how to start a critique of a research article

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

• 1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
• 2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
• 3 Article Critique Outline
• 4 Article Critique Formatting
• 5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
• 6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
• 7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
• 8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

• A brief summary of the article .
• A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
• A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

• Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
• Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
• Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
• Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
• Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
• Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
• Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

• The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
• The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
• The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

• Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
• Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
• Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

• Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
• Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
• Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
• Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
• The purpose of the study
• The research question or questions
• The methods used
• The outcomes
• The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
• Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

• Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
• Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
• Use evidence from to support your points.
• Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

• Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

• How to Write It
• Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

• Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
• Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
• Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
• Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

• Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
• Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

• How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
• Did the results support their hypothesis?
• Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.  

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

• As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
• Reading scientific articles can be challenging at first. Remember that this is a skill that takes time to learn but that your skills will become stronger the more that you read.
• Take a rough draft of your paper to your school's writing lab for additional feedback and use your university library's resources.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews .  Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article?   Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles .  Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

• Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
• Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
• Hypothesis or aims of the study
• Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

• What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
• What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
• Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
• Were there any obvious biases?
• If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

• There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
• Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
• The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

• Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Help and Feedback

Publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY
• Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

• Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
• What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
• Was the sample too small to generalize from?
• Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
• How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
• How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
• Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
• Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
• How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
• What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

• << Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

• Writing well

How to write a critique

• Starting well
• How to write an annotated bibliography
• How to write a case study response
• How to write an empirical article
• How to write an essay
• How to write a literature review
• How to write a reflective task
• How to write a report
• Finishing well

Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued.

• Study the work under discussion.
• Make notes on key parts of the work.
• Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work.
• Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.

Example template

There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or Canvas site for guidance from your lecturer. The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one example.

Introduction

Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:

• name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator
• describe the main argument or purpose of the work
• explain the context in which the work was created - this could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience
• have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be - for instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.

Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.

Critical evaluation

This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.

A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.

Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:

• Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
• What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
• What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
• What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
• What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
• How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
• Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?

This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.

To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your evaluation of the work.

This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:

• a statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work
• a summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation was formed
• in some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.

Reference list

Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style to use.

• Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
• Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
• Mainly focused on the critical evaluation of the work?
• Systematically outlined an evaluation of each element of the work to achieve the overall purpose?
• Used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my assessment of elements of the work?
• Formed an overall evaluation of the work, based on critical reading?
• Used a well structured introduction, body and conclusion?
• Used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation; and appropriate referencing style?

Further information

• University of New South Wales: Writing a Critical Review
• University of Toronto: The Book Review or Article Critique

Global links and information

• Referencing and using sources
• Background and development
• Changes to QUT cite|write
• Need more help?
• Current students
• Current staff
• TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12079 (Australian University)
• CRICOS No. 00213J
• ABN 83 791 724 622
• Last modified: 28-May-2024
• Accessibility
• Right to Information
• Feedback and suggestions

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Cite sources with ease

How to Critique an Article Right and Easy

Updated 03 Sep 2024

When an average person thinks about how to critique an article, they usually believe that the purpose is to find all the wrong points and be as critical as possible. Our guide helps to demystify the majority of questions related to the article critique. These basic rules, explanations, and an example can help you learn along. Even if you receive cryptic instructions from your college professor, our article critique guide will make things clearer as you continue!

What is an Article Critique?

In simple terms, an article critique is a type of essay writing where an author should provide sufficient, unbiased, critical evaluation of the article in question. Of course, it will involve at least a brief summary of the contents and information about the author's background (if it is necessary). Yet, it does not have to turn into a listing of the contents! Knowing how to summarize and critique an article means helping your audience see all the key points of the article along with the author's ideas, objectives, or major intentions. The main purpose of every article critique is to reveal the strengths and the weaknesses of the article by keeping the tone neutral in terms of personal considerations. Since it has to be written in formal language with a precise structure, one should follow the general academic pattern where analysis has the beginning or introduction, the body parts, and a strong conclusion that sums things up.

The trick is to read it more than once and describe how it makes you feel through the lens of academic objectives and the general academic value. Speaking of the purpose, composing an article critique, you have to describe the main ideas of the author. Provide a brief description of why it is important in your specific context. Next, remember to mention all the interesting aspects that help to reveal the value of the article. Finally, talk about the author's intention and vision regarding the subject. The final part of the article critique must offer a summary of the main purpose. Learning how to write a critique of an article, remember that your conclusion is the important part where you can let the audience know whether you agree or disagree with the author. It is the place to provide supporting thoughts and references either from the article or another academic source. Need a dissertation service? Try us.

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step?

The writing process of the article critique is simpler than it seems. It is only necessary to know where to start and how to align your critique when you are dealing with complex academic writing. Therefore, follow these simple four steps as you learn how to do an article critique:

• Take Enough Time to Read The Article.  Such an approach is necessary to understand every idea described in your reading material. It may be challenging at times to understand it. Check it again or read it aloud to see if it makes more sense. When in doubt, you can consult similar sources or articles that further explain the subject. Consider the readability and clarity of the article as you criticize it.
• Take Notes.  When the article feels clear to you and you understand (more or less!) what it is about, it is high time to read it again in a bit different way and take notes to help yourself move along. For example, if you encounter something interesting or an argument that moves you, you should consider it as something that is worth being discussed. You can either quote the part or use it as argumentation to prove your point.
• Turn Your Notes Into Outline.  Your notes are there for a reason. You can implement them into your structure and use your points as the topic sentences as you discuss the important parts. As you let your article critique evolve, provide opinions or leave comments to help your audience understand things clearer.
• Your Opinion Comes Here.  This is where you should summarize your thoughts and explain whether you like the article or if it has too many weak and unclear parts. Of course, your ideas should be supported with a piece of clear evidence.

Remember that if you have used any other reference or consulted external information beyond the article in question, always mention it on your Bibliography / References page. Every part of your article critique should be written in a proper way and sometimes qualified dissertation help online is just what you need to keep all your worries aside.

Save your time! We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Learn About Article Critique Format & Structure

Unless it is specified otherwise, your article critique should follow this template:

• Outline.  This is what your introduction should look like since you have to provide background information about the article and explain the author's main points without turning it into a summary. Approach things from the critical point of view.
• Thesis Statement.  Your thesis statement should explain the value of the article or methodology if you are dealing with a research article critique.
• Article's Purpose.  This part is your body paragraphs part where you have to brainstorm the author's ideas and crash-test them against the common knowledge. See what is good, what is insufficient, and what parts are the most important for achieving a certain purpose set by the author.
• Additional References.  If you are dealing with a research article, it may be necessary to consult relevant external research papers to prove the importance and methodology of the article before you explain your opinion.
• Conclusion/Summary With Your Opinion.  The conclusion part of the article critique is usually the most challenging. It is where you have to explain your opinion. The trick is just saying how the article has made you feel, how it has helped you, or what flaws you have found,  always providing relevant evidence.

Without a doubt, you may have to provide a different structure, yet following the structure above is the perfect balance where you express both your findings, opinion, and the general variables. Remember that your article critique must cover not only the negative points that you encounter but the positive discoveries as well.

How to Write an Article Critique: Journal vs Research Article

The major difference between writing a research article critique and dealing with the general journal article is the approach that you have to take. As a rule, research articles represent empirical or primary sources. It means your critique style must consider the introduction provided by the author, the methods that have been used, the samples and surveys, the results of the certain research, and the discussion of the outcomes that have been achieved.

Now dealing with the general review articles that mostly represent secondary sources with an already included synthesis of certain information, you should work with the topic and its importance for the general audience. In other words, the purpose is always different. You should provide more of a summary than the analytical research work. Coming back to the research article critique,try to study the problem and see if the author makes some statement. Then, focus on review of the relevant literature, and hypothesis or research questions set by the author.

Remember to review the Bibliographical information if it is provided and explain whether it poses importance for the review and if all the information mentioned in the article has been properly referenced. Remember you should also provide references for your quotes and references in your article critique in relevant writing style (APA, MLA, or Chicago) to avoid possible plagiarism issues.

The Article Critique Example

As an example of the article, let us take " Contribution of Psychoacoustics and Neuroaudiology in Revealing Correlation of Mental Disorders With Central Auditory Processing Disorders " that has been presented in 2003 by V. Iliadou and S. Lakovides. Below is the short passage, an article critique sample that will help you get an idea of how it’s done:

The article represents interesting and innovative research in the field of Psychoacoustics by focusing not only on the aspects of Neuroaudiology but also dealing with the electrical activity of the auditory pathways. The authors have dealt with the challenges of Central Auditory Processing Disorders, meaning that the article relates to the field of Psychiatry. This particular MEDLINE research has been conducted by turning to over 564 papers to establish the methodology and sufficient samples to maintain the importance of psychoacoustic elements through the lens of neurological or mental disorders. What makes this research special is the use of various tests and experiments that have been done with the help of auditory simulation methods. All the sources provided are properly referenced and offer sufficient background regarding the reasons why particular scientific aspects have been highlighted. The authors provide a unique balance between psychoacoustic and electrophysiologic tests based on the type of lesion chosen. It must be noted that the various types of mental disorders have been taken into consideration to provide well-weighted research. The article meets its purpose of providing varied research based on the works of skilled experts in Psychiatry, Neurology, Neuropsychology, and Pediatric Psychology among other sciences. The value of the article also lies in the importance of addressing numerous learning challenges like dyslexia, ADHD, and autism differently because the auditory aspect is explored at greater depth. Although the educational factor is mentioned briefly as the article is more evidence-based, it leaves enough space for relevant scientific research.

As you can see, the purpose is to explain and show why the article is important and what exactly makes it special. Try offering related evidence from the critique article either with the quotes or by paraphrasing. 

Affordable & Reliable Writing an Article Critique Help

If the concept of article critique still seems too confusing to you or you would like to get your critique assignment checked in terms of clarity, style, or plagiarism, the help is out there. Regardless if you need to learn how to write an article review or struggle with critique writing, we know how to make things easier. Turn to our writers who are ready to help you 24/7. Keep your challenges resolved, meet the deadlines and avoid plagiarism. Just place your order with EduBirdie and let our professionals deal with even the most complex article critique or any other college task.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback, related blog posts, how to write a movie review: tips for aspiring critics.

If you wish to know how to write a movie review, then you are on the right page. A movie review forms part of essays college students writes. While...

Best Capstone Project Ideas for Students across subjects

The most challenging aspect of crafting a top-tier capstone project is often getting started. The initial hurdle involves selecting a strong, impac...

Learn how to write an annotated bibliography to achieve the best grades!

Writing an annotated bibliography is one of academic work's most challenging yet essential parts. This helpful EduBirdie guide will tell you all ab...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Writing a Critique Paper: Seven Easy Steps

Were you assigned or asked by your professor to write a critique paper? It’s easy to write one. Just follow the following four steps in writing a critique paper and three steps in presenting it, then you’re ready to go.

To standardize the format they use in writing a critique paper, I came up with the following steps to make their submissions worthwhile.

Table of Contents

Step-by-step procedure in writing a critique paper.

I quickly wrote this simple guide on writing a critique paper to help you evaluate any composition you want to write about. It could be a book, a scientific article, a gray paper, or whatever your professor assigns. I integrated the essence of the approach in this article.

The critique paper essentially comprises two major parts, namely the:

First, you will need to know the procedure that will guide you in evaluating a paper. Second, the format of the critique paper refers to how you present it so that it becomes logical and scholarly in tone.

The Four Steps in Writing a Critique Paper

Here are the four steps in writing a critique paper:

To write a good critique paper, it pays to adhere to a smooth flow of thought in your evaluation of the piece. You will need to introduce the topic, analyze, interpret, then conclude it.

Introduce the Discussion Topic

Introduce the topic of the critique paper. To capture the author’s idea, you may apply the  5Ws and 1H approach  in writing your technical report.

Here’s a simplified example to illustrate the technique:

The news article by John Doe was a narrative about a bank robbery. Accordingly, a masked man  (Who)  robbed a bank  (What)  the other day  (When)  next to a police station  (Where) . He did so in broad daylight  (How) . He used a bicycle to escape from the scene of the crime  (How) . In his haste, he bumped into a post. His mask fell off; thus, everyone saw his face, allowing witnesses to describe him. As a result, he had difficulty escaping the police, who eventually retrieved his loot and put him in jail because of his wrongdoing  (Why) .

Hence, you give details about the topic, in this case, a bank robbery. Briefly describe what you want to tell your audience. State the overall purpose of writing the piece and its intention.

Analyze means to break down the abstract ideas presented into manageable bits.

What are the main points of the composition? How was it structured? Did the view expressed by the author allow you, as the reader, to understand?

If you want to split a log, what would you do? Do you use an ax, a chainsaw, or perhaps a knife? The last one is out of the question. It’s inappropriate.

Now, you are ready to interpret the article, book, or any composition once the requisites of analysis are in place.

Visualize the event in your mind and interpret the behavior of actors in the bank robbery incident. You have several actors in that bank heist: the robber, the police, and the witnesses of the crime.

Imagine, his mode of escape is a bicycle. What got into him? Maybe he did not plan the robbery at all. Besides, there was no mention that the robber used a gun in the heist.

If we examine the police’s response, they were relatively quick. Right after the robber escaped the crime scene, they appeared to remedy the situation. The robber did not put up a fight.

If we look at the witnesses’ behavior, we can discern that perhaps they willingly informed the police of the bank robber’s details. They were not afraid. And that’s because the robber appears to be unarmed. But there was no specific mention of it.

Assess or Evaluate

Finally, judge whether the article was a worthwhile account after all. Did it meet expectations? Was it able to convey the information most efficiently? Or are there loopholes or flaws that should have been mentioned?

Format of Presenting the Critique Paper

The logical format in writing a critique paper comprises at least three sections: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. This approach is systematic and achieves a good flow that readers can follow.

Introduction

In any scientific article, there is always a thesis that guides the write-up. A thesis is a statement that expresses what the author believes in and tries to test in his study. The investigation or research converges (ideally) to this central theme as the author’s argument.

If you need more information about this, please refer to my previous post titled “ How to Write a Thesis .”

How is the introduction of a critique paper structured? It follows the general guidelines of writing from a broad perspective to more specific concerns or details. See how it’s written here:  Writing a Thesis Introduction: from General to Specific .

This section is similar to the results and discussion portion of a scientific paper. It describes the outcome of your analysis and interpretation.

Besides, who wants to adopt the perspective of an author who has not even got hold of a mobile phone if your paper is about  using mobile phones to facilitate learning during the pandemic caused by COVID-19 ? Find a more recent one that will help you understand the situation.

Objectively examine the major points presented by the author by giving details about the work. How does the author present or express the idea or concept? Is he (or she) convincing the way he/she presents his/her paper’s thesis?

Therefore, always find evidence to support your position. Explain why you agree or disagree with the author. Point out the discrepancies or strengths of the paper.

If you have read up to this point, then thank you for reading my musings. I hope that helped you clarify the steps in writing a critique paper. A well-written critique paper depends on your writing style.

Read More : How to Write an Article with AI: A Guide to Using AI for Article Creation and Refinement

Final Tip : Find a paper that is easy for you to understand. In that way, you can clearly express your thoughts. Write a critique paper that rocks!

Related Reading

Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological bulletin , 105 (1), 51.

Related Posts

Discourse analysis of 20 newspaper advertisements, why are english language proficiency exams important, 10 pointers from one of the winners of a research paper contest, about the author, patrick regoniel.

Dr. Regoniel, a hobbyist writer, served as consultant to various environmental research and development projects covering issues and concerns on climate change, coral reef resources and management, economic valuation of environmental and natural resources, mining, and waste management and pollution. He has extensive experience on applied statistics, systems modelling and analysis, an avid practitioner of LaTeX, and a multidisciplinary web developer. He leverages pioneering AI-powered content creation tools to produce unique and comprehensive articles in this website.

SimplyEducate.Me Privacy Policy

Article Critique

Ai generator.

In the realm of academia and intellectual discourse, the art of critiquing articles holds significant importance. It not only refines one’s skills but also contributes to the growth of knowledge. A well-executed article critique showcases your ability to analyze, evaluate, and engage with scholarly work. This article delves into the concept of article critiques, offering insights into their purpose and benefits, along with a step-by-step guide on how to craft one effectively.

What is an Article Critique?

An article critique is a detailed evaluation and analysis of a scholarly article or research paper . It involves an objective assessment of the author’s arguments, evidence, methodology, and conclusions. An effective critique goes beyond summarizing the content; it delves into the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of the article. Developing this skill allows you to identify the characteristics that contribute to a compelling scholarly work, while also honing your ability to engage critically with academic literature.

Article Critique Format

1. introduction.

• Article Information : Mention the title of the article, the author’s name, the source ( journal , magazine , etc.), and the publication date.
• Thesis Statement : Summarize the main argument or purpose of the article.
• Scope of the Critique : Briefly outline the main points you will discuss in your critique.

2. Summary of the Article

• Main Points : Summarize the key points and arguments presented by the author.
• Purpose and Scope : Explain the purpose of the article and the main topics covered.
• Findings and Conclusions : Highlight the primary findings and conclusions drawn by the author.

3. Critical Analysis

A. structure and organization.

• Introduction : Evaluate the effectiveness of the introduction. Does it set the stage for the article?
• Body : Assess the organization of the main sections. Are the arguments and evidence presented logically?
• Conclusion : Examine the conclusion. Does it effectively summarize the article and provide closure?

b. Content and Arguments

• Clarity : Determine if the article is clear and easy to understand.
• Evidence : Analyze the evidence used to support the arguments. Is it relevant and convincing?
• Consistency : Check for logical consistency in the arguments.

c. Research Methodology

• Approach : Evaluate the research methods used in the article. Are they appropriate for the research question ?
• Data Collection : Assess the reliability and validity of the data collection methods.
• Analysis : Examine the thoroughness and accuracy of the data analysis .

d. Writing Style

• Tone : Assess the appropriateness of the tone for the target audience.
• Language : Evaluate the use of language. Is it precise and concise?
• Grammar and Syntax : Check for grammatical correctness and syntactical clarity.

e. Contribution to the Field

• Originality : Determine the originality of the article. Does it offer new insights?
• Impact : Assess the potential impact of the article on the field. Does it advance knowledge or understanding?

4. Personal Response

• Strengths : Identify the strengths of the article. What did the author do well?
• Weaknesses : Point out the weaknesses or areas for improvement.
• Overall Impression : Provide your overall impression of the article.

5. Conclusion

• Summary : Summarize your main points of critique.
• Recommendation : Offer any recommendations for future research or improvements to the article.

6. References

• Citation : Provide a full citation of the article in the appropriate format (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).
• Additional Sources : Include citations for any additional sources referenced in your critique.

Examples of Article Critique For Students

Psychology article critique.

Reference: Smith, J. A., & Brown, R. L. (2022). The impact of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance. Journal of Psychological Research , 34(2), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1001/jpsychres.2022.01.001 Introduction In their article “The Impact of Sleep Deprivation on Cognitive Performance,” Smith and Brown (2022) examine the effects of sleep deprivation on various cognitive functions. The authors aim to highlight the importance of adequate sleep for maintaining cognitive health and performance. Summary Smith and Brown (2022) conducted a series of cognitive tests on participants who were sleep-deprived for 24 hours. The results indicated significant declines in memory retention, attention span, and problem-solving skills among the sleep-deprived group. The article also discusses potential long-term consequences of chronic sleep deprivation on brain health. Critique Smith and Brown (2022) provide compelling evidence linking sleep deprivation to cognitive decline. Their methodology is robust, featuring a well-defined participant group and controlled variables. However, the study’s sample size is relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the article does not sufficiently explore potential confounding factors, such as stress and caffeine intake, which could influence cognitive performance. Conclusion Overall, Smith and Brown (2022) effectively underscore the critical role of sleep in cognitive health. Despite some methodological limitations, their findings contribute valuable insights to the field of sleep research. Future studies should aim to address the identified limitations to strengthen the generalizability and applicability of the results.

Education Article Critique

Reference: Johnson, L. M., & White, P. D. (2023). The impact of technology integration on student learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology , 29(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeduc.2023.01.002 Introduction In the article “The Impact of Technology Integration on Student Learning Outcomes,” Johnson and White (2023) explore how incorporating digital tools and resources in the classroom affects students’ academic performance. The authors aim to identify both the benefits and challenges of technology integration in education. Summary Johnson and White (2023) evaluate various forms of technology integration, including interactive whiteboards, educational software, and online resources. They analyze the effects of these tools on student engagement, motivation, and achievement across different subjects and grade levels. The study presents data from several schools that have implemented these technologies, showing improvements in test scores and classroom participation. Critique The article by Johnson and White (2023) provides a comprehensive analysis of the positive impacts of technology on student learning. The use of multiple case studies strengthens the validity of their conclusions. However, the study’s focus on urban schools may not reflect the experiences of students in rural or underfunded schools, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the reliance on short-term data does not capture the long-term effects of technology integration on student learning. Conclusion Johnson and White (2023) make a compelling case for the positive impact of technology on student learning outcomes. While the article effectively demonstrates the benefits of digital tools, addressing the identified limitations would provide a more comprehensive understanding of technology integration in education. Future research should focus on long-term effects, diverse educational settings, and the challenges of teacher training and equitable access to technology.

Business Article Critique

Reference: Davis, K. L., & Roberts, J. H. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and business success: A review of recent research. Journal of Business Ethics , 38(4), 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbuseth.2021.02.003 Introduction In their article “Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Success: A Review of Recent Research,” Davis and Roberts (2021) explore how corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives impact business performance. The authors aim to demonstrate the benefits of CSR in enhancing corporate reputation and customer loyalty. Summary Davis and Roberts (2021) review several studies that analyze the outcomes of CSR initiatives across different industries. The article highlights positive correlations between CSR activities and financial performance, as well as improvements in brand reputation and customer satisfaction. The authors also discuss the potential challenges businesses face when implementing CSR programs. Critique Davis and Roberts (2021) provide a thorough review of the literature on CSR and its impact on business success. The article effectively synthesizes findings from various studies, supporting their argument that CSR can be beneficial for companies. However, the article could be improved by including more critical perspectives on CSR, such as potential drawbacks or instances where CSR initiatives have failed. Additionally, the authors do not provide detailed guidelines on how companies can measure the effectiveness of their CSR efforts. Conclusion Overall, Davis and Roberts (2021) make a strong case for the positive impact of CSR on business success. Their review underscores the importance of socially responsible practices in building a positive corporate image and achieving long-term profitability. Future research should address the limitations noted, particularly by exploring the challenges and failures of CSR initiatives and providing actionable metrics for evaluating their success.

Health Sciences Article Critique

Reference: Nguyen, M. T., & Kim, H. S. (2020). The effects of a plant-based diet on cardiovascular health: A systematic review. Journal of Nutritional Science , 17(3), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutrsci.2020.03.005 Introduction In the article “The Effects of a Plant-Based Diet on Cardiovascular Health: A Systematic Review,” Nguyen and Kim (2020) investigate the impact of plant-based diets on heart disease prevention and management. The authors aim to provide evidence supporting dietary recommendations for cardiovascular health. Summary Nguyen and Kim (2020) review multiple studies comparing the cardiovascular outcomes of individuals on plant-based diets versus those on omnivorous diets. Their findings suggest that plant-based diets are associated with lower cholesterol levels, reduced blood pressure, and decreased incidence of heart disease. The authors discuss potential mechanisms, such as reduced intake of saturated fats and increased consumption of fiber and antioxidants. Critique Nguyen and Kim (2020) present a comprehensive review of the cardiovascular benefits of plant-based diets. The inclusion of various studies strengthens the validity of their conclusions. However, the review would benefit from a more balanced discussion of potential challenges, such as the risk of nutrient deficiencies and the social and cultural barriers to adopting a plant-based diet. Additionally, the article focuses primarily on short-term studies, and more research on the long-term sustainability of these diets is needed. Conclusion Overall, Nguyen and Kim (2020) provide strong evidence supporting the cardiovascular benefits of plant-based diets. Their systematic review contributes valuable insights to the field of nutritional science. Future research should address the limitations identified, particularly regarding long-term sustainability and potential challenges in adhering to plant-based diets.

Social Sciences Article Critique

Reference: Lopez, G. R., & Thompson, S. L. (2021). Urban poverty and social policy: Examining the effectiveness of welfare programs. Journal of Social Policy , 43(2), 180-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.04.007 Introduction In the article “Urban Poverty and Social Policy: Examining the Effectiveness of Welfare Programs,” Lopez and Thompson (2021) analyze the impact of various welfare programs on reducing urban poverty. The authors aim to assess the effectiveness of these programs in improving the socioeconomic conditions of urban populations. Summary Lopez and Thompson (2021) evaluate several welfare programs, including food assistance, housing subsidies, and employment training initiatives. Their analysis reveals mixed outcomes, with some programs showing significant positive effects on poverty reduction, while others have minimal impact. The authors discuss factors contributing to these varied results, such as program design, implementation quality, and participant engagement. Critique Lopez and Thompson (2021) provide a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of welfare programs in addressing urban poverty. The article’s strength lies in its comprehensive evaluation of multiple programs and consideration of various influencing factors. However, the study relies on data from a limited number of cities, which may not be representative of broader urban contexts. Additionally, the authors could have included more qualitative data to provide deeper insights into the lived experiences of program participants. Conclusion Overall, Lopez and Thompson (2021) offer valuable insights into the effectiveness of welfare programs in reducing urban poverty. Their findings highlight the need for well-designed and effectively implemented programs to achieve meaningful poverty reduction. Future research should aim to include a more diverse range of urban settings and incorporate qualitative data to enrich the understanding of program impacts.

Examples of Thesis Statements for Article Critiques

Psychology article critique thesis statements.

• “The article successfully links mindfulness practices to reduced anxiety levels, yet it overlooks the potential variability in individual responses, which could affect the generalizability of the results.”
• “While the study provides significant insights into the effects of social media on adolescent self-esteem, its cross-sectional design limits the ability to infer causality.”

Literature Article Critique Thesis Statements

• “The article provides a nuanced analysis of the themes of isolation in ‘Frankenstein,’ but its limited engagement with contemporary critical perspectives reduces its impact.”
• “Although the article offers a compelling interpretation of symbolism in ‘Moby Dick,’ its narrow focus on literary devices neglects the broader socio-political context of the novel.”

Business Article Critique Thesis Statements

• “The article effectively highlights the benefits of agile project management in tech startups, but it fails to consider the potential downsides, such as the risk of scope creep and resource strain.”
• “Despite presenting a well-researched argument for the advantages of remote work, the article’s lack of empirical data on long-term productivity effects weakens its conclusions.”

Health Sciences Article Critique Thesis Statements

• “The article convincingly argues for the role of gut microbiota in mental health, though it would benefit from a more thorough exploration of the mechanisms underlying this relationship.”
• “While the study provides strong evidence for the benefits of intermittent fasting on metabolic health, its reliance on short-term studies limits the understanding of long-term effects.”

Education Article Critique Thesis Statements

• “The article makes a strong case for the use of gamification in education to enhance student motivation, yet it neglects to address potential challenges related to accessibility and equity.”
• “Despite effectively demonstrating the positive impacts of project-based learning on student engagement, the article lacks consideration of the additional resources and training required for successful implementation.”

Environmental Science Article Critique Thesis Statements

• “The article offers a comprehensive review of the impacts of deforestation on climate change, but it would be strengthened by incorporating more case studies from diverse geographic regions.”
• “While the article effectively discusses the potential of urban green spaces to mitigate air pollution, it underestimates the complexities of urban planning and maintenance costs.”

Social Sciences Article Critique Thesis Statements

• “The article provides valuable insights into the influence of cultural norms on gender roles, but its limited geographic focus restricts the applicability of its findings to a global context.”
• “Although the study sheds light on the relationship between economic inequality and crime rates, its reliance on correlational data makes it difficult to draw definitive causal conclusions.”

