Professional Documents
Culture Documents
How To Write An Article Review
How To Write An Article Review
In general, article review essays should start with a heading that includes a citation of
the sources that are being reviewed. The first paragraph, which is the introduction to
the article review, should provide a summary of the article highlights. This summary
should not provide every last detail about the article being reviewed. Rather, it should
only discuss the most important details. If you find yourself carrying on or needing
more than one paragraph to write your summary, you need to revisit the paragraph
and find ways to trim down the length of your summary.
Following the brief summary of your article, you will then need to explain why the
article is significant. Questions you should ask yourself when writing these paragraphs
include:
Does the article fill a void within the literature that already exists on the topic?
Will the information contained within this article cause other people in the field to
change their ideas about the subject matter or does it simply revisit information that is
already known in the field?
In your final paragraphs, you will need to present your personal evaluation of the
article. Some questions you should ask yourself in order to come up with your personal
evaluation include whether or not the article is well written and clear. You should also
consider whether or not any information was missing and if more research is needed on
the topic.
If you are writing the article review for a class, try to connect the article to
organizational and industrial experience and try to connect the content of the article to
information that you have been studying in your course.
As you write your article review, keep in mind that you are doing more than just a book
report. Rather than focus on telling what the article was about, your article review
should reflect your personal opinions on the article as well as how it affects you or the
field in which it was written.
After you have finished writing your article review, be sure to go back and re-read it.
This way, you will be able to look at it with a fresh set of eyes and you may notice errors
that you had not previously noticed.
1
ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE
Results
Contributions
Foundation
Questions
Annotated Bibliography
State the full bibliographic reference for the article you are reviewing (authors, title,
journal name, volume, issue, year, page numbers, etc.) Important: this is not the
bibliography listed at the end of the article, rather the citation of the article itself!
Paragraph 1: State the objectives (goals or purpose) of the article. What is the article's
domain (topic area)?
2
ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE
Paragraph 2: State whether the article is "conceptual" or "empirical", and why you
believe it is conceptual or empirical. Empirical articles and conceptual articles have a
similar objective: to substantiate an argument proposed by the author. While a
conceptual article supports such an argument based on logical and persuasive
reasoning, an empirical article offers empirical evidence to support the argument.
Empirical articles offer substantial, detailed evidence which the authors analyze using
statistical methods. Empirical articles must include hypotheses (or propositions),
detailed research results, and (statistical) analyses of this empirical evidence. Empirical
research includes experiments, surveys, questionnaires, field studies, etc, and to limited
degree, case studies. Conceptual articles may refer to such empirical evidence, but do
not provide the detailed analysis of that evidence.
3
ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE
3. Brief Summary
For an article review, do not spend much space summarizing the article. Instead focus
on analysis of the article.
Paragraph 2: which solution is proposed (the solution could be a new model or a theory
that explains the problem)
Paragraph 3: what evidence is put forth that this solution is appropriate (If this is an
empirical article, be sure to briefly describe what kind of empirical study was done as
part of the evidence)
4. Results
Very briefly summarize the important points (observations, conclusions, findings) in the
article.Please do not repeat lists of items in the articles - just summarize the essence of
these if you feel they are necessary to include.
5. Contributions
Note: Do not discuss the contributions of the technologies the article describes, but
rather the contributions of the article itself!The article's contributions should be
original. Describe each contribution clearly in a separate paragraph or bullet point.
Discuss why the contribution is important.Alternatively, if you believe the article makes
no contributions, explain why clearly.
6. Foundation
Good research often is built upon theories and frameworks that other researchers have
developed. Sometimes articles will be substantially based upon this prior work, and
refer back to it in some detail. (Not all research articles will do this.)
4
ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE
Which theoretical foundations does this article and research build on, if any? In what
ways? Include references/citations of the foundation work. (You can determine this in
part from the works the article cites.)Note, however, that most works cited are not core
foundational work, but rather just support certain aspects of the article. Similarly, do
not confuse a general discussion of related topics as foundational work.If the article
does not build upon key pieces of prior research, then write in your review "This article
does not build upon any foundation research." (If you do not state this explicitly, you
will not receive credit for this section.)
