Using a Scientific Journal Article to Write a

Critical Review

Writing a critical review of a journal article can help to improve your research
skills. By assessing the work of others, you develop skills as a critical reader and
become familiar with the types of evaluation criteria that will be applied to
research in your eld and thus your own research.
You are expected to read the article carefully, analyse it, and evaluate the quality
and originality of the research, as well as its relevance and presentation. Its
strengths and weaknesses are assessed, followed by its overall value. Do not be
confused by the term critique: it does not mean that you only look at the
negative aspects of what the researcher has done. You should address both the
positive and negative aspects.
If your lecturer has given you specic advice on how to write a critical review,
follow that advice. If not, the following steps may help you. These steps are
based on a detailed description of how to analyse and evaluate a research article
provided by Wood (2003) in her lab guide.
This guide is divided into two parts. The rst part, "Researching the Critique,"
outlines the steps involved in selecting and evaluating a research article. The
second part, "Writing your Critique," discusses two possible ways to structure
your critique paper.
A. Researching the Critique
The questions listed under many of the subheadings in this section may provide
you with a good place to begin understanding what you are looking for and what
form your critique might take.
1. Select a Topic
If your lecturer does not assign a topic or a particular article for you to review,
and you must choose a topic yourself, try using a review article from your eld.
Review articles summarize and evaluate current studies (research articles) on a
particular topic. Select a review article on a topic that interests you and that is
written clearly so you can understand it.
2. Select a Research Article
Use the review article to select a research article. This can be very useful in
writing your critique. The review article will provide background information for
your analysis, as well as establishing that the research paper you are critiquing is

signicant: if the paper was not so highly regarded, it would not have been
selected to be reviewed.
When choosing a research article, examine the Materials & Methods section
closely and make sure you have a good grasp of the techniques and methods
used. If you don't, you may have diculty evaluating them.
3. Analyse the Text
Read the article(s) carefully. As you read the article(s) use the following questions
to help you understand how and why the research was carried out.

What is the author's central purpose? Look at INTRODUCTION.

What methods were used to accomplish this purpose (systematic

recording of observations, analysis and evaluation of published research,
assessment of theory)? Look at METHODS.
What were the techniques used? and how was each technique performed?
What kind of data can be obtained using each technique?
How are such data interpreted?
What kind of information is produced by using the technique?

What objective evidence was obtained from the author's eorts

(observations, measurements etc.)? What were the results of the study?
Look at RESULTS.
How was each technique used to obtain each result?
What statistical tests were used to evaluate the signicance of the
conclusions based on numeric or graphic data?
How did each result contribute to answering the question or testing the
hypothesis raised in the introduction?

How were the results interpreted? How were they related to the original
problem (author's view of evidence rather than objective ndings)? Look
at DISCUSSION.
Were the author(s) able to answer the question (test the hypothesis)
raised?
Did the research provide new factual information, a new understanding of
a phenomenon in the eld, a new research technique?
How was the signicance of the work described?
Did the reported observations/interpretations support or refute
observations or interpretations made by other researchers?

(Adapted with permission of Professor Susan Lollis, Family Relations and Applied
Nutrition, University of Guelph. Source of questions in each section Wood, 2003)
4. Establish the Research Context
Once you are reasonably familiar with the article, it is important to gain an
understanding of the research context, both societal and intellectual. To establish
the research context, questions such as the following should be addressed:

Who conducted the research? What were/are their interests?

When and where was the research conducted?

Why did they do this research?

Was this research pertinent only within the authors' geographic locale, or
did it have broader (even global) relevance?

Were many other laboratories pursuing related research when the

reported work was done? If so, why?

For experimental research, what funding sources met the costs of the
research?

Was the selection of the research topic inuenced by the source of

research funding?

On what prior observations was the research based? What was and was
not known at the time?

How important was the research question posed by the researcher?

For more detailed information on how to answer these questions, see Labs 4 and
5 (Wood, 2003).
5. Evaluate the Text
After you have read the article and answered the questions in the previous
section, you should have a good understanding of the research undertaken. You
can now begin to evaluate the author's research. Making judgements about
someone else's work is often the most dicult part of writing the review. Many
students feel that, because they are new to a discipline, they do not have
enough knowledge to make judgements of other people's work.
The following checklist may assist you:
INTRODUCTION

Read the statement of purpose at the end of the introduction. What was
the objective of the study?