Example of Article Critique About Education

Article Title : The Impact of Technology Integration on Student Learning Outcomes Introduction The article “The Impact of Technology Integration on Student Learning Outcomes” investigates how the use of digital tools and resources in the classroom influences students’ academic performance. The research aims to identify the benefits and potential drawbacks of incorporating technology into educational settings. Summary The study evaluates various forms of technology integration, including interactive whiteboards, educational software, and online resources. It examines their effects on student engagement, motivation, and achievement across different subjects and grade levels. The article presents data from several schools that have implemented these technologies, showcasing improvements in test scores and classroom participation. Critique The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the positive impacts of technology on student learning. The use of multiple case studies strengthens the validity of its conclusions. However, the article could improve by addressing some critical aspects: Sample Size and Diversity : The study primarily focuses on schools in urban areas, which may not reflect the experiences of students in rural or underfunded schools. Expanding the sample size to include a more diverse range of schools would enhance the generalizability of the findings. Longitudinal Data : The research relies heavily on short-term data, which may not capture the long-term effects of technology integration on student learning. Longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the sustained impact of these tools. Teacher Training and Support : While the article highlights the benefits of technology, it overlooks the challenges teachers face in integrating these tools effectively. Providing adequate training and ongoing support is crucial for the successful implementation of technology in the classroom. Equity and Access : The article briefly mentions the digital divide but does not delve into how disparities in access to technology can affect educational outcomes. A more thorough examination of equity issues would provide a balanced perspective on the advantages and limitations of technology integration. Conclusion Overall, the article makes a compelling case for the positive impact of technology on student learning outcomes. It effectively demonstrates how digital tools can enhance engagement and academic performance. However, to provide a more comprehensive understanding, future research should address the limitations identified, particularly regarding sample diversity, long-term effects, teacher support, and equity issues. By doing so, the research could offer more actionable insights for policymakers and educators striving to harness the full potential of technology in education.

More Examples & Samples Article Critique in PDF

1. quantitative article critique.

2. Article Critique Guidelines

4. Critiquing Research Articles

4. Article Review & Critiques

5. Instructions for Article Critiques

6. Critique of an Academic Article

7. Critique and Review of Research Articles

8. Article Critique Assignment

9. Book Review or Article Critique

10. Press Article Critique

Purpose of Article Critique

An article critique serves multiple essential purposes in both academic and professional contexts. Below, we delve into the primary objectives of conducting an article critique, which are vital for developing critical thinking, analytical skills, and subject-specific knowledge.

1. Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Critical Evaluation:

• Encourages students and professionals to go beyond surface-level reading.
• Promotes a deeper understanding of the material by questioning the validity and reliability of the arguments presented.

Analytical Reasoning:

• Helps in identifying logical fallacies, biases, and unsupported claims.
• Facilitates the assessment of evidence and methodologies used in the article.

2. Enhancing Understanding of Subject Matter

In-Depth Analysis:

• Requires a thorough examination of the article’s content, including the main arguments, evidence, and conclusions.
• Enhances comprehension of complex concepts and theories within a specific field.

Contextual Awareness:

• Places the article within the broader context of existing literature.
• Identifies gaps in the research and suggests areas for further investigation.

3. Improving Academic Writing Skills

Structured Writing:

• Teaches students how to organize their thoughts coherently.
• Develops skills in writing clear, concise, and structured critiques.

Evidence-Based Arguments:

• Encourages the use of evidence to support evaluations and opinions.
• Helps in the practice of citing sources correctly and ethically.

4. Facilitating Peer Review and Feedback

Constructive Criticism:

• Provides a framework for giving and receiving constructive feedback.
• Enhances collaborative learning by engaging in discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of an article.

Quality Assurance:

• Plays a crucial role in academic publishing and professional fields by ensuring the quality and credibility of published work.
• Helps maintain high standards in research and scholarship.

5. Encouraging Lifelong Learning

Continual Improvement:

• Fosters a habit of continuous learning and improvement.
• Keeps individuals updated with the latest research, trends, and advancements in their field.

Adaptability:

• Prepares students and professionals to adapt to new information and changing paradigms.
• Cultivates a mindset that is open to questioning and re-evaluating established knowledge.

Components of an Article Critique

An effective article critique includes several key components to ensure a thorough evaluation and analysis. Below are the main components:

• Provide an overview of the article.
• Introduce the main thesis and key points.

Components:

• Title and Author: State the article’s title and author.
• Publication Details: Include publication name, date, etc.
• Thesis Statement: Summarize the article’s main argument.
• Purpose of the Critique: Explain your objective.
• Summarize the article’s content.
• Main Points: Highlight key arguments.
• Methodology: Describe research methods briefly.
• Findings and Conclusions: Outline main findings and conclusions.

3. Analysis

• Critically examine the article’s structure, content, and logic.
• Structure and Organization: Evaluate clarity and coherence.
• Content Evaluation: Assess relevance and depth.
• Argumentation: Analyze logical flow and evidence strength.
• Methodology: Critique research methods and identify biases.
• Sources and References: Evaluate quality and relevance of cited sources.

4. Evaluation

• Assess the article’s overall contribution.
• Strengths: Highlight strengths such as originality and depth.
• Weaknesses: Identify weaknesses like gaps and biases.
• Contribution to the Field: Discuss the article’s impact.
• Summarize the critique and provide final thoughts.
• Summary of Evaluation: Recap key points.
• Overall Assessment: Provide a final judgment.
• Recommendations: Suggest future research or improvements.
• List sources cited in your critique.
• Citations: Format according to the appropriate style (e.g., APA, MLA).

How to Write an Article Critique

Mastering the art of crafting an effective article critique requires a systematic approach. Here is a step-by-step guide to help you navigate this process with finesse.

Step 1: Reading and Observation

Before diving into the critique, thoroughly read the article. Take notes on the main points, observation ,  objectives , and tone of the article. Identify the author’s goals and the case study , if applicable. This step is crucial for grasping the nuances of the work.

Step 2: Analyzing Structure and Content

Evaluate the structure of the article. Identify the introduction, main arguments, supporting evidence, and conclusion. Examine the use of verbs and analogies , as well as the cause-and-effect relationships presented. Analyze how effectively the author communicates their ideas.

Step 3: Assessing Methodology and Evidence

Scrutinize the methodology used by the author. Is it appropriate for the objectives of the article? Evaluate the quality and relevance of the evidence presented. Consider whether the evidence supports the author’s claims adequately.

Step 4: Critical Evaluation

Engage in a critical evaluation of the article. Identify its strengths and weaknesses. Does the author effectively address counterarguments? Are there any gaps in the logic? Assess the overall coherence and effectiveness of the article’s presentation.

Why is article critique important?

It develops critical thinking, enhances understanding of the subject, improves academic writing skills, and provides constructive feedback.

What are the main components of an article critique?

Introduction, Summary, Analysis, Evaluation, Conclusion, and References.

How do I start an article critique?

Begin with an introduction that provides the article’s title, author, publication details, and a brief summary of its thesis and purpose.

What should be included in the summary?

Key points, research methods, findings, and conclusions of the article.

How do I analyze an article?

Examine the structure, content, logic, argumentation, methodology, and sources for clarity, relevance, and evidence strength.

What makes a good evaluation?

Balanced assessment of the article’s strengths and weaknesses, and its contribution to the field.

How should I conclude an article critique?

Summarize your findings, provide an overall assessment, and offer suggestions for improvement or future research.

How do I cite sources in an article critique?

Follow the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA) and ensure all references are correctly formatted.

What are common pitfalls to avoid in an article critique?

Avoid biased or overly negative reviews, lack of evidence for claims, and failure to provide a balanced perspective.

How can I ensure my critique is objective?

Use evidence to support your points, acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses, and avoid personal biases.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Writing Critiques

Writing a critique involves more than pointing out mistakes. It involves conducting a systematic analysis of a scholarly article or book and then writing a fair and reasonable description of its strengths and weaknesses. Several scholarly journals have published guides for critiquing other people’s work in their academic area. Search for a  “manuscript reviewer guide” in your own discipline to guide your analysis of the content. Use this handout as an orientation to the audience and purpose of different types of critiques and to the linguistic strategies appropriate to all of them.

Types of critique

Article or book review assignment in an academic class.

Text: Article or book that has already been published Audience: Professors Purpose:

• to demonstrate your skills for close reading and analysis
• to show that you understand key concepts in your field
• to learn how to review a manuscript for your future professional work

Published book review

Text: Book that has already been published Audience: Disciplinary colleagues Purpose:

• to describe the book’s contents
• to summarize the book’s strengths and weaknesses
• to provide a reliable recommendation to read (or not read) the book

Manuscript review

Text: Manuscript that has been submitted but has not been published yet Audience: Journal editor and manuscript authors Purpose:

• to provide the editor with an evaluation of the manuscript
• to recommend to the editor that the article be published, revised, or rejected
• to provide the authors with constructive feedback and reasonable suggestions for revision

Language strategies for critiquing

For each type of critique, it’s important to state your praise, criticism, and suggestions politely, but with the appropriate level of strength. The following language structures should help you achieve this challenging task.

Offering Praise and Criticism

A strategy called “hedging” will help you express praise or criticism with varying levels of strength. It will also help you express varying levels of certainty in your own assertions. Grammatical structures used for hedging include:

Modal verbs Using modal verbs (could, can, may, might, etc.) allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This text is inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field. This text may be inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field.

Qualifying adjectives and adverbs Using qualifying adjectives and adverbs (possible, likely, possibly, somewhat, etc.) allows you to introduce a level of probability into your comments. Compare:

Readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will probably find the theoretical model somewhat difficult to understand completely.

Note: You can see from the last example that too many qualifiers makes the idea sound undesirably weak.

Tentative verbs Using tentative verbs (seems, indicates, suggests, etc.) also allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This omission shows that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission indicates that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission seems to suggest that the authors are not aware of the current literature.

Offering suggestions

Whether you are critiquing a published or unpublished text, you are expected to point out problems and suggest solutions. If you are critiquing an unpublished manuscript, the author can use your suggestions to revise. Your suggestions have the potential to become real actions. If you are critiquing a published text, the author cannot revise, so your suggestions are purely hypothetical. These two situations require slightly different grammar.

