"T ..

.4R TICLE RE VIEII' CCIDELlM::

---------.--------

How to Write an Article Review

Writing an article review, which is also sometimes referred to as an article critique, is a special type
of writing that involves reading an article and then providing the reader with your personal take on
its content
.. ..
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 reviev ..., should
provide a summary of the article highlights. This summary should not provide every last detail about
the artie' . being reviewed. Rather, it should only discuss the r-ost important details. If you find
- ~...
yourse]t
.. ..
.arrying on or needing more than one paragraph to WI';"
~-.
your summary, you need to revisit
ofyourJ'.' mary. . .
the 1:., gaph and fmd ways to trim down the length
v .

F ~wing the brief summary of your article, you wilL,'~len need to explain why the article is
significant. Questions you should ask yourself when writing these paragraphs include:
- ,
!i>"'.

• Does the article fill a void within the literature that already exists on the topic?
• Does the article contain any information that would be considered "breakthrough"
information?
• 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 andtry 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.

Outline of the Article Review

Please include the following cf~egories in your article review.

1. Full Bibliographic Reference

2. Introduction: Objectives, Article Domain, Audience, Journal and ConceptuallEmprical
Classification
3. Very Brief Summary
4. Results .
5; Contributions »:
6. Foundation
7. Synthesis with other materials
8. !-~fl~lysis&..\..dditiorialAnalys~s ".' \. .--, " , : ;,'. c.

, '
ADDIS AiiABA. UNIYERSITY SCHOOL OF, COMMERCE
i . : - -~ , • ." ._ ,. ,; _.•• E,', ' .. ~.• j " ._

!
 r :.
•s " :

.-tR TIeL!:: REI '[Elf' GUIDELl."E

9. General Critique)
10. Further Critique of a Conceptual Article -or- Further Critique of an Empirical Article
II. Issues (in your opinion)
12. Questions
13. Annotated Bibliography

..
14. Citation Analysis Appendix

1. Full Bibliographic Reference

.. ..
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
. .ie article, rather the citation of the article itself!
_.{;-

2. Introduction: Objectives, Article Domain, ~\.;.Jience, Journal and ConceptuaI/Emprica.I

CI~sification {' /
.:..

Paragraph 1: State the objectives (goals or purpose) of the article. What is the article's domain (topic
~ ~ '. ~

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
thaf(.eYii®n~_e,.~a,l\"1");' i the f.lYi H ,.' '.") ~ r:y ~ ~::01 ",'\ r) ('-;.~'.1f"':);tt~. ',Vil r
...._ .
3. Brief Summary

For an article review, do not spend much space summarizing the article. Instead focus on analysis 01
the article.

It1I Thus, in this section, summarize the article only very briefly,
1- • Paragraph 1: what is the problem or opportunity being addressed
• Paragraph 2: which solution is proposed (the solution could be a new model or a theory tint
explains the problem)
• Paragraph 3: what evidence is put forth that this solution is appropriate (If this is an
emp~cal article, be sure to bref1y describe what kind of empirical study was done as;.part J:
the eVIdence)!l . j"
~ 'i

4. Results
~.

Very briefly summarize the important points (observation:s, conclusions, f1ll4iJlgs) in the artice
Please do not repeat lists of items in the articles - JUst summarize the essence of these if you feel th::'
are necessary to l11c1 ude.

" ~ I .;

/.

ADDIS AIWIA CJlNIJ'ERSITY SCHOOL OF CoMMaCE

;.... '; ,; =,
,/

'. ).
, '. r . 1
 ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE

5. Contributions

An article makes a "contribution" by adding to the knowledge of researchers in a research field. An

article can make a contribution to the research field in many ways. Does it provide a new way to
look at a problem? Does it bring together or "synthesize" several concepts (or frameworks, models.
etc.) Jogether in an insightful way that has not been done Qffore? Docs it provide new 'solutions?
Does it provide new results? Does it identify new issues? Does it provide a comprehensive surveyor
review of a domain? Does it provide new insights?

Also, is it salient (relevant and current) to a particular scientific issue or managerial problem? Arc
tt . sues addressed introduced in a way that their releva.. /to practice is evident? Would answers
..ro .e questions raised in the article likely to be useful to...rlF' J.rchers and managers?
~~ f~
Note: Do not discuss the contributions of the technologies the article describes, but rather the
coniibutions of the article itself! The article's coiuributions should be original. Describe each
contribution clearly in a separate paragraph or bullet point. Discuss why the contribution 15
important. Alternatively, if you believe the articl€'~~nakes 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.)

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 :n
your review "This article does not build upon any foundation research." Cr you do not slate this
explicitly, you will not receive creditfor this section.)

7. Synthesis with Class Materials

Synthesis means analyzing a particular topic by comparing and contrasting it with, and tlhinking
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 fmd this
analysis in the article itself

You also could analyze the approach the ~\Jthor took to the article's analysis and discussion. JlJisc~~
the article's approach and results in terms! of one or more of the frameworks, etc .. from the t.':~:\[ ~\~
readings, or any you find elsewhere. As part of this analysis, reference other articles you've rea>i.
. " when appropriate .. Compere-the.approach, results and contribution with all artis.les about similar
topics or with a similar approach. For all of these, do your synthesis comparison in as much d.epth as
you can!

8. Analysis

Note: Many people assume this category is the same as "General Critique". It is not. General Critique is a
different categoryfrom this, and follows below.

." •. ,~.'.~'
.....
,Yhat has chanzed, since
••• ;!- .• ~~ •.• ~~ •. ; ';:';,~~ _'~~'" ...,.. ;-- .. 't::'l,:' ~_ I~,
am
'.;. "-.
t= I e .,w a s writte n?
~ f • _ '. -.
How do- it's. -ideas and theories
. •.•• ".. ,- . ." .
ill- applv}_,.:·.,,',",," .,< .,.-.(:.:~
..
.. ,.:,

le ssons .•

To what extent has its issues. been resolved?

./ ADDIS ABABA UNWERSlTY SCHOOL OF COMMEBa··
ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE
!
 ..f.RTICLE REI'lEW GUIDEliNE

Additional Analysis

Optionally, try applying the article's models, frameworks and guidelines, etc. yourself. Do you find
them useful? In addition, you may optionally add your own additional analysis in a separate
subsection. (Do not repeat the author's analysis in the paper - you could summarize this as part of
the results section.)
",
",

9. General Critique

In this section you should state your opinions of how well (or poorly) the authors did their research
and presented the research resu': !1 the article. Your critique can contain both positive ~.. negative J

comments. Justify and explaiIk'~' detail each of your critique points in a separate pa;_i·. aph of at
least 4-5 sentences. ~ ~.. .. . 'y;

Thi}."'followingare suggesti.us only:

• Does it build ~f:on the appropriate foundation (i.e., upon appropriate l~~or research)?
• Did the authors choose the correct approach, and then execute it properly?
• How confident are you in the article's results, and why?
• 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?
• 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?
• Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases or occurrences?
• 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?
t_:.
• Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations? r ;

Ask yourself these questions when justifying your critique points:

• why /why not?

• how?
• what distinguishes the differences/different approaches, and in what ways?

9.1. Further Critique of a Conceptual Article (only for conceptual articles)

A critique of a conceptual article examines the logic of the arguments made by the authors. Both
strengths and ~/eaknesses should be identified in a critique. Explain an;~justify each of your critique
points in at leist 3-4 sentences. Give examples whenever possible. ~;

~_To the best of your abilities, discuss each of the follo~~g categories in a separate paragraph:
..... : .r=: Ie"

1. LOGICAL CONSISTENCY: Do any parts of the article or research contradict or invalidate other
parts? If50, have the authors acknowledged and explained this adequately?

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, riyal arguments? j _'.'

: ':, .;. " . " I I:" ::, i.~--;"-~.'.!:i . f;" , .'

"\ ..
,;. '. Does' the artiCle flow in a l~gical sequence? DO laterp'arQ'Oiiild logically upon earlier pans?,
. ~ "
ADDIS ABABA. UNTYERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMERCE
./
,i '
 ARTICLE REI·lEW GUIDELINE

3. SUBSTANCE: Docs the article provide an argument or a line of reasoning that offers insight into
important issues, or docs it merely summarize previous studies in a shallow way that docs not reflect
depth of analysis? Docs the article provide ways (a model. framework. guidelines. etc.) to guide
future thinking about the issue(s) the author is addressing?

4. F~CUS: Is there a clear audience that the authors aq,press? Was the article written at the
appropriate level for this audience?

