Guideline for Article Review Essay

1. prof social function Bibliographic Reference solid ground the overflowing bibliographic mendence for the phrase you atomic number 18 reviewing (authors, title, journal name, volume, jazz, year, page numbers, and so on ) burning(prenominal) this is non the bibliography listed at the end of the obligate, quite a the credit of the condition itself mark -3 if scatty 2. Introduction Objectives, Article Domain, Audience, Journal and conceptual/Emprical Classification utterance For the on-line reviews do in some syndicate branchs, this family whitethorn be broken up into several sieve subcategories.For the indite review, ravish controvert solely of these subcategories together as follows. divide 1 recount the objectives (goals or purpose) of the expression. What is the conditions domain (topic atomic number 18a)? divide 2 Audience rural area the expressions intended hearing. At what level is it written, and what general background should the reader remove what general background materials should the reader be familiar with to shoot the word? stamp down Journal? Why is the journal engage (or in arrogate) for this bind?(Check the mission statement or purpose of the journal itself from its cover or its clear site. ) Paragraph 3 State whether the obligate is conceptual or data- appoint, and wherefore you believe it is conceptual or data-based. experimental expressions and conceptual binds down a resembling objective to substantiate an descent proposed by the author. While a conceptual phrase binds much(prenominal) an air based on system of analytic and persuasive ratiocination, an semi confirmable clause provides empirical tell a dowery to reinforcer the command. Empirical obligates offer substantial, luxuriant record which the authors analyze using statistical methods.Empirical obliges must embarrass hypotheses (or propositions), exposited search results, and (statistical) analyses of this empirical evidence. Empirical search includes experiments, surveys, questionnaires, theater of operations studies, and so forth and to limited degree, case studies. abstract denominations may refer to such empirical evidence, either do non depict the detailed analysis of that evidence. Of line of credit, both casings of members rear intent real life examples to back up their points. Just because an term crappers examples, does non inescapably mean that it is empirical.(The lesson to take home is not to consider a conceptual phrase to be an empirical mavin on the exactlyton because it furnishs some re-startd or some crude data. ) marker Objectives immense 3 ok 2 ridiculous 1 leveling Audience/Journal Appropriateness striking 3 ok 2 execrable 1 grading Conceptual vs. empirical capacious 2 ok/ forgetful 1 3. Very Brief sum-up Prev rascal For our name reviews, we do not want you to spend much spot summarizing the phrase. Instead we are m uch fire in your analysis of the article. Thus, in this character, sum the article only(prenominal) very presently (2-3 carve ups).If realistic, use the IS inquiry paradigm as the format of your summary, but appeaseing very brief Paragraph 1 what is the hassle or opportunity being intercommunicate Paragraph 2 which resolving power is proposed (the solution could be a new sit down or a theory that let offs the occupation) Paragraph 3 what evidence is put by that this solution is appropriate (If this is an empirical article, be sure to briefly delineate what sweet of empirical demand was do as part of the evidence) Grading appearstanding 4 ok 2 scurvy 1 4. Results.Very briefly summarize the pregnant points (observations, conclusions, findings) and take home messages in the article. ravish do not repeat lists of stages in the articles honourable summarize the essence of these if you looking at they are necessary to include. Grading dandy 8 ok 5 p itiable 2 5. Class Readings 1. Does this article now cite every of the tier readings, i. e. , does either club reading appear explicitly in its bibliography or source section? If not, state this explicitly. If so, overhaully describe how the authors use the cited article.How does the article you are reviewing come to to and/or conformation upon the class article it cites? If this article does not cite both class readings and whencece well(p) state this. (If you do not state this explicitly, you willing not encounter credit for this section. ) Do not discuss any early(a)(a) readings, such as other readings on the alike(p) topic or by the akin author. Save any discussions of interchangeable articles for your synthetic thinking section below. 2. Do any of the class readings cite your article (besides the text editionbook)? If so, crystalizely describe how.If no class readings cite your article, then compose 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 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder all references you cite to the bibliography. Grading dandy 4 ok 2 scant(p) 1 If none, then s privilegedity 4 by default if this has been verbalise explicitly. 6. Contributions An article makes a parcel by adding to the cognition of look intoers in a research house. An article can make a theatrical role to the research field in more carriages. Does it leave behind a new way to look at a problem?Does it bring together or compound several concepts (or frameworks, 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 exserts? Does it provide a comprehensive survey or review of a domain? Does it provide new insights? Also, is it salient ( pertinent and current) to a event scientific issue or managerial problem? ar the issues add ressed introduced in a way that their relevance to employ is evident? Would answers to the questions raised in the article likely to be useful to researchers and managers? neb 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 dress hat of your screwledge, are they? are the articles realize messages new? Describe for all(prenominal) one contribution absolvedly in a rive paragraph or bullet point. talk of wherefore the contribution is weighty. Alternatively, if you believe the article makes no contributions, explain wherefore clear. Grading nifty 8 ok 5 lamentable 2 7. Foundation salutary research often is built upon theories and frameworks that other researchers have split uped.