
limitations. It should illustrate how the current study fits into the existing framework of research or how it fills a gap in
the literature.
Ask yourself:
• Is the literature review broad, yet focused on the issue?
• Is there historical as well as contemporary material to put the area of study into a context?
• Is there convincing evidence to support assertions?
• Does it fairly represent opposing views?
• Does the literature review use a theoretical framework?
• Does it reveal gaps in the knowledge which this research will fill?
Critiquing Research Articles 11/2012 © SLC 2 of 4
Critical reviews for research are systematic. They begin at the title, and review each section until the reference list at
the end. It is useful to ask yourself questions about the purpose of each component of the article, and whether it
achieves that purpose.
THE TITLE
Does the title clearly indicate what the research is about, without being extremely long or too short to be informative?
Are the variables or theoretical issues stated and any relationships between them?
THE AUTHOR ( S )
What are the author(s)’ professional and academic qualifications? Have they published previously on a similar topic?
KEYWORDS
Some journals require keywords to help to identify main areas of focus. Are these informative and relevant?
T HE ABSTRACT
The purpose of an abstract is to provide a succinct summary of the contents of the article and is usually 50-250 words
in length, depending on journal requirements. It should contain enough information to enable a reader to decide
whether the article is of interest to them or not, so must be informative.
Ask yourself:
• Does it explain the purpose of the paper?
• Does it explain why the research was carried out?
• What was accomplished?
• What were the main findings?
• What is the significance of the research?
• What conclusions were reached?
THE INTRODUCTION
The introduction should orientate the reader to the study, by:
• giving a firm sense of what was done in the study
• introducing the question /problem
• developing the background of the study
• stating the purpose & rationale of the research.
Ask yourself:
• Is the research question/problem researchable?
• Is the problem important enough to justify the research?
• Is the background of the research relevant to the research question?
THE LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review should give an overview of the available literature which frames or surrounds the problem being
researched. It should look at the similarities and differences between the literature, as well as the strengths and
limitations. It should illustrate how the current study fits into the existing framework of research or how it fills a gap in
the literature.
Ask yourself:
• Is the literature review broad, yet focused on the issue?
• Is there historical as well as contemporary material to put the area of study into a context?
• Is there convincing evidence to support assertions?
• Does it fairly represent opposing views?
• Does the literature review use a theoretical framework?
• Does it reveal gaps in the knowledge which this research will fill?
Critiquing Research Articles 11/2012 © SLC 2 of 4
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Writing for Publication in Healthcarelg...
|12
|3333
|280
Exploring Perspectives of Allied Health Practitioners on Journal Clubslg...
|9
|2143
|487
(PDF) Writing for publicationlg...
|13
|3638
|29
Publication Plan Assignment PDFlg...
|12
|3077
|110
Assessment 1 - Reportlg...
|6
|1123
|480
Instructions for Authors - Wound Practice and Researchlg...
|6
|2904
|207