You are on page 1of 2



In order to be of greatest value, critiques should be:

Papers Presented at Conferences

[1] J.A. Vite-Frias, Rd.J. Romero-Troncoso and A. Ordaz-Moreno, VHDL Core for 1024-
point radix-4 FFT Computation, International Conference on Reconfigurable Computing and
FPGAs, Sep. 2005, pp. 20-24.
[2] R. Mukundan, Improving Image Reconstruction Accuracy Using Discrete Orthonormal
Moments, Proceedings of International Conference on Imaging Systems, Science and
Technology, June 2003, pp. 287-293.

Journal Articles
[1] R. Mukundan, Some Computational Aspects of Discrete Orthonormal Moments, IEEE
Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 13, No. 8, Aug. 2004, pp. 1055-1059.
[2] D.H. Bailey and P.N. Swarztrauber, A Fast Method for Numerical Evaluation of
Continuous Fourier and Laplace Transform, Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 15, No. 5,
Sep. 1994, pp. 1105-1110.

Problem: Why this study needed to be done! (Researchers words or summarized.)

1. Clearly and concisely stated?
1. 2%
2. Agrees with the title?
3. Computer Science significance?
Purpose: What this study was going to do about the problem! (Researchers words or
1. Clearly stated?
2. 2%
2. Concisely stated?
3. Agrees with problem and title?
4. Limited to researcher's capabilities and resources?
Objectives: Specific actions to be accomplished to achieve the purpose. (Researchers
words or summarized.)
1. Achievable? [Research Questions (Answerable?) or Hypotheses (Testable?)]
3. 2%
2. Inclusive? (Includes enough objectives to accomplish purpose)
3. Exclusive? (Does not include objectives unrelated to purpose)
4. Will help solve the problem?
Review Of Literature: What has been said, written, or done by others concerning this
problem (List section subtitles or topics included by the researcher or which should have
been included if the review was not subtitled.)
1. Well organized? Section subtitles? Summarized?
2. Quotes and paraphrases appropriate?
3. Blended thought trains?
4. 2%
4. Reference citations correct (IEEE Editorial Style Manual)?
5. Practical reasoning included?
6. Theoretical reasoning included?
7. Similar studies cited?
8. Direct and indirectly related literature included?
9. Complete?
5. Procedures: Methods used to gather and analyze information needed to achieve the 2%
purpose. (Researchers words or summarized.)
1. Research design adequate?
2. Data gathering procedures clearly explained?
3. Instrument and development described?
4. Population and/or sample adequate?
5. Situation explained?
6. Statistical techniques described?
Findings: A report of the results or information gathered by the study
(In your words.)
1. Objectively reported?
6. 2%
2. Tables and/or charts well designed? Stand alone? Clear titles?
3. Narrative clear? Stands alone?
4. Statistical results correct?
Summary: A short, clear summarization of the findings. (In your words.)
1. Short summary?
7. 2. Clear summary? 2%
3. Summary table included?
4. Objectively reported?
Conclusions: The meaning of the findings. (In your words.)
1. A conclusion included for each pertinent finding?
2. The basis for the conclusion given?
8. 2%
3. Conclusions related to the literature included?
4. Conclusions related to logic included?
5. Conclusions logically stated?
Recommendations: Action recommended based on the conclusions. (Meaning of the
findings; Summarized by you.)
1. A recommendation included for each pertinent conclusion?
9. 2%
2. The basis (rationale) for the recommendation given?
3. Recommendations related to further research included?
4. Recommendations clearly stated?
Overall Critique of the Study:
10. 1. Overall Strengths 2%
2. Overall Weaknesses
11 New Idea ? 2%