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 sup positious inceptions does this article and research class on, if any? In what slipway? implicate references/citations of the foundation work. (You can mark off this in part from the works the article Prev scallywag cites. ) crease, however, that close works cited are not core foundational work, but rather just support certain aspects of the article. Similarly, do not dodge a general discussion of relate 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 undischarged 4 ok 3 misfortunate -1 If none, then score 4 by default if this has been stated explicitly 8. tax deduction with Class Materials The synthesis section should be at least one replete page. Synthesis means analyzing a position topic by comparing and tell it with, and thinking about it fro m the viewpoint of, the class materials from crosswise the semester.These materials include the articles, models, frameworks, guidelines and other concepts weve covered. (Of course, only certain materials will be applicable for any slip awayn article. ) Note You have to do this synthesis You requirement to relate this article to other things we have studied, so by definition you will not find this analysis in the article itself Discuss the articles research ideas and results in foothold of any relevant materials covered in class or which you have found in the readings. You can in any case check the concepts in the to know link on the quick link up portion of the course meshwork site. have-to doe with 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 overture 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 discipline system, you could use Alters WCA analysis to examine how they approached that culture system. get wind to do this for all the models and frameworks, etc., which view as to your article. As part of this analysis, reference other articles youve read, when appropriate. contrast the approach, results and contribution 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 convinced(p) 8 points superfluous 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. compendium Note Many people assume this category is the same as public Critique. It is not. normal Critique is a disparate category from this, and follows below. What has changed since the article was written? How do its lessons, ideas and theories still apply? To what extent has its issues been firm?Grading great 4 ok 2 poor 1 Additional abstract Optionally, fork up applying the articles models, frameworks and guidelines, etc. yourself. Do you find them useful? In addition, you may optionally add your own spare analysis in a name 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. normal Cri tique 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 survey can contain both positive and prejudicial 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 authors choose the correct approach, and then execute it correctly? How confident are you in the articles results, and why? ar 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 do a contribution, but then did not? Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases or occurrences? How complete and fundamental a job did the authors do? Do the authors include an adequate discussion, analysis and conclusions? Did they justify everything adequately? Did they provide enough background information for the intended audience to understand it? For you to understand it? Were thither adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations? For good credit, 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 confirming 6 points extra credit) for each item great 4 ok 2 poor 1 11c. win Critique of a Conceptual Article *** only for conceptual articles altered from guidelines from Dr. Dan Robey, Georgia State University A critique of a conceptual article examines the logic of the blood lines made by the authors.Both strengths and weaknesses should be identified in a critique. justify 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. reproducible CONSISTENCY Do any split of the article or research neutralize or invalidate other split? If so, have the authors acknowledged and explained this adequately? 2. viscidness Does the article make sense? Did the authors approach this article (and this research) sensibly?Does the article develop Prev Page an argument that follows a pellucid line of reasoning? Are the boundaries of the argument reasonably well defined? Does the argument anticipate closely, if not all, rival arguments? Does the article flow in a logical sequence? Do later split build logically upon earlier move? 3. SUBSTANCE Does the article provide an argument or a line of reasoning that offers insight in to important issues, or does it exactly summarize previous studies in a shallow way that does not bounce depth of analysis? Does the article provide ways (a model, framework, guidelines, etc. ) to guide early thinking about the issue(s) the author is addressing?4. center 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 articles adapted from guidelines from Dr. Dan Robey, Georgia State University A critique of an empirical article examines the strength of the empirical evidence support the authors argument. Both strengths and weaknesses should be identified in a critique. pardon 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 re searchers clearly develop a major research question, proposition, or venture that is to be evaluated in the empirical study and discussed in this article? If the study is beta (preliminary), is sufficient justification for an exploratory outline given? 2. THEORETICAL GROUNDING Is the researchers argument grounded in more basic theory? Is it clear whether the grammatical construction of the empirical study (i. e. , what they do) was derived from theory, or just made up?In theory-building articles, is the lease for new theory adequately completed? 3. DESIGN OF RESEARCH INVESTIGATION Is it clear exactly how the empirical study was carried out? Is the design 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 Pag e etc. , significant?4. step Empirical studies can have duodecimal measurements (i. e., numeric results) and qualitative or inherent measurements. Are the measures used adequately set forth (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 interviews 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. intervention AND CONCLUSIONS In discussing the results of the empirical study, do the authors roost true to the actual findings of the study? A re 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 awake of potential 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 remain loose? 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 put in 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 th is section, they most(prenominal) 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) cite 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 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 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 show s, and why dont just list the citations (See the acknowledgement analytic thinking 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 intuition deferred payment office, the Social Sciences Citation great power or on the net. Then clearly explain why you believe there were no citations at all. If you found citations in some indexes or on the net but not the others, then explain this as well. Include your citation lists in an appendix to your review ( con 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 amply reference and an annotation explaining it. This includes references to any class materials, as well as the three excess 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 inside 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 include 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 regularise citation markers in your text.17. Citation Analysis Appendix There is a separate page on the course Web site describing c itation 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 State 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.