Guideline for Article Review Essay Example for Free

Guideline for Article Review Essay1. Full Bibliographic Reference soil the full bibliographic reference for the bind you argon reviewing (authors, title, journal name, volume, screw, year, page numbers, etc. ) Important this is non the bibliography listed at the end of the condition, rather the citation of the obligate itself evaluate -3 if missing 2. Introduction Objectives, Article Domain, Audience, daybook and Conceptual/Emprical Classification Note For the on-line reviews d wholeness in some set atoms, this category may be broken up into several(prenominal)(prenominal) give way subcategories.For the written review, please establish exclusively of these subcategories together as follows. Paragraph 1 postulate the objectives (goals or purpose) of the name. What is the terms domain (topic area)? Paragraph 2 Audience res publica the articles intended audience. At what level is it written, and what general background should the reader take up what general bac kground materials should the reader be familiar with to understand the article? grant Journal? Why is the journal depart (or in bewitch) for this article?(Check the mission statement or purpose of the journal itself from its cover or its Web site. ) Paragraph 3 State whether the article is conceptual or data-based, and wherefore you believe it is conceptual or verifiable. Empirical articles and conceptual articles have a similar objective to realise an argument proposed by the author. While a conceptual article supports such an argument based on logical and persuasive cogitate, an empirical article offers empirical evidence to support the argument. Empirical articles offer substantial, expound evidence which the authors analyze using statistical methods.Empirical articles must include hypotheses (or propositions), situationed enquiry results, and (statistical) analyses of this empirical evidence. Empirical interrogation includes experiments, surveys, questionnaires, ar ena studies, etc, and to limited degree, case studies. Conceptual articles may refer to such empirical evidence, but do not tolerate the detailed analysis of that evidence. Of course, both types of articles can use real life examples to back up their points. Just because an article provides examples, does not necessarily mean that it is empirical.(The lesson to take seat is not to consider a conceptual article to be an empirical one just because it provides some summarized or some unanalyzed data. ) Grading Objectives expectant 3 ok 2 poor 1 Grading Audience/Journal Appropriateness cracking 3 ok 2 poor 1 Grading Conceptual vs. empirical smashing 2 ok/poor 1 3. Very Brief Summary Prev Page For our article reviews, we do not want you to spend much space summarizing the article. Instead we are more interested in your analysis of the article. Thus, in this section, summarize the article only genuinely briefly (2-3 paragraphs).If possible, use the IS re chase paradigm as th e format of your summary, but remaining very brief Paragraph 1 what is the problem or fortune being leaveressed Paragraph 2 which solution is proposed (the solution could be a refreshful model or a theory that explains the problem) Paragraph 3 what evidence is put forth that this solution is appropriate (If this is an empirical article, be sure to briefly describe what kind of empirical train was done as r come out of the closetine of the evidence) Grading broad 4 ok 2 poor 1 4. Results.Very briefly summarize the important points (observations, conclusions, findings) and take home messages in the article. Please do not repeat lists of specifics in the articles just summarize the essence of these if you feel they are necessary to include. Grading great 8 ok 5 poor 2 5. Class Readings 1. Does this article directly cite whatsoever of the class readings, i. e. , does any class reading appear explicitly in its bibliography or reference section? If not, state this explic itly. If so, clearly describe how the authors use the cited article.How does the article you are reviewing relate to and/or build upon the class article it cites? If this article does not cite any class readings hence just state this. (If you do not state this explicitly, you entrust not receive credit for this section. ) Do not discuss any other readings, such as other readings on the same topic or by the same author. Save any discussions of similar articles for your synthesis section below. 2. Do any of the class readings cite your article (besides the textual matterbook)? If so, clearly describe how.If no class readings cite your article, then create verbally in your review No class readings cite this article. (If you do not state this explicitly, you will not receive credit for this section. ) Be sure to add all references you cite to the bibliography. Grading great 4 ok 2 poor 1 If none, then score 4 by default if this has been say explicitly. 