It is OK to make summary statements that are true for all findings, where appropriate, but be very sure to discuss the findings separately where necessary. The use of the term "random methods," rather than "random sample," is the sort of thing you'll see when the procedures are less than ideal.
Does the study reveal what the researcher intended? The author's name and the article's title should be on the first page; if they are not, copy these down too. It is hard to explain this question clearly, because how to do it depends very much on what your article is like.
Is the writing clear? Do the geographic or other restrictions imposed on the actual population b, d above seem justified in light of the purposes of the research and practical constraints? Some other journals in sociology are: If the paper is significant, then we will have to look more closely to see if their results are feasible given what they say their techniques are, etc.
Choose both primary and secondary sources when you have the opportunity. Select a review article on a topic that interests you and that is written clearly so you can understand it.
If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. As you read the article s use the following questions to help you understand how and why the research was carried out.
I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state of the art, as that indirectly shows whether the authors have a good knowledge of the field.
Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. To find the call number of a specific journal, look up the journal's title in MADCAT, or in the list of journals in the periodicals room. Write down what they claim based on the abstract and leave it to stew for a bit.
The more radically an author departs from the views of others in the same field, the more carefully and critically you should scrutinize his or her ideas. As a range of institutions and organizations around the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Science Careers shares collected insights and advice about how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum.
If there are any aspects of the manuscript that I am not familiar with, I try to read up on those topics or consult other colleagues. But if you carefully read the paragraph on p.
Does what they say make sense to you already without going into the details of their procedures? You can use the various Who's Who publications for the U. Are the data organized for ready comparison and interpretation?
Internal Validity Identify two of the most important bivariate hypotheses explicit or implicit or questions of the research. As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it. Think of it as a take-home final, not as an opinion essay.
Such judgments have no place in the assessment of scientific quality, and they encourage publication bias from journals as well as bad practices from authors to produce attractive results by cherry picking.What do you consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper? analysis sound and justified?
help you form your own scientific opinion and develop critical thinking.
The purpose of this guide is to provide advice on how to develop and organize a research paper in the social sciences. Skip to main content This can be framed as new research questions that emerged as a result of your analysis. Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper.
Department of Biology. Bates College; Hess, Dean R. Scientific example of paper Critical analysis - by Jackson, November 6,pm / 10 stars Scientific example of paper Critical analysis. Submit a Comment Cancel reply. Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked * Comment. Name * Email * Website. In the present discussion, we will assume that a scientific report represents the communication of new information from an investigator or a group of investigators to their peers.
The Abstract or Summary of a paper is a vitally important element for several reasons. The data analysis included a description of the experiments we summarized, an estimation of overall effects, moderator analyses, and tests of mediation. [Follow the form of the one-experiment sample paper to type the author note, footnotes, tables, and figure captions.] References.
GUIDELINES FOR READING A RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT For critical analysis of this particular paper that you are reading. My key guideline for reading a paper critically for results (as when I review a paper for a journal) is to take notes as I read.Download