Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article
1. identify how and why the research was carried out, 2. establish the research context, 3. evaluate the research, 4. establish the significance of the research.
- Writing Your Critique
Ask Us: Chat, email, visit or call
Video: How to Integrate Critical Voice into Your Literature Review
Video: Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Plagiarism
Get assistance
The library offers a range of helpful services. All of our appointments are free of charge and confidential.
- Book an appointment
Read the article(s) carefully and use the questions below to help you identify how and why the research was carried out. Look at the following sections:
Introduction
- What was the objective of the study?
- What methods were used to accomplish this purpose (e.g., systematic recording of observations, analysis and evaluation of published research, assessment of theory, etc.)?
- What techniques were used and how was each technique performed?
- What kind of data can be obtained using each technique?
- How are such data interpreted?
- What kind of information is produced by using the technique?
- What objective evidence was obtained from the authors’ efforts (observations, measurements, etc.)?
- What were the results of the study?
- How was each technique used to obtain each result?
- What statistical tests were used to evaluate the significance of the conclusions based on numeric or graphic data?
- How did each result contribute to answering the question or testing the hypothesis raised in the introduction?
- How were the results interpreted? How were they related to the original problem (authors’ view of evidence rather than objective findings)?
- Were the authors able to answer the question (test the hypothesis) raised?
- Did the research provide new factual information, a new understanding of a phenomenon in the field, or a new research technique?
- How was the significance of the work described?
- Do the authors relate the findings of the study to literature in the field?
- Did the reported observations or interpretations support or refute observations or interpretations made by other researchers?
These questions were adapted from the following sources: Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250. Wood, J.M. (2003). Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site . Retrieved July 31, 2006.
Once you are familiar with the article, you can establish the research context by asking the following questions:
- Who conducted the research? What were/are their interests?
- When and where was the research conducted?
- Why did the authors do this research?
- Was this research pertinent only within the authors’ geographic locale, or did it have broader (even global) relevance?
- Were many other laboratories pursuing related research when the reported work was done? If so, why?
- For experimental research, what funding sources met the costs of the research?
- On what prior observations was the research based? What was and was not known at the time?
- How important was the research question posed by the researchers?
These questions were adapted from the following sources: Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250. Wood, J.M. (2003). Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site . Retrieved July 31, 2006.
Remember that simply disagreeing with the material is not considered to be a critical assessment of the material. For example, stating that the sample size is insufficient is not a critical assessment. Describing why the sample size is insufficient for the claims being made in the study would be a critical assessment.
Use the questions below to help you evaluate the quality of the authors’ research:
- Does the title precisely state the subject of the paper?
- Read the statement of purpose in the abstract. Does it match the one in the introduction?
Acknowledgments
- Could the source of the research funding have influenced the research topic or conclusions?
- Check the sequence of statements in the introduction. Does all the information lead coherently to the purpose of the study?
- Review all methods in relation to the objective(s) of the study. Are the methods valid for studying the problem?
- Check the methods for essential information. Could the study be duplicated from the methods and information given?
- Check the methods for flaws. Is the sample selection adequate? Is the experimental design sound?
- Check the sequence of statements in the methods. Does all the information belong there? Is the sequence of methods clear and pertinent?
- Was there mention of ethics? Which research ethics board approved the study?
- Carefully examine the data presented in the tables and diagrams. Does the title or legend accurately describe the content?
- Are column headings and labels accurate?
- Are the data organized for ready comparison and interpretation? (A table should be self-explanatory, with a title that accurately and concisely describes content and column headings that accurately describe information in the cells.)
- Review the results as presented in the text while referring to the data in the tables and diagrams. Does the text complement, and not simply repeat data? Are there discrepancies between the results in the text and those in the tables?
- Check all calculations and presentation of data.
- Review the results in light of the stated objectives. Does the study reveal what the researchers intended?
- Does the discussion clearly address the objectives and hypotheses?
- Check the interpretation against the results. Does the discussion merely repeat the results?
- Does the interpretation arise logically from the data or is it too far-fetched?
- Have the faults, flaws, or shortcomings of the research been addressed?
- Is the interpretation supported by other research cited in the study?
- Does the study consider key studies in the field?
- What is the significance of the research? Do the authors mention wider implications of the findings?
- Is there a section on recommendations for future research? Are there other research possibilities or directions suggested?
Consider the article as a whole
- Reread the abstract. Does it accurately summarize the article?
- Check the structure of the article (first headings and then paragraphing). Is all the material organized under the appropriate headings? Are sections divided logically into subsections or paragraphs?
- Are stylistic concerns, logic, clarity, and economy of expression addressed?
These questions were adapted from the following sources: Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250. Wood, J.M. (2003). Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site. Retrieved July 31, 2006.
After you have evaluated the research, consider whether the research has been successful. Has it led to new questions being asked, or new ways of using existing knowledge? Are other researchers citing this paper?
You should consider the following questions:
- How did other researchers view the significance of the research reported by your authors?
- Did the research reported in your article result in the formulation of new questions or hypotheses (by the authors or by other researchers)?
- Have other researchers subsequently supported or refuted the observations or interpretations of these authors?
- Did the research make a significant contribution to human knowledge?
- Did the research produce any practical applications?
- What are the social, political, technological, medical implications of this research?
- How do you evaluate the significance of the research?
To answer these questions, look at review articles to find out how reviewers view this piece of research. Look at research articles and databases like Web of Science to see how other people have used this work. What range of journals have cited this article?
These questions were adapted from the following sources:
Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250. Wood, J.M. (2003). Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site . Retrieved July 31, 2006.
- << Previous: Start Here
- Next: Writing Your Critique >>
- Last Updated: Aug 30, 2022 2:59 PM
- URL: https://guides.lib.uoguelph.ca/WriteCriticalReview
Suggest an edit to this guide
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to read a paper, critical review
Reading a scientific article is a complex task. The worst way to approach this task is to treat it like the reading of a textbook—reading from title to literature cited, digesting every word along the way without any reflection or criticism.
A critical review (sometimes called a critique, critical commentary, