HOW TO REVIEW A

JOURNAL ARTICLE
Seminar PKKM
PART 1 : READING A TEX ACTIVELY
Step 1 : Familiarize yourself with your
publication’s style guide.
1. Publishing a review :
a. check the journal’s format and style guidelines first
b. Familiarizing yourself with the publication’s standards will give you an idea of how to
evaluate the article and structure your review.
c. Familiarizing yourself with format and style guidelines is especially important if you
haven’t published with that journal in the past. For example, a journal might require
you to recommend an article for publication, meet a certain word count, or provide
revisions that the authors should make.
2. Reviewing a journal article :
a. familiarize yourself the guidelines your instructor provided.
Step 2 : Skim The Article
◦ Skim the article to get a feel for its organization.
◦ First, look through the journal article and try to trace its logic.
◦ Read the title, abstract, and headings to get a feel for how the article is organized.
◦ In this initial, quick skim, identify the question or problem that the article addresses.
Step 3 : Once-over read
◦ Give the article a quick, once-over read.
◦ After a quick skim, read the article from beginning to end to develop an overall
impression.
◦ At this stage, identify the article’s thesis, or main argument, and highlight or underline
where its stated in the introduction and conclusion.
Step 4 : Reread the article and take
notes
◦ After reading it in full, scrutinize the article section by section.
◦ You can print out a copy and write notes and comments in the margins.
◦ If you prefer working with a digital copy, write your notes and comments in a word
document.[2]
◦ While giving the article a closer read, gauge whether and how well the article resolves
its central problem.
◦ Ask yourself, “Is this investigation important, and does it uniquely contribute to its field?”
◦ At this stage, note any terminological inconsistencies, organizational problems, typos,
and formatting issues.
PART 2 : EVALUATING THE ARTICLE
Step 1 : Decide how well the abstract
and introduction map out the article
◦ Examine the abstract and introduction in detail.
◦ Ask yourself the following :
1. How well does the abstract summarize the article, the problem it addresses, its
techniques, results, and significance? For example, you might find that an abstract
describes a pharmaceutical study's topic and skips to results without discussing the
experiment's methods with much detail.
2. Does the introduction map out the article’s structure?
3. Does it clearly lay out the groundwork? A good introduction gives you a clear idea of
what to expect in the coming sections. It might state the problem and hypothesis,
briefly describe the investigation's methods, then state whether the experiment
proved or disproved the hypothesis.
Step 2 : Evaluate the article’s references
and literature review
◦ Most journal articles include a review of existing literature early on and, throughout, cite
previous scholarly work.
◦ Determine if the sources it references are authoritative, how well its literature review
summarizes sources, and whether the sources situate the article in a field of research or
simply drop well-known names.
◦ If necessary, spend some time perusing copies of the article’s sources so you can
better understand the topic’s existing literature.
◦ A good literature review will say something like :
"Smith and Jones, in their authoritative 2015 study, demonstrated that adult men and
women responded favorably to the treatment. However, no research on the topic has
examined the technique's effects and safety in children and adolescents, which is
what we sought to explore in our current work."
Step 3 : Examine the methods
◦ Ask yourself : “Are these methods an appropriate, reasonable means of solving the
problem?”
◦ Imagine other possible ways of setting up an experiment or structuring an investigation,
and note any improvements the authors could have made.
◦ For example, you might observe that subjects in medical study didn’t accurately
represent a diverse population.
Step 4 : Assess how the article presents
data and results
◦ Decide whether tables, diagrams, legends, and other visual aids effectively organize
information.
◦ Do the results and discussion sections clearly summarize and interpret the data?
◦ Are tables and figures purposeful or redundant?
◦ For example, you might find that tables list too much undigested data that the authors
don’t adequately summarize within the text.
Step 5 : Evaluate non-scientific evidence
and analyses
◦ For non-scientific articles, decide how well the article presents the evidence that
supports its argument.
◦ Is the evidence relevant, and does the article convincingly analyze and interpret the
evidence?
◦ For example, if you’re reviewing an art history article, decide whether it analyzes an
artwork reasonably or simply leaps to conclusions.
◦ A reasonable analysis might argue, “The artist was a member of Rembrandt’s
workshop, which is evident in the painting’s dramatic light and sensual texture.”
Step 6 : Assess the writing style
◦ Even if it's meant for a specialized audience, an article’s writing style should be clear,
concise, and correct.
◦ Evaluate style by asking yourself the following:
1. Is the language clear and unambiguous, or does excessive jargon interfere with its
ability to make an argument?
2. Are there places that are too wordy?
3. Can any ideas be stated in a simpler way?
4. Are grammar, punctuation, and terminology correct?
PART 3 : WRITING YOUR REVIEW
Step 1 :Outline your review
◦ Look over the notes you took in your section-by-section evaluation.
◦ Come up with a thesis, then outline how you intend to support your thesis in the body of
your review.
◦ Include specific examples that reference the strengths and weaknesses that you noted
in your evaluation.[
◦ Your thesis and evidence should be constructive and thoughtful.
◦ Point out both strengths and weaknesses, and propose alternative solutions instead of
focusing only on weaknesses.
◦ A good, constructive thesis would be, “The article demonstrates that the drug works
better than a placebo in specific demographics, but future research that includes a
more diverse subject sampling is necessary.”
Step 2 :Write your review’s first draft
◦ After forming a thesis and making an outline, you’re ready to start composing your
review.
◦ While the structure will depend on your publication’s guidelines, you can typically
follow these general guidelines :
1. The introduction summarizes the article and states your thesis.
2. The body provides specific examples from the text that support your thesis.
3. The conclusion summarizes your review, restates your thesis, and offers suggestion for
future research.
Step 3 :Revise your draft before
submitting it
◦ After writing your first draft, check for typos and make sure your grammar and
punctuation are correct.
◦ Try to read your work as if you were someone else.
◦ Is your critique fair and balanced, and do the examples you included support your
argument?[
◦ Make sure your writing is clear, concise, and logical.
◦ If you mention that an article is too verbose, your own writing shouldn’t be full of
unnecessarily complicated terms and sentences.
◦ If possible, have someone familiar with the topic read your draft and offer feedback.
Tugas Review Jurnal
◦ Setelah membaca materi di slide sebelumnya, lakukan review terhadap jurnal berikut :
1. Self-report quality of life measure for people with schizophrenia : the SQLS
2. Personality Pathology Factors Predict Recurrent Major Depressive Disorder in Emerging
Adults
◦ Mahasiswa secara berkelompok (beranggota 2 org) memilih dari 1 artikel dan
melakukan review
◦ Hasil review diupload melalu psyche pada tanggal 1 Maret 2019 pk. 10.00