Unpublished manuscripts: “would be X if they did Y” Reviewers commonly point out weakness by pointing toward improvement. For instance, if the problem is “unclear methodology,” reviewers may write that “the methodology would be more clear if …” plus a suggestion. If the author can use the suggestions to revise, the grammar is “X would be better if the authors did Y” (would be + simple past suggestion).

The tables would be clearer if the authors highlighted the key results. The discussion would be more persuasive if the authors accounted for the discrepancies in the data.

Published manuscripts: “would have been X if they had done Y” If the authors cannot revise based on your suggestions, use the past unreal conditional form “X would have been better if the authors had done Y” (would have been + past perfect suggestion).

The tables would have been clearer if the authors had highlighted key results. The discussion would have been more persuasive if the authors had accounted for discrepancies in the data.

Note: For more information on conditional structures, see our Conditionals handout .

Make a Gift

How to Write Critical Reviews

When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.

Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

Understanding the Assignment

To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.

Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.

Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!

Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.

Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.

Write the introduction

Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.

If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.

Explain relationships

For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.

Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.

In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.

Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).

As you write, consider the following questions:

• Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
• Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
• What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
• What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?

Provide an overview

In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.

Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.

The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.

• What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
• How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?

Write the body

The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.

Organize using a logical plan

Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:

• First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
• Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

• What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
• What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
• Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
• Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
• Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.

Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.

And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.

Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.

Write the conclusion

You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.

You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.

Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.

Consider the following questions:

• Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
• How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
• How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
• What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Editing and Style

How to Critique an Article

Last Updated: September 9, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Richard Perkins and by wikiHow staff writer, Christopher M. Osborne, PhD . Richard Perkins is a Writing Coach, Academic English Coordinator, and the Founder of PLC Learning Center. With over 24 years of education experience, he gives teachers tools to teach writing to students and works with elementary to university level students to become proficient, confident writers. Richard is a fellow at the National Writing Project. As a teacher leader and consultant at California State University Long Beach's Global Education Project, Mr. Perkins creates and presents teacher workshops that integrate the U.N.'s 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the K-12 curriculum. He holds a BA in Communications and TV from The University of Southern California and an MEd from California State University Dominguez Hills. There are 8 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 936,744 times.

A critique of an article is the objective analysis of a literary or scientific piece, with emphasis on whether or not the author supported the main points with reasonable and applicable arguments based on facts. It's easy to get caught up in simply summarizing the points of an article without truly analyzing and challenging it. A good critique demonstrates your impressions of the article, while providing ample evidence to back up your impressions. As the critic, take time to read carefully and thoughtfully, prepare your arguments and evidence, and write clearly and cogently.

Reading Actively

• What is the author's thesis/argument?
• What is the author's purpose in arguing said thesis?
• Who is the intended audience? Does the article effectively reach this audience?
• Does the author have ample and valid evidence?
• Are there any holes in the author's argument?
• Did the author misrepresent evidence or add bias to evidence?
• Does the author reach a conclusive point?

• For example, you could underline important passages, circle confusing ones, and star inconsistencies.
• Creating a legend with assigned symbols allows you to quickly mark up an article. Though it may take a little bit of time to recognize your own symbols, they will quickly become ingrained in your mind and allow you to breeze through an article much quicker than without a symbol legend.

• Don't be foolish enough to think that you will remember your idea when it comes time to write your critique.
• Spend the necessary time writing down your observations as you read. You will be glad you did when it comes time to put your observations into a complete analytical paper.

• Make a list of possible sources of evidence for your critique. Jog your memory for any literature you've read or documentaries you've seen that might be useful for evaluating the article.

Gathering Evidence

• Even if an author has done research and quoted respected experts, analyze the message for its practicality and real world application.

• Bias includes ignoring contrary evidence, misappropriating evidence to make conclusions appear different than they are, and imparting one's own, unfounded opinions on a text. Well-sourced opinions are perfectly OK, but those without academic support deserve to be met with a skeptical eye.
• Bias can also come from a place of prejudice. Note any biases related to race, ethnicity, gender, class, or politics.

• Note any inconsistencies between your interpretation of a text and the author's interpretation of a text. Such conflict may bear fruit when it comes time to write your review.
• See what other scholars have to say. If several scholars from diverse backgrounds have the same opinion about a text, that opinion should be given more weight than an argument with little support.

• These aspects of an article can reveal deeper issues in the larger argument. For example, an article written in a heated, overzealous tone might be ignoring or refusing to engage with contradictory evidence in its analysis.
• Always look up the definitions of unfamiliar words. A word's definition can completely change the meaning of a sentence, especially if a particular word has several definitions. Question why an author chose one particular word instead of another, and it might reveal something about their argument.

• Does the author detail the methods thoroughly?
• Is the study designed without major flaws?
• Is there a problem with the sample size?
• Was a control group created for comparison?
• Are all of the statistical calculations correct?
• Would another party be able to duplicate the experiment in question?
• Is the experiment significant for that particular field of study?

• While there is no such thing as too much good evidence, over-sourcing can also be a problem if your arguments become repetitive. Make sure each source provides something unique to your critique.
• Additionally, don't allow your use of sources to crowd out your own opinions and arguments.

• If you do agree entirely with the author, therefore, make sure to build upon the argument either by providing additional evidence or complicating the author's idea.
• You can provide contradictory evidence to an argument while still maintaining that a particular point of view is the correct one.
• Don't “take it easy” on the author due to misguided empathy; but neither should you be excessively negative in an attempt to prove your critical bona fides. Forcefully express your defensible points of agreement and disagreement.

Formatting Your Critique

• Be sure to include the name of the author, article title, the journal or publication the article appeared in, the publication date, and a statement about the focus and/or thesis of the article in your introductory paragraph(s).
• The introduction is not the place to provide evidence for your opinions. Your evidence will go in the body paragraphs of your critique.
• Be bold in your introductory assertions and make your purpose clear right off the bat. Skirting around or not fully committing to an argument lessens your credibility.

• Begin each body paragraph with a topic sentence that summarizes the content of the paragraph to come. Don't feel like you have to condense the entire paragraph into the topic sentence, however. This is purely a place to transition into a new or somehow different idea.
• End each body paragraph with a transitional sentence that hints at, though does not explicitly state, the content of the paragraph coming next. For example, you might write, "While John Doe shows that the number of cases of childhood obesity is rising at a remarkable rate in the U.S., there are instances of dropping obesity rates in some American cities." Your next paragraph would then provide specific examples of these anomalous cities that you just claimed exist.

• You might, for instance, utilize a counterargument, in which you anticipate a critique of your critique and reaffirm your position. Use phrases like “Admittedly,” “It is true that,” or “One might object here” to identify the counterargument. Then, answer these possible counters and turn back to your strengthened argument with “but,” “yet,” or “nevertheless.”

• While writing “This piece of garbage is an insult to historians everywhere” might garner attention, “This article falls short of the standards for scholarship in this area of historical study” is more likely to be taken seriously by readers.

• Are there broad implications for the field of study being assessed, or does your critique simply attempt to debunk the messy work of another scholar?
• Do your best to make a lasting mark on the reader in the conclusion by using assertive language to demonstrate the importance of your work: “Challenging the claims of such a distinguished scholar is no easy or enjoyable task, but it is a task we all must agree to do for our generation and those to follow.”

Sample Critique

Expert Q&A

• Avoid style-based critiques that include comments such as "I liked it" or "It was written poorly." Instead, focus on the content of the article. Thanks Helpful 18 Not Helpful 4
• Avoid summarizing the article at all costs. It is better to write a shorter critique than to attempt to fill up blank space with boring summation. Thanks Helpful 19 Not Helpful 5
• Write your critique in the third person and present tense, unless the style indicates another preference. Always review the style guidelines prior to starting to write. Thanks Helpful 40 Not Helpful 8
• Write with confidence and bold assertion. Thanks Helpful 30 Not Helpful 11
• Always proofread your written work at least twice before turning it in to your professor, boss, or publisher. Thanks Helpful 32 Not Helpful 13

You Might Also Like

• ↑ Richard Perkins. Writing Coach & Academic English Coordinator. Expert Interview. 1 September 2021.
• ↑ https://libguides.uta.edu/literarycriticism/steps
• ↑ https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/writinghandbook/chapter/chapter-1/
• ↑ https://www.jmu.edu/uwc/files/link-library/CritiqueHandout.pdf
• ↑ https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/hypothesis-testing/
• ↑ https://libguides.uwgb.edu/bias
• ↑ http://www.uis.edu/ctl/wp-content/uploads/sites/76/2013/03/Howtocritiqueajournalarticle.pdf
• ↑ https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/science-of-biology/a/the-science-of-biology

About This Article

To critique an article, first read it and take notes on the author's overall argument to help you develop a preliminary opinion. Then go back through the article to look for evidence that supports your position. Ask whether the author’s logic make sense, for example, or if they demonstrate any bias in their writing. Look at any claims the author makes about other texts, then read those texts yourself to see if the author's points are valid. For more information on critiquing an article, like including a counterargument, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Nov 5, 2017

Did this article help you?

Nov 16, 2017

Sanaa Hassane

May 30, 2017

Rose Ann Salceda

Jan 9, 2017

Chandler Lewis

Dec 30, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

How to Critique a Journal Article

Most scholars and practitioners are passionate about learning how to critique a journal article. Journal article critique is a formal evaluation of a journal article or any type of literary or scientific content. As a careful, complete examination of a study, journal article critique judges the strengths, weaknesses, logical links, meanings and significance of the content presented in an article. The core aim of performing a journal article critique is to show whether or not the arguments and facts that the author provided are reasonable to support their main points. A writer of a journal article critique is expected to identify a scientific article and subject it to a critical discussion based on their point of view, but following a set of conventional guidelines.