Synthesis means analyzing a particular topic by comparing and contrasting it with, and
thinking about it from the viewpoint of, the class materials from across the semester.
These materials include the articles, models, frameworks, guidelines and other concepts
we've covered. (Of course, only certain materials will be relevant for any given
article.)Note: You have to do this synthesis! You need to relate this article to other
things we have studied, so by definition you will not find this analysis in the article
itself!
You also could analyze the approach the author took to the article's analysis and
discussion. Discuss the article's approach and results in terms of one or more of the
frameworks, etc., from the text or readings, or any you find elsewhere. As part of this
analysis, reference other articles you've read, when appropriate. Compare the
approach, results and contribution with all articles about similar topics or with a
similar approach. For all of these, do your synthesis comparison in as much depth as
you can!
8. General Critique
In this section you should state your opinions of how well (or poorly) the authors did
their research and presented the research results in the article. Your critique can
contain both positive and negative comments.Justify and explain in detail each of your
critique points in a separate paragraph of at least 4-5 sentences.
Does it build upon the appropriate foundation (i.e., upon appropriate prior research)?
Did the authors choose the correct approach, and then execute it properly?
Are its ideas really new, or do the authors simply repackage old ideas and perhaps give
them a new name?
Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the article's introduction and
outline?
5
ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE
What are the article's shortcomings (faults) and limitations (boundaries)? Did it discuss
all of the important aspects and issues in its domain (topic area)?
In what way should the article have made a contribution, but then did not?
How complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Do the authors include an
adequate discussion, analysis and conclusions? Did they justify everything adequately?
Did they provide enough background information for the intended audience to
understand it? For you to understand it?
why/why not?
how?
A critique of a conceptual article examines the logic of the arguments made by the
authors. Both strengths and weaknesses should be identified in a critique. Explain and
justify each of your critique points in at least 3-4 sentences. Give examples whenever
possible.
To the best of your abilities, discuss each of the following categories in a separate
paragraph:
2. COHERENCE: Does the article make sense? Did the authors approach this article
(and this research) sensibly? Does the article develop an argument that follows a
coherent line of reasoning? Are the boundaries of the argument reasonably well
defined? Does the argument anticipate most, if not all, rival arguments?
Does the article flow in a logical sequence? Do later parts build logically upon earlier
parts?
3. SUBSTANCE: Does the article provide an argument or a line of reasoning that offers
insight into important issues, or does it merely summarize previous studies in a shallow
way that does not reflect depth of analysis? Does the article provide ways (a model,
framework, guidelines, etc.) to guide future thinking about the issue(s) the author is
addressing?
6
ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE
4. FOCUS: Is there a clear audience that the authors address? Was the article written at
the appropriate level for this audience?
To the best of your abilities, discuss each of the following categories in a separate
paragraph:
1. CLARITY: Is the article's purpose and argument clear? Do the researchers clearly
develop a major research question, proposition, or hypothesis that is to be evaluated in
the empirical study and discussed in this article? If the study is exploratory
(preliminary), is sufficient justification for an exploratory strategy given?
7
ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE
7. BIASES: Do the biases of the authors affect the design of the research or the
interpretation of the results? Are the authors aware of potential biases and the affect on
the study?
What open questions or issues has the author stated remain unresolved? Discuss each in
a separate paragraph of 5-10 sentences. Each issue's paragraph should take the
following format:
suggestions for resolving it - if you give your own suggestions (instead of or in addition
to the authors', then precede each with "I would propose ..." If it has been resolved
since the article was written, then state how it was resolved.
10. Questions
List three insightful questions of your own, arising from this article. Do not ask
definitions, but rather questions that really make one think.
For every item you have cited in your report, you need a full reference and an
annotation explaining it.
List the full bibliographic references (authors, title, journal name, volume, issue, year,
page numbers, etc.) for anything you have cited in your review.
IMPORTANT: This is NOT the bibliography listed at the end of the article. It is the
bibliographic references for any readings you yourself referred to inside your review.