Guidelines for writing a paper critique

Format y At most 2 pages y Put yourself in the shoes of a reviewer for a conference or journal y Give constructive feed back to the authors y For every criticism, make a suggestion to improve the paper y Mention also the good aspects of the paper y If you don't understand something, mention it and explain why you are having trouble to understand Suggested questions to structure your critique Overview
y y y

What's the paper about? What are the contributions? What's the take home message?

Significance and originality
y y

Are the ideas novel/original? Are the contributions significant?

Soundness
y y y

Are the ideas presented technically correct? Are the proofs accurate? Are the algorithms correct?

Empirical evaluation:
y y y

Are the ideas/algorithms empirically evaluated? If some assumptions are made, are they realistic? Is scalability demonstrated?

Related work:
y y y

Is the paper properly situated with respect to related work? Is there a brief survey of related work? Do the authors explain similarities and differences with previous work?

Readability:
y

Is the paper well structured?

Choice of data collection site: time/ place? . Discussion . Subj variables. Does the method actually test the hypotheses? 3. control vars? Were they appropriate? Was scaling adequate? 5... Sample: Was it representative of population to which it will be generalized? 2. What theory predicts the hypotheses? 4. What competing theories could lead to the same predictions? 4. How else could they be tested? Differently/ better? II Method Sample / population: 1. What were IVS and DVs. Were there adequate controls for demand and experimenter effects? 6. What hypotheses will be tested? 3. How would I interpret the results? IV. What the design appropriate? II Results 1.. Were control groups used where needed? 8.to avoid bias Procedure: 1. Were the statistics appropriate for the design? 2. Introduction 1. Were subjects selected randomly and conditions assigned randomly? 7.y Does the abstract properly accurately summarize the paper? Do the introduction and conclusion clearly explain the contributions and the take home message? o Is the flow of ideas easy to follow? Is the paper well written? o Are all the technical terms and abbreviations explained? o Are there important grammatical errors? o Are there a lot of typos? o o itle: Does the title accurately reflect the relationships among variables studied? I. What is the author proposing? 2. Did the author get unexpected results? 3. Is my proposed method better? Why? 2.

Were the weaknesses identified? 4. Were conclusions that were drawn warranted? 3. Background information given in the introduction should also be relevant.1. you are staring at the research paper you have to analyze but have absolutely no idea of how to critique it. y How to critique research papers: Question # 3 Did the author state research methods clearly? Are they applicable to the object of investigation? Did the author explain the effectiveness of the chosen research methods? y How to critique a research paper: Question # 4 Did the author use reasonable ideas and explanations to support his/her thesis statement? The main body of any research paper should be well grounded. Was my interpretation better than the author's? http://home. writers use comparisons to explain their idea. Are they relevant enough? y How to critique a research paper: Question # 5 Did the author compare comparable things? Very often. Was the discussion consistent with the results? 2. The guiding questions given in this article can also be helpful in learning to critique your own research paper.htm Well.ubalt. y How to critique a research paper: Question #1 Is a thesis statement stated clearly? Is it relevant to a research question? y How to critique a research paper: Question # 2 Did the author present background information in the introduction? A good introduction should help the reader understand what was investigated and why. What can you tell about the research paper you have to critique? Did the author choose quite comparable things to explain something? y How to critique a research paper: Question # 6 . Do not panic! Just answer the questions presented below and you are sure to critique the research paper properly.edu/tmitch/632/critique. To critique research papers from this perspective means to evaluate the supporting ideas the author used.

http://blog. graphs. y How to critique research papers: Question # 7 Does data relate to the thesis statement or research question? y How to critique a research paper: Question # 8 Did the author explain the results obtained? Do results support or refute the research question or thesis statement of the paper? y How to critique a research paper: Question # 9 Do you agree with the conclusions drawn? What would you add to the conclusion? What would you say differently? Consider the questions presented and learn to critique research papers appropriately. and results should be explained.net/2008/12/02/critique-research-papers-guiding-questions/ .researchpaperz. or diagrams should be labeled correctly.Did the author explain figures and tables clearly? All the tables.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.