6. Contributions An arti cle wins a contribution by adding to the knowledge of researchers in a research field. An article can make a contribution to the research field in many ways. Does it provide a new way to look at a problem?Does it bring together or synthesize several concepts (or frame flora, models, etc. ) together in an insightful way that has not been done before? Does it provide new solutions? Does it provide new results? Does it identify new issues? Does it provide a comprehensive survey or review of a domain? Does it provide new insights? Also, is it salient (relevant and current) to a particular scientific issue or managerial problem? Are the issues addressed introduced in a way that their relevance to practice is evident? Would answers to the questions raised in the article plausibly to be useful to researchers and managers?Note Do not discuss the contributions of the technologies the article describes, but rather the contributions of the article itself The articles contributions should be original. To the best of your knowledge, are they? Are the articles take-home messages new? Describe all(prenominal) contribution clearly in a separate paragraph or bullet point. handle why the contribution is important. Alternatively, if you believe the article makes no contributions, explain why clearly. Grading great 8 ok 5 poor 2 7. Foundation Good research often is construct upon theories and frameworks that other researchers have developed.Sometimes articles will be substantially based upon this prior work, and refer back to it in some detail. (Not all research articles will do this. ) Which theoretical ensnareations does this article and research build on, if any? In what ways? Include references/citations of the foundation work. (You can determine this in part from the works the article Prev Page cites. ) Note, however, that most works cited are not core foundational work, but rather just support certain aspects of the article. Similarly, do not confound a general di scussion of related topics as foundational work.If the article does not build upon key pieces of prior research, then write in your review This article does not build upon any foundation research. (If you do not state this explicitly, you will not receive credit for this section. ) Grading great 4 ok 3 poor -1 If none, then score 4 by default if this has been declared explicitly 8. Synthesis with Class Materials The synthesis section should be at least one full page. Synthesis means analyzing a particular topic by comparing and contrasting it with, and thinking about it from the viewpoint of, the class materials from across the semester.These materials include the articles, models, frameworks, guidelines and other concepts weve covered. (Of course, only certain materials will be relevant for any apt(p) article. ) Note You have to do this synthesis You lead to relate this article to other things we have studied, so by definition you will not find this analysis in the article its elf Discuss the articles research ideas and results in terms of any relevant materials covered in class or which you have found in the readings. You can also check the concepts in the to know link on the quick links portion of the course Web site.Cite these readings explicitly, including their source in the bibliography and a bibliographic marker in the text (e. g. , Turoff et al. , 1999). You also could analyze the approach the author took to the articles analysis and discussion. Discuss the articles approach and results in terms of one or more of the frameworks, etc. , from the text or readings, or any you find elsewhere. For example, if the authors discuss any type of information system, you could use Alters WCA analysis to examine how they approached that information system.Try to do this for all the models and frameworks, etc., which apply to your article. As part of this analysis, reference other articles youve read, when appropriate. Compare the approach, results and contribu tion with all articles about similar topics or with a similar approach. For example, if your article develops a new framework, compare it with Bandyopadyhahs Prev Page framework criteria (and vice versa whoever does Bandyopadyhahs article could test his criteria on frameworks from the other readings). Include any articles you cite in the bibliography and use bibliographic markers in the text. For all of these, do your synthesis comparison in as much depth as you canGrading four items up to 20 points total (12 points plus 8 points extra credit) for each item great 5 ok 2 poor 1 Great discussed deeply and relating the article in detail with the synthesized models and frameworks. OK the synthesized information is only discussed in general 9. abbreviation Note Many people assume this category is the same as General reassessment. It is not. General Critique is a different category from this, and follows below. What has changed since the article was written? How do its lessons, ide as and theories still apply? To what extent has its issues been resolved?Grading great 4 ok 2 poor 1 Additional Analysis Optionally, try applying the articles models, frameworks and guidelines, etc. yourself. Do you find them useful? In addition, you may optionally add your own additional analysis in a separate subsection. (Do not repeat the authors analysis in the paper you could summarize this as part of the results section. ) Grading this section is extra credit only great 8 ok 5 poor 2 10. General Critique In this section you should state your opinions of how well (or poorly) the authors did their research and presented the research results in the article.Your critique can contain both positive and negative comments. Justify and explain in detail each of your critique points in a separate paragraph of at least 4-5 sentences. The following are suggestions only Does it build upon the appropriate foundation (i. e. , upon appropriate Prev Page prior research)? Did the autho rs choose the correct approach, and then execute it correctly? How confident are you in the articles results, and why? Are its ideas really new, or do the authors simply repackage old ideas and perhaps give them a new name? Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the articles introduction and outline? What are the articles shortcomings (faults) and limitations (boundaries)? Did it discuss all of the important aspects and issues in its domain (topic area)? In what way should the article have made a contribution, but then did not? Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases or occurrences? How complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Do the authors include an adequate discussion, analysis and conclusions? Did they discharge everything adequately? Did they provide enough background information for the intended audience to understand it? For you to understand it? Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations? For full cr edit, ask yourself these questions when justifying your critique points why/why not? how? what distinguishes the differences/different approaches, and in what ways? Grading four items up to 16 points total (10 points plus 6 points extra credit) for each item great 4 ok 2 poor 1 11c. Further Critique of a Conceptual Article *** only for conceptual articles adapted from guidelines from Dr. Dan Robey, Georgia State University A critique of a conceptual article examines the logic of the arguments made by the authors.Both strengths and weaknesses should be identified in a critique. Explain and justify each of your critique points in at least 3-4 sentences. Give examples whenever possible. To the best of your abilities, discuss each of the following categories in a separate paragraph 1. luculent CONSISTENCY Do any parts of the article or research contradict or invalidate other parts? If so, have the authors acknowledged and explained this adequately? 2. COHERENCE Does the article make sense? Did the authors approach this article (and this research) sensibly?Does the article develop Prev Pagean argument that follows a coherent line of logical thinking? Are the boundaries of the argument reasonably well defined? Does the argument anticipate most, if not all, rival arguments? Does the article flow in a logical epoch? Do later parts build logically upon earlier parts? 3. SUBSTANCE Does the article provide an argument or a line of reasoning that offers insight into important issues, or does it merely summarize previous studies in a shallow way that does not reflect depth of analysis? Does the article provide ways (a model, framework, guidelines, etc. ) to guide rising thinking about the issue(s) the author is addressing?4. FOCUS Is there a clear audience that the authors address? Was the article written at the appropriate level for this audience? Grading for each great 3 ok 2 poor 1 11e. Further Critique of an Empirical Article *** only for empirical article s adapted from guidelines from Dr. Dan Robey, Georgia State University A critique of an empirical article examines the strength of the empirical evidence supporting the authors argument. Both strengths and weaknesses should be identified in a critique. Explain and justify each of your critique points in at least 3-4 sentences.To the best of your abilities, discuss each of the following categories in a separate paragraph 1. CLARITY Is the articles purpose and argument clear? Do the researchers clearly develop a major research question, proposition, or hypothesis that is to be evaluated in the empirical study and discussed in this article? If the study is exploratory (preliminary), is sufficient justification for an exploratory strategy given? 2. THEORETICAL GROUNDING Is the researchers argument grounded in more basic theory? Is it clear whether the structure of the empirical study (i. e. , what they do) was derived from theory, or just made up?In theory-building articles, is the nee d for new theory adequately established? 3. DESIGN OF RESEARCH INVESTIGATION Is it clear exactly how the empirical study was carried out? Is the public figure of the research approach (field study, experiments, questionnaires, etc. both contents and how they will be used) adequate to address the common threats to internal and external validity? Have appropriate controls been established, and is the selection of research sites justified? Are the hypotheses and experiments, Prev Page etc. , significant?4. MEASUREMENT Empirical studies can have quantitative measurements (i. e., numeric results) and qualitative or subjective measurements. Are the measures used adequately described (i. e. , what is measured in the study and how)? Are data on the reliability and validity of these measures reported? Does the article feel anecdotal or solidly supported with evidence?For example, in case or field studies, are the results well documented? Is it clear who the subjects were, and with whom int erviews were carried out? Were important results cross-checked, i. e. , determined across a range of subjects or just gotten from one or two subjects? 