9.2. Further Critique of an Empirical Article (only for empirical articles)

A . itique of an empirical article examines the strength .•.the empirical evidence supporting the
. --.-:¥"- .ior's argument. Both strengths and weaknesses shot!?- be identified in a critique. Explain and .-~.
.~
1'1'J:itify each of your critique points in at least 3-4 senten~L". .- ~.
..
\

.,. . ..
To'the best of your abilities, discuss each of the following categories in a separate paragraph:

1. CLARITY: Is the article's purpose and argu:ment 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?

2. THEORETICAL GROUNDING: Is the researcher's argument grounded in more basic theory? Is

it clear whether the structure of the empirical study (i.e., what they do) was derived from theory, or
just made up? In theory-building articles, is the need for new theory adequately established?

3. DESIGN OF RESEARCH INVESTIGATION: Is it clear exactly how the empirical study was
carried out? Is the design of the research approach (field study, experiments, questionnaires, etc. -
both contents and how they will be used) adequate to address the common threats to internal and
external validity? Have appropriate controls been established, and is the selection of research sites
justified? Are the hyrotheses and experiments, etc., significant? c.

4. MEASUREMENT: Empirical studies can have quantitative measurements (i.e., numeric results)
and qualitative or subjective measurements. Are the measures used adequately described (i.e., what
is measured in the study and how)? Are data on the reliability and validity of these measures
reported? Does the article feel anecdotal or solidly supported with evidence? For example, in case or
field studies, are the results well documented? Is it clear who the subjects were, and with whom
interviews were carried out? Were important results cross-checked, i.e., determined across a range of
subjects or just gotten from one or two subjects?

5. ANALYSIS: Is the analysis of empirical data conducted properly? Do the data conform to the
requirements of any statistical tests used? Are qualitative data adequately described and presented?
~ .~

o ~~
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In discussing the results of the empirical study, do tn,:
authors remain true to the actual fmdings of the study? Are the claims made in the conclusion of the
.. ~-:;-.- -article actually 'supported-by the-empirical data? If the study is exploratory, dr the authors offer
research questions or hypotheses for future research?

7. BLA..SES:Do the biases of the authors affect the design of the research or the interpretation of til!:
results? Are the authors aware of potential biases and the affect on the study?

10. Issues (listed by the author)

What open questions orissueshasthe author stated remain unresolved? Discuss eachin.a Separate
''''-''''''' .".~lparagrap~5_)f,?-.,10,sentenqes •.;Each issue's paragraph should-take-the following ~orm.at: i;"" ".- .,! - ...... , ,_·,t·';: r .»,» : ~.,,'

. , /
 '. . I:' '.. ;-

ARTICLE REnEW GUIDEUNE

• what is the issue?

• why do you believe this is an important issue?
• in what way is it unresolved
• 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 stat= how it was resolved. ..

11. Issues (in your opinion)

List several open questions "r issues which remain unresolved in your opinion? For -xample, what
possible future research q~~-,uons could arise from this artide?Discuss each in a sL;~·.jateparagraph
0[5-10 sentences. Each~;:' c's paragraph should take the following format: . t
what is the is" 'e? <,
• why do you believe this is an important issue?
• in what ~p.y is it unresolved
• suggestions for resolving it

12. Questions

List three insightful questions of your own, arising from this article. Do not ask definitions, but
rather questioristh~itrea1ly make one 'think. , , i," '. ';'1'('· ;' 'j;
. •• . ., ~ : ,". 'l' ,. , .: $ ... " ~ • ,• •

13. Annotated Bibliography

For every item you have cited in your report, you need a full reference and an annotation explaining
it.

1. List the full bibliographic references (authors, title, journal name, volume, issue, year, page
numbers, etc.) for anything you have cited in your review. r
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.
2. Write 2-4 sentences describing the article.
3. Write 2-3 sentences describing why you cited it.

14. Citation Analysis Appendix

If the article has no citations then write in that section "I found no citations in the [Science Citation
Index or the Social Sciences Citation Index or on the Internet]."

Note, ifJt>ur article has more than 20 citations, you only need to ~clude a selection of them:
\\ ~
• State how many citations each index has and the Web search found
. !c-- :"~.:-'-"'- •. List 1-2-.citations foreach yearinwhich !~e article has been cited. Try to include citations.. .. _.10:
from several different journals spread over your selection? Include a citation analysis to see t

who has cited it and how .

... . ;;L ;~- _. ~

", -
.~') ;Jn~I:l; : ;i .
.-,;··~!-·ql:."<'· ~ ! . I

.; . ;', .

'A.DDIS ABABA. ~ SCHOOL OF COMMU.CE

,:". ',' is.:
, ",'