This paper is a critique of a scholarly article (MUST be peer-reviewed) and it will be written in APA Style (needs to be APA 7th edition – at-a-glance resource guide available in Module 2).
Please use 12 pt. Times New Roman, double-spaced.
Target word count = 1000 words.
There’s a Guide to Writing Article CritiquesLinks to an external site. which will help you figure out how to structure your write-up.
NOTE: It is important to recognize the difference between summarizing an article and critiquing it. Summarizing a technical article simply means (a) presenting it in a more concise format and (b) demonstrating understanding of the article. While such a summary will be included as the first part of a critique, it is vital that the article critique include a critical evaluation in the last few paragraphs. You must explain why you do or do not accept the information and/or conclusions in the article.
BONUS MATERIAL:
Reading everything below is optional, but could be helpful if you are looking for further guidance and/or inspiration.
Why Critique a Technical Article?
During the process of critiquing technical articles you increase your own technical writing and interpretation skills, as well as your self-confidence and critical-thinking skills.
Critiquing a technical article also increases your knowledge in the subject area of the article critiqued. When we hear from the the critiques of your peers, you all will eventually come to understand that all scientists and engineers are human beings and that just because something is in print does not necessarily mean it is true or correct.
HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF ASSIGNMENT: Evaluating information sources is critical to the process of academic research. Apply the PARCA test to critically evaluate your sources and determine in what way they might be useful (or not) for your research.
Purpose: What is the purpose of the information? Why does it exist?
Authority: Who is the author, publisher, or source? Are they qualified to write on the topic?
Relevance: Does the information seem relevant and reliable? Would you be comfortable citing this source in a research paper?
Currency: When was the information published, posted, revised, or updated? Does the source contain current information?
Accuracy: Is the information supported by evidence? How reliable or truthful is the content?
DETAILED STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO ASSIGNMENT
Begin by reading through the article. You may need to look up any terms, techniques, reactions, or processes you do not understand. The articles referenced at the end of the article under review can be a good place to start. Textbooks and Google Scholar searches on the subject may also be useful.
Next, evaluate the writing style, organization, and clarity of the article. You do not have to understand everything said in the article to do this step. But you should attempt to distinguish between gaps in your own technical knowledge and poor organization and/or clarity on the author’s part. If you did not understand the article, ask yourself, why not? Consider how the organization and clarity of the article might be improved.
Finally, begin evaluating the content of the article. Start with the abstract and proceed through the conclusions:
The abstract should briefly summarize what was done and why? It should give a complete overview from start to finish.
The introduction should explain the motivation and importance of the research. What is its scientific significance or usefulness/application? The introduction should also demonstrate how the article relates to previously published research and how it is an original contribution.
The materials and methods section should describe all experimental procedures in sufficient detail that they could be reproduced (including sampling, analyses, reaction mechanisms, data manipulation, etc.) Are all experimental procedures included? Are sufficient details supplied?
The results (or findings) section should present all relevant data in easily viewed and understood format(s), including tables and figures as well as text explanations. Interpretation(s) of the data should also be presented. Locate the various representations of the data set(s). Do the tables, figures and discussion of the data agree and complement each other? If data is presented in either tabular or figure format, is it also discussed in the text? Are any interpretations and inferences drawn by the authors supported by the data? Are there other possible interpretations the authors may have missed or ignored?
The conclusion section should summarize what was learned or accomplished by the research presented. Did the conclusions seem valid based on the data presented? Do you believe that the research has scientific value and/or a practical application?
The post During the process of critiquing technical articles you increase your own technical writing and interpretation skills, as well as your self-confidence and critical-thinking skills. appeared first on Skilled Papers.