Features of a Good Article Critique

When doing a journal article, you are expected to do the following for each section of a research article :

• Explain what was done right with evidence from the journal article being critiqued.
• Explain what was not done right, possible reasons, and what ought to have been done.
• Explain what you think could have been done or what you could do to make it better.
• Given a brief recommendation for future researchers.

What this means is that you must first of all know exactly the nature of structure and content that you expect from a journal article. Without this knowledge, it will be difficult to critique a journal article and write a quality piece of writing from it. Having done these, your journal article critique will reflect the following characteristics.

i). It should have a unique opinion discussion

Article critique does not represent a simple summary of an article. Most students make a mistake of writing a mere summary of the research article after they read it. It is worth noting that journal articles already have summaries and that is not what readers actually want, but a unique opinion and discussion is what counts as a quality journal article critique.  

ii). Evidence

As a writer, you are not expected to provide just your impressions of the article, but also evidence that sets expressions as well. Of course you are not asked to write a new content, but as you write your viewpoint of it, it is critical to support them with evidence.

iii). Identification of the Main Idea

Ensure that you identify the main idea of the article. Each journal article is published to transmit a specific idea that gives it a purpose. Furthermore, remember to clarify the background and significance.

iv). Dual Direction

Do not focus only on the issues that a given article has raised, but also give attention to the important issues that it has left out. There could some content or explanations that you could expect a journal article to present, but that was left out. Explain it and tell the difference it could have caused.

Areas of Journal Article Critique

Article critique fundamentally focuses on evaluating all the sections of a an article to determine its consistency with the scientific research and writing standards. Thus, each section of an article is subjected to critique as follows:

Introduction

• Check the extent to which the title of the article interest and allow you to have an immediate idea of the content of the research.
• Identify the authors of the research article and/or parties that conducted the research is published.
• Identify and apprise the journal in which the article the article is published.
• Evaluate the introduction in terms of how it describes the purpose and background of the study.
• Explain if the research question is consistent with the purpose of the study.
• Recognize the potential effect of the research article to your current practice.

Literature Review

• Find out if the sources of literature review in the article are current (i.e published within the last 5-10 years).
• Evaluate the theories used in relation to relevance to the independent and dependent variables. Ask yourself if the theories explain the phenomenon under investigation.
• Check whether if the literature reviewed is relevant to the research (some content of the literature may be pulled randomly and may not reflect the variables of the study.  

Methodology

• Identify and explain the research design that enabled the creation of a journal article being critiqued.
• Check the research method that was adopted and evaluate its appropriateness to the research question and context. For example, questionnaires may not be appropriate among illiterate populations.
• Evaluate the method of sampling and explain if it is appropriate to the topic and population characteristics.
• Check the possibility of biases in the sample. If biased, explain the reason and what could be done to prevent biases from occurring.
• Appraise the size of the sample in relation to the population and desired significance levels.
• Identify and critique the tools that were used to collect data, procedures through which data was collected, and their validity, reliability and accuracy.
• Find out if the researchers got ethical approval to conduct the study and if not, why.
• Overall, explain if the methods of research have been explained adequately.

Results and Findings

• Check how data was analyzed.
• Briefly explain the main findings of the research.
• Evaluate the way in which results are displayed (Is it done in a clear and understandable manner?)
• Check if the authors have discussed the results in relation to the original problem they identified in the introduction section.
• Find out if the findings have been related to the literature review and consistencies/inconsistencies identified and explained. (Have the authors cited only the pertinent literature?)
• Check if the conclusion captures all aspects of the study from introduction to the end.
• Analyze the nature of conclusions presented and if they answer the research question.
• Analyze and explain the main strengths and weaknesses of the study.
• Identify what you think is the main limitations of the study and if they were identified by the authors.
• Check if the author(s) provided suggestions for future research.
• Go through the references and check if they consistently adhere to a given referencing style.

From the above discussion, it is evident that journal article critique is an involving activity that require active reading, developing an outline, questioning authors’ main points, identifying contradictions, writing down the content of the critique, and revising it to make it perfect. You can now practice by downloading a few articles and trying to critique them.  This will give you a good opportunity to learn from experience and perfect your article critique skills.

stratford-blog

Journal article publishing: typology of mixed methods types of legitimation, research paper publication in the information era, 10 comments.

Cancel reply

Your comment ...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Author Desk

• Author Guidelines
• Publication Charges
• Modes of Payment
• Review Process
• Ethics and Malpractice
• Online Submissions
• Procedure of Publication Process
• Copyright Agreement

DOI NO. 10.53819

Journal Indexing

Download Files

• Manuscript Template
• Journals Articles

Author’s Copyright

The author retains the copyright of the published manuscript.

2023 – 2024 IMPACT FACTOR

Availability of the published manuscript.

The published manuscript is available in both Online and in Print. Authors requiring hard-copy print of the issue in which their paper appears can make orders and this will be processed on demand.

• Peer review guide
• Submission guide
• Online Submission
• Journal Publication process
• Book Publication Process
• Business & Management
• Journal of Procurement & Supply Chain
• Journal of Finance and Accounting
• Journal of Strategic Management
• Journal of Entrepreneurship & Project Management
• Journal of Marketing and Communication
• Journal of Economics
• Social Sciences
• Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management
• Journal of Human Resource & Leadership
• Journal of Sociology, Psychology & Religious Studies
• Journal of Public Policy & Governance
• Journal of Education
• Information Technology
• Journal of Information and Technology
• Agriculture
• Journal of Agriculture
• Medicine & Healthcare
• Journal of Medicine, Nursing & Public Health
• Journal of pharmacy & Biochemistry
• Life Sciences
• Journal of Biological Sciences
• Editorial board
• Journal System
• Journals Store
• Books store
• Submission: [email protected]

You cannot copy or paste content on this page.

• Queen's University Library
• Research Guides

How to Critique an Article (Psychology)

Introduction.

• The introduction is a justification for why the study was conducted.
• By the end of the introduction you should have a very good idea of what the researchers are going to study, and be convinced that the study is absolutely necessary to advance the field.
• The justification should be a combination of improving on previous research and good theoretical reasons and practical reasons for why the study is important.
• If the authors are talking about a controversial issue, are they presenting both sides in a reasonable way? Is their choice of one side over the other based on hard evidence?
• Do you understand what their hypotheses are e.g. what they expect to find?
• It is not good enough just to say that the study has not been done before. There are plenty of topics that have not been scientifically researched before but that doesn't mean that they should be. For example, I doubt that anyone has ever looked at the correlation between favorite color of Skittles and personality, but that doesn't mean that it should be researched unless there is a good theoretical reason for why we would expect a relationship and a good reason to think that knowing the relationship would advance our understanding of personality in some meaningful way.

• Last Updated: Jun 27, 2024 1:59 PM
• Subjects: Psychology

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland.
• PMID: 16114192
• DOI: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38

Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• A guide to critiquing a research paper on clinical supervision: enhancing skills for practice. Fothergill A, Lipp A. Fothergill A, et al. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014;21(9):834-40. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12161. Epub 2014 May 13. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014. PMID: 24818837
• Critiquing research. Preston J. Preston J. Nurs Stand. 2015 Dec 2;30(14):61-2. doi: 10.7748/ns.30.14.61.s47. Nurs Stand. 2015. PMID: 26639295
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care. Lipp A, Fothergill A. Lipp A, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2015 Mar;35(3):e14-7. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.12.010. Epub 2015 Jan 24. Nurse Educ Today. 2015. PMID: 25638278 Review.
• Engaging nurses in research utilization. Wintersgill W, Wheeler EC. Wintersgill W, et al. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2012 Sep-Oct;28(5):E1-5. doi: 10.1097/NND.0b013e31826a008c. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2012. PMID: 22992644
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. Ryan F, Coughlan M, Cronin P. Ryan F, et al. Br J Nurs. 2007 Jun 28-Jul 11;16(12):738-44. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2007.16.12.23726. Br J Nurs. 2007. PMID: 17851363 Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Taylor & Francis

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

You're reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool's Premium Investing Services. Become a Motley Fool member today to get instant access to our top analyst recommendations, in-depth research, investing resources, and more. Learn More

First-Look Stocks: Is This Space Start-Up Set to Skyrocket?

You’re reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool’s Premium Investing Services. Become a Motley Fool member today to get instant access to our top analyst recommendations, in-depth research, investing resources , and more. Learn More

NASDAQ: LUNR

Intuitive machines.

A decent balance sheet and some big contracts paint a picture of near-term success.

In this video, Motley Fool contributors Jason Hall and Tyler Crowe take a first look at Intuitive Machines ( LUNR 7.54% )  and share their insights about the prospects for the small space start-up stock.

*Stock prices used were from the morning of Sept. 10, 2024. The video was published on Sept. 14, 2024.

Jason Hall has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Tyler Crowe has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy . Jason Hall is an affiliate of The Motley Fool and may be compensated for promoting its services. If you choose to subscribe through their link they will earn some extra money that supports their channel. Their opinions remain their own and are unaffected by The Motley Fool.

Related Articles

Premium Investing Services

Invest better with The Motley Fool. Get stock recommendations, portfolio guidance, and more from The Motley Fool's premium services.

How a fringe online claim about immigrants eating pets made its way to the debate stage

Around 9:30 p.m. Tuesday, tens of millions of television viewers watched as Donald Trump spread an unsubstantiated and racially charged rumor running wild online.

“In Springfield they’re eating dogs,” the former president said, referring to an Ohio city dealing with an influx of Haitian immigrants. “They’re eating the cats. They’re eating … the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country, and it’s a shame.”

The extraordinary moment — the airing of a claim worthy of a chain email while participating in a prime-time presidential debate — probably puzzled most of the 67.1 million people tuned in for Trump’s clash with Vice President Kamala Harris. But the rumor, which has been criticized as perpetuating racist tropes, was already thriving in right-wing corners of the internet and being amplified by those close to Trump, including his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio.

No one involved in Trump’s debate preparations or in a position to speak for his campaign agreed to discuss the strategy on the record or answer questions about how it mutated from a fringe obsession to a debate stage sound bite. 

“Just, suffice to say, he was aware of it. He decided to bring it up,” Tim Murtaugh, a senior Trump adviser, told NBC News. “Now it’s a major story. We would otherwise probably not be talking about immigration if not for that.”

Others close to Trump expressed misgivings about the execution.

“Immigration should be talked about, because Harris as border czar has failed,” said a Trump adviser, who, like others, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Did that issue come out in the best way? Probably not. But it’s not something to be shied away from.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally from South Carolina, questioned the former president’s focus.  

“I don’t know about dogs and cats,” Graham said in an interview Thursday. “But there are numerous young women who have been raped and murdered by people who were in our custody here illegally, and we let them go. That’s what I’d be talking about. That should be the face of a broken immigration system, not cats and dogs.”

While the fallout has been a combination of bafflement and outrage, the makings of the moment are rooted in grievances that have long defined and animated Trump and his followers — and on the platforms where those grievances blossom.

Trump, who launched his first presidential campaign with a speech that broadly characterized Mexican immigrants as dangerous criminals, has kept immigration and border security issues central to his third White House bid. 

Meanwhile, the right-wing social media ecosystem that rose up around his 2016 run has calcified as an additive and disruptive force: Trump now has his own social media network , Truth Social, and ally Elon Musk controls X, formerly Twitter. Vance in particular has reveled in fighting the culture wars and other right-wing causes online and often assumes a trolling posture on X while acting as a filter of information between the fringe and the mainstream.

Vance and others close to Trump have argued that, even if the claims are false, they have served a purpose by pushing the Springfield story into the spotlight.

“The media didn’t care about the carnage wrought by these policies until we turned it into a meme about cats, and that speaks to the media’s failure to care about what’s going on in these communities,” Vance told CNN after Tuesday’s debate. “If we have to meme about it to get the media to care, we’re going to keep on doing it, because the media could, should, care about what’s going on.”

The issue in Springfield, about 45 miles from Columbus in southwest Ohio, involves thousands of Haitian immigrants who have settled in the city in recent years, many of them there legally under federal programs after having fled violence and political turmoil. Residents and political leaders, including Vance, have for months raised economic and public safety concerns, asserting that an influx of as many as 20,000 immigrants to a city that in 2020 counted a population of 59,000 has strained resources.

Claims about pets being abducted, slaughtered and eaten are more recent.  

Blood Tribe, a national neo-Nazi group, was among the early purveyors of the rumor in August, posting about it on Gab and Telegram, social networks popular with extremists. While the group’s leader has taken credit for Trump’s indulgence of the claims, Blood Tribe’s reach is unknown; its accounts on those sites have fewer than 1,000 followers.

Some Blood Tribe members also planned a couple of events in the real world, like a small Aug. 10 march in Springfield protesting Haitian immigration and an appearance at a city commission meeting later that month.

The rumor soon crossed over to mainstream social media, like Facebook and X. NewsGuard, a firm that monitors misinformation, traced the origins to an undated post from a private Facebook group that was shared in a screenshot posted to X on Sept. 5. 

“Remember when my hometown of Springfield Ohio was all over National news for the Haitians?” the user wrote. “I said all the ducks were disappearing from our parks? Well, now it’s your pets.”

Around that time, other social media posts about the rumor sprouted and went viral, some of them based in part on residents’ comments at public hearings . On Sept. 6, there were 1,100 posts on X mentioning Haitians, migrants or immigrants eating pets, cats, dogs and geese, according to PeakMetrics, a research company. The next day there were 9,100 — a 720% increase.

The number of posts spiked again Monday, to 47,000, when Vance advanced the rumor on X .

“Months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio,” Vance wrote, referring to remarks he had made at a Senate hearing. “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country.”

Vance, as he noted in his post, had been raising the issue for months, but in less provocative terms. 

“Now go to Springfield, go to Clark County, Ohio, and ask the people there whether they have been enriched by 20,000 newcomers in four years,” he said in early July, before Trump selected him as his running mate, at NatCon, a right-wing nationalist conference. “Housing is through the roof. People, middle-class people in Springfield who have lived there sometimes for generations cannot afford a place to live.”

Soon after Vance’s post Monday, Springfield police officials told the Springfield News-Sun — and, later, NBC News and other national media — that they had received no credible reports of such incidents. Vance issued a follow-up post the next day, writing that his office had received reports of “pets or local wildlife” being “abducted by Haitian migrants.”

“It’s possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false,” he added.

But by that point, Trump was fully on board with them. At 5:19 p.m. Tuesday, less than four hours before his debate with Harris, Trump posted to Truth Social a meme showing cats armed for war and wearing MAGA hats. Fifteen minutes later, he shared a second meme depicting him surrounded by cats and ducks. 

Then came the debate. When moderator David Muir of ABC News asked about his opposition to a bipartisan border bill, a distracted Trump first insisted on responding to a jab Harris had landed about people leaving his campaign rallies early. His meandering answer eventually turned to Springfield, where, he said, “they’re eating dogs … and cats.”

Discomfort and disapproval from Trump’s fellow Republicans were soon palpable.

“I want to be clear on this. That is a very minor, minor issue happening in the United States,” Rep. Byron Donalds, a Trump loyalist from Florida, told NBC News when asked about the pets remark in the post-debate spin room.

Those looking for someone to blame offered several suspects. Laura Loomer, a right-wing political activist and conspiracy theorist who had been posting about the rumor, traveled with Trump to the debate Tuesday. 

“Why do you want to speak to me? I don’t work for President Trump,” Loomer responded when reached by NBC News.

Loomer and Trump did not speak on the plane ride, a source familiar with the trip said. And a Trump aide noted that Loomer “is not a member of our staff.”

“The president is the most well-read man in America, and he has a pulse on everything that is going on,” the aide added. 

The Springfield rumor “made it to his desk. He was made aware of what these residents were saying.”

Others focused their suspicions on Vance, given how he had forced the issue into the spotlight.

“It’s all JD,” a source linked to the campaign said.

Another source close to Trump’s campaign said Trump and Vance did not discuss the Springfield issue ahead of the debate.

“I don’t know what he was thinking,” a different Trump ally said of his choice to bring up the Springfield rumor unprompted. 

The blame, this person said, solely rests with Trump.

“You don’t prep Donald Trump,” the ally added. “You can make suggestions.”

Henry J. Gomez is a senior national political reporter for NBC News

Brandy Zadrozny is a senior reporter for NBC News. She covers misinformation, extremism and the internet.

Allan Smith is a political reporter for NBC News.

Julie Tsirkin is a correspondent covering Capitol Hill.

Cautious Optimism on OSTP Research Cybersecurity Requirements

The Office of Science and Technology Policy has released its final requirements for research security programs, which federal research funding agencies will have to apply to colleges and universities that average $50 million or more per year in federal research grants. The requirements include potentially positive guidelines for research cybersecurity at covered institutions.

In early 2023, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released its initial proposal for a "research security program standard requirement." All federal research funding agencies would have to apply the requirement to colleges and universities that receive more than $50 million per year in federal research funding. Footnote 1 The development of these comprehensive research security mandates stems from National Security Presidential Memorandum – 33 (NSPM-33), "Supported Research and Development National Security Policy." When finalized, the "standard requirement" would establish the basic parameters for the research security programs that covered institutions must have in place to continue competing for federal research grants.

Most of the proposed framework addresses research security issues such as faculty conflicts of interest and commitment and research talent recruitment programs of foreign governments. However, it also includes a research cybersecurity section that essentially would make the cybersecurity guidelines for Federal contract information (FCI) the standards for higher education research cybersecurity. As the Policy team discussed in our review of this issue last summer, EDUCAUSE member feedback indicated that the FCI basic safeguards do not fit well with higher education research environments because they are primarily intended for administrative contexts and data. Footnote 2 EDUCAUSE urged OSTP to revamp its proposed research security program guidance and focus on allowing institutions to pursue a risk management approach to research cybersecurity. Rather than the one-size-fits-all checklist model that the FCI guidelines would impose, a risk management approach would enable institutions to prioritize cybersecurity measures and resources based on national security risks associated with research areas and projects.

EDUCAUSE was not alone in asking OSTP to alter its course and base its research security program guidance on risk management. The Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) also stressed the need for a risk management emphasis in other areas of higher education research security. Fortunately, OSTP heard the combined input of our respective associations. Rather than rushing forward with research security program requirements that largely reflected those in its original proposal, OSTP took roughly one year to rethink its guidance before releasing the final version on July 9, 2024. The final research security program guidelines do not base research cybersecurity program requirements on the FCI safeguards. Instead, OSTP points to a pending report on higher education research cybersecurity from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

As the first element of the standardized requirement, federal research agencies shall require institutions of higher education to certify that the institution will implement a cybersecurity program consistent with the cybersecurity resource for research institutions described in the CHIPS and Science Act, [18] within one year after the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce publishes that resource. Footnote 3

Footnote 18 in the memorandum (in brackets above) identifies the relevant NIST report as NIST Interagency Report (IR) 8481: Cybersecurity for Research: Findings and Possible Paths Forward , which is currently available in "Initial Public Draft" (IPD) form. The CHIPS and Science Act provision from which the report stems required NIST to explore the resources it could develop to better support research cybersecurity at higher education institutions. Footnote 4 NIST conducted substantial outreach to EDUCAUSE and its members in pursuing the project, leading to a draft that largely incorporates the recommendations of our research cybersecurity community. It is a welcome development to see OSTP cite the report as the governing reference for research cybersecurity under its research security program guidelines.

Although OSTP's reliance on a report that reflects substantial EDUCAUSE member input provides a basis for cautious optimism regarding how federal research agencies will implement research cybersecurity requirements, there is still room for agency compliance efforts to jump the rails. The OSTP memorandum does not explain or provide parameters for what constitutes "a cybersecurity program consistent with" the NIST report (emphasis added). Footnote 5 Given the overall tenor of the guidelines, which stress the importance of federal research agencies providing substantial flexibility and discretion to higher education institutions in establishing and maintaining research security programs, research agencies might reasonably develop policies and procedures that allow institutions to draw from the range of resources identified in the NIST report—as well as models and frameworks similar to them—in determining the basis of their programs. However, the lack of guidance on what "consistent with" means may leave space for agencies to mandate that their grantees implement specific frameworks or measures presented in the NIST report. Such a development could produce substantial risks for institutions and agencies alike, given that not all resources identified in the draft NIST report will necessarily lead to optimal—or even appropriate—outcomes in all higher education research contexts.

Our concern about the potential for agencies to mandate inappropriate requirements is exacerbated by the fact that the NIST report was not written for the purposes for which OSTP is applying it. As previously mentioned, the CHIPS and Science Act charged NIST with identifying ways the agency could better support higher education research cybersecurity. Given that task, the current draft of the report—not surprisingly—focuses on highlighting a variety of options that institutions might explore to advance their research cybersecurity posture. This focus does not exactly match how OSTP wants to use the report in its research security program guidelines. The advisory nature of the NIST report may lend itself to the institutional flexibility and discretion that the OSTP memo implies should be the basis of federal agency approaches to research (cyber)security. However, the report does not provide clear direction about what cybersecurity should look like for research security programs that comply with NSPM-33. Without a definitive framework, both research agencies and higher education institutions may struggle to determine what constitutes compliance.

Fortunately, EDUCAUSE members should not have to wait long to get a sense of whether federal agencies that fund research will either try to be highly prescriptive or allow covered institutions to choose what elements of the NIST report—or options similar to them—will form the basis of their research cybersecurity programs. The memo from OSTP states that agencies will have six months from the date the memo was published to provide OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with their proposed implementation plans for the research security program guidelines. Once those agency plans are submitted, colleges and universities should be able to better understand what agencies' compliance regimes might look like. Agencies will then have another six months to implement their policies and processes, with institutions getting up to eighteen months from that point to ensure that they have compliant research security programs. Footnote 6 Based on these time frames, we should see research agency implementation plans by early January 2025, with the final execution of those plans due by mid-2025. Institutions would then have to achieve compliance with the relevant agency policies and processes by around December 2026.

Remember, though, that OSTP provides a unique timeline for its research cybersecurity requirements. As stated above, institutions will have one year from the publication of the NIST final report to ensure that they have research cybersecurity programs that are "consistent with" the report. With that in mind, NIST could try to align the release of its final report with the timeline for institutional compliance with OSTP's research security program guidelines. In this case, the overall measures mandated by the OSTP guidelines would have to be in place by the end of 2026. However, nothing in the OSTP memo precludes NIST from starting the research cybersecurity clock much sooner by releasing its final report at some point later this year or in early 2025. At this juncture, we will have to wait for NIST to provide more information about its plans, which will most likely include making some adjustments between the draft and final versions to account for how research agencies and higher education institutions will have to make use of the final report for compliance purposes.

EDUCAUSE will continue to monitor developments in this space and look for opportunities to inform OSTP, NIST, and agency implementation efforts. In the interim, EDUCAUSE members should review the draft NIST report for reference points that align with their current institutional research cybersecurity program and for resources they might find useful in strengthening their research cybersecurity posture given NSPM-33 and the OSTP research security guidelines that derive from it.

• Arati Prabhakar, Memorandum for the Heads of Federal Research Agencies, "Guidelines for Research Security Programs at Covered Institutions," (Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, July 9, 2024), 3. Jump back to footnote 1 in the text. ↩
• EDUCAUSE letter to Stacy Murphy, Deputy Chief Operations Officer/Security Officer, Office of Science and Technology Policy,  "Regarding Comment on Research Security Programs,"  June 5, 2023. Jump back to footnote 2 in the text. ↩
• Prabhakar, "Guidelines for Research Security Programs," 4. Jump back to footnote 3 in the text. ↩
• Jarret Cummings, "NIST Explores Developing Research Cybersecurity Resources for Higher Ed,"   EDUCAUSE Review , August 1, 2023. Jump back to footnote 4 in the text. ↩
• Prabhakar, "Guidelines for Research Security Programs," 4–5. Jump back to footnote 5 in the text. ↩
• Ibid., 9. Jump back to footnote 6 in the text. ↩

Jarret Cummings is Senior Advisor, Policy and Government Relations, at EDUCAUSE.

© 2024 EDUCAUSE. The content of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.

5 Time Management Essentials To Kick-Start Productivity After Summer

Freelancer Female Checking Her Calendar and timeboxing

As summer winds down, transitioning back to full-speed productivity can feel overwhelming. Whether you're catching up on emails, wrapping up projects before the end of the year, or preparing for performance reviews, the post-summer transition often comes with challenges. To ease this process and regain momentum, adopting effective time management strategies is crucial. From establishing a daily routine to mastering inbox zero and timeboxing, these five essentials will help you kick-start your productivity after summer.

1. Review Your Daily Routine

Consistency is the foundation of productivity, especially after a break. A well-structured routine reduces decision fatigue and brings a sense of control to your day. Break your day into blocks for planning, deep work, 2-minute tasks, meetings, breaks, and relaxation.

Intentional Structure: Break down your day by create a routine that balances times of the day for the following type of activities: planning, deep work, 2-minute tasks, meetings, breaks and relax/exercise. A clear routine helps you flow smoothly from one activity to the next without feeling overwhelmed.

Morning Ritual: Start your day with a morning ritual where you define your top priorities based on the categories of activities mentioned above, such as planning, deep work, meetings, and breaks. Use this time to set your intentions for the day and ensure you're focused on what matters most. Incorporate a preferred app or method—whether it's a digital tool like Sunsama , Jira or Google Tasks — to track your to-dos. This will help you organize and visualize your tasks during the ritual, ensuring that you stay on track throughout the day.

2. Timebox Your Day

Timeboxing is one of the most effective ways to stay productive and avoid burnout. By scheduling specific tasks into time blocks on your calendar, you create a visible structure for your day that includes both work and breaks.

Dedicated Time Blocks:

Assign blocks of time for every task you want to get done. Estimate the time needed for each task before scheduling it and then book it on your calendar. Hold yourself accountable to complete it within that window.

Balance Work and Breaks:

Schedule breaks for lunch and exercise or other personal activities. Taking regular breaks improves creativity and focus, while also preventing burnout. You can also align these breaks with natural transitions, like checking emails during your breaks instead of during deep work.

3. Achieve Inbox Zero

A cluttered inbox can drain your mental energy and leave you feeling overwhelmed. The "Inbox Zero" strategy helps you regain control by ensuring no unread or pending emails by the end of the day.

Batch Email Checking:

Rather than constantly checking emails throughout the day, designate specific “check email” times. This reduces distractions and helps you stay focused on your core tasks.

Immediate Action:

When checking emails, act on them immediately. Follow the four Ds: Delete, Delegate, Defer, or Do. This keeps your inbox clutter-free and prevents emails from piling up. Use specific mailbox cleaning Apps, like Sanebox to help you.

4. Dopamine Detox

A summer filled with digital distractions and social media scrolling can leave your brain craving constant stimulation, creating an overload of dopamine and making it harder to focus on tasks that require concentration.

A dopamine detox helps reset your brain and reduce procrastination. Essentially, If a particular activity releases too little dopamine, there will be less motivation to do it. But if it releases a lot of dopamine, you will be motivated to repeat it over and over again. And the more dopamine activities you do, the high tolerance you have, so you are more likely to get bored with other less fun activities.

Detox Strategies:

Limit screen time or avoid it entirely for a day. Go for a walk, meditate, or engage in low-stimulation activities like reading to reset your brain.

Organize Your Day Around Dopamine Levels:

Tackle low-dopamine tasks (like deep work) in the morning, that would be your power time when you get more accomplished, and leaving higher-dopamine activities (like social media or entertainment) for later in the day.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, 5. meeting detox.

Post-summer catch-up often means a flood of meetings, but not all are necessary. Effective meeting management protects your time and ensures that each meeting adds value.

Prioritize or Decline:

Before accepting a meeting invitation, ask for the agenda and check whether the discussion can be handled via email or a quick call. Limit meetings to those that truly require your input.

SMED Meeting Time:

Aim for shorter meetings (30 minutes or less) to maximize productivity using the SMED method , the same method Formula 1 cars utilize to reduce pit stop time. Longer meetings tend to drift off-topic and waste time. You can use the extra time to prepare agendas or send follow-up emails.

As summer ends and productivity becomes a priority again, it's important to adopt time management practices that help you transition smoothly. Establishing a daily routine, practicing timeboxing, achieving inbox zero, undergoing a dopamine detox, managing meetings effectively, and prioritizing self-care will ensure you stay productive, focused, and energized. These essentials will help you kick-start your post-summer productivity and stay ahead of your goals as the year progresses.