Consider the title. Does it precisely state the subject of the paper?

Read the statement of purpose in the abstract. Does it match the one in
the introduction?

Check the sequence of statements in the introduction. Does all the

information lead coherently to the purpose of the study?

METHODS

Review all methods in relation to the objective(s) of the study. Are the
methods valid for studying the problem?

Check the methods for essential information. Could the study be

duplicated from the methods and information given?

Check the methods for aws. Is the sample selection adequate? Is the
experimental design sound?

Check the sequence of statements in the methods. Does all the

information belong there? Is the sequence of methods clear and pertinent?

RESULTS

Examine carefully the data as presented in the tables and diagrams. Does
the title or legend accurately describe the content? Are column headings
and labels accurate? Are the data organized for ready comparison and
interpretation? (A table should be self-explanatory, with a title that
accurately and concisely describes content and column headings that
accurately describe information in the cells.)

Review the results as presented in the text while referring to the data in
the tables and diagrams. Does the text complement, and not simple
repeat, data? Are there discrepancies between the results in the text and
those in the tables?

Check all calculations and presentation of data.

Review the results in light of the stated objectives. Does the study reveal
what the researcher intended?

DISCUSSION

Check the interpretation against the results. Does the discussion merely
repeat the results? Does the interpretation arise logically from the data or
is it too far-fetched? Have the faults/aws/shortcomings of the research
been addressed?

Is the interpretation supported by other research cited in the study?

Does the study consider key studies in the eld?

Are there other research possibilities/directions suggested?

OVERVIEW

Reread the abstract. Does it accurately summarize the article?

Check the structure of the article (rst headings and then paragraphing).
Is all the material organized under the appropriate headings? Are sections
divided logically into subsections or paragraphs?

Are stylistic concerns, logic, clarity and economy of expression addressed?

(adapted from Kuyper, 1991)

6. Establish the Significance of the Research
Finally, it is important to establish whether the research has been successful
has it led to new questions being asked, new ways of using existing knowledge?
Are other researchers citing this paper?
The following questions should be answered:

How did other researchers view the signicance of the research reported
by your authors?

Did the research reported in your article result in the formulation of new
questions or hypotheses (by the authors, by other researchers)?

Have other researchers subsequently supported or refuted the

observations/interpretations of these authors?

Did the research make a signicant contribution to human knowledge?

Did the research produce any practical applications?

What are the social, political, technological, medical implications of this

research?

How do you evaluate the signicance of the research?

To answer these questions look at review articles to nd out how reviewers see
this piece of research. Look at research articles to see how other people have
used this work; what range of journals have cited this article? For more detailed
information on how to answer these questions, see Lab. 8 (Wood, 2003).
B. Writing your Critique
Two possible approaches
You have completed your analysis and evaluation of the journal article. How do
you then put all this information together? If your instructor has not provided a
format for your critique, there are two possible ways you might present it.
Approach (A)
If your instructor is concerned that that the article be clearly situated within the
social and intellectual research context, then you might present it in the
following way:
Introduction
In the introduction, cite the journal article in full and then provide the
background to this piece of research, establishing its place within the eld. Use

the answers to the questions in Establish the Research Context to develop this
section.
Body
Follow the structure of the journal article. Evaluate each section of the article
Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion highlighting the strengths and
weaknesses of each section. Use the answers to the questions in Evaluate the
Text to develop this section.
Conclusion
In this section, sum up the strengths and weaknesses of the research as a whole.
Establish its practical and theoretical signicance. Use the answers to questions
Establish the Signicance of the Research to develop this section.
Approach (B)
Another common way to structure a journal article critique is the following:
Introduction
In the introduction, cite the journal article in full and provide a summary of the
journal article. Use the answers to the questions in the section Analyze the Text
to develop the summary.
Body
Follow the structure of the journal article. Evaluate each section of the article
Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion highlighting the strengths and
weaknesses of each section. Use the answers to the questions in Evaluate the
Text to develop this section.
Conclusion
In this section, sum up the strengths and weaknesses of the research as a whole.
Establish its practical and theoretical signicance. Use the answers to questions
Establish the Signicance of the Research to develop this section.
References
Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research.
Bioscience 41(4), 248-250.
Wood, J.M. (2003).Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and
Development Web Site. Retrieved July 31, 2006,
fromhttp://www.uoguelph.ca/mcb/teaching/micr3260/research_lab/guide.shtml