5. ANALYSIS Is the analysis of empirical data conducted properly?Do the data conform to the requirements of any statistical tests used? Are qualitative data adequately described and presented? 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In discussing the results of the empirical study, do the authors remain true to the actual findings of the study? Are the claims made in the conclusion of the article actually supported by the empirical data? If the study is exploratory, do the authors offer research questions or hypotheses for future research? 7. BIASES Do the biases of the authors affect the design of the research or the interpretation of the results?Are the authors aware of authorization biases and the affect on the study? Grading for each great 2 ok/poor 1 12. Issues (listed by the author) What open questions or issues has the author stated r emain unresolved? Discuss each in a separate paragraph of 5-10 sentences. Each issues paragraph should take the following format what is the issue? why do you believe this is an important issue? in what way is it unresolved suggestions for resolving it if you give your own suggestions (instead of or in addition to the authors, then dispense with each with I would propose If it has been resolved since the article was written, then state how it was resolved. Note If you have any critiques in this section, they most likely belong in the General Critique section instead. Grading 3 items up to 9 points total (6 points plus 3 points extra Prev Page credit) for each item great 3 ok 2 poor 1 13. Issues (in your opinion) List several open questions or issues which remain unresolved in your opinion? For example, what possible future research questions could arise from this article? Discuss each in a separate paragraph of 5-10 sentences.Each issues paragraph should take the followin g format what is the issue? why do you believe this is an important issue? in what way is it unresolved suggestions for resolving it Note If you have any critiques in this section, they most likely belong in the General Critique section instead. Grading 4 items up to 12 points total (6 points plus 6 points extra credit) for each item great 3 ok 2 poor 1 14. Impact To determine how much impact this article has had, do a citation analysis. Discuss what this citation analysis shows, and why dont just list the citations (See the Citation Analysis Guidelines (.doc) and Handout (. pdf) posted on the course Web site. )If the article has no citations, then write in your review I found no citations in the Science Citation indicant, the Social Sciences Citation Index or on the Internet. thusly clearly explain why you believe there were no citations at all. If you found citations in some indexes or on the Internet but not the others, then explain this as well. Include your citation lists in an appendix to your review (see below for details). Grading impact discussion great 3 ok 2 poor 1 15. Questions List three insightful questions of your own, arising from this article.Do Prev Page not ask definitions, but rather questions that really make one think. Grading 3 questions, up to 6 points total for each question great/ok 2 poor 1 16. Annotated Bibliography For every item you have cited in your report, you need a full reference and an annotation explaining it. This includes references to any class materials, as well as the three additional citations utilized in sections 6-14. 1. List the full bibliographic references (authors, title, journal name, volume, issue, year, page numbers, etc. ) for anything you have cited in your review.IMPORTANT This is NOT the bibliography listed at the end of the article. It is the bibliographic references for any readings you yourself referred to intimate your review. 2. Write 2-4 sentences describing the article. 3. Write 2-3 sentences describing why you cited it. Also, be sure that you have included a bibliographic marker to each (such as Bieber Smith, 2001) in the text of your review. Grading -5 if missing references -3 if you mention the authors explicitly in your text and put the references in this bibliography section, but forget to explicitly place citation markers in your text.17. Citation Analysis Appendix There is a separate page on the course Web site describing citation analysis. This appendix will have three sections the citations you found in the Science Citation Index the citations you found in the Social Sciences Citation Index the citations you found through a thorough Web search on the Internet If the article has no citations for any of these three, then write in that section I found no citations in the Science Citation Index or the Social Sciences Citation Index or on the Internet. Note, if your article has more than 20 citations, you only need to include a selection of them St ate how many citations each index has and the Web search found List Prev Page 1-2 citations for each year in which the article has been cited. Try to include citations from several different journals spread over your selection ? Include a citation analysis to see who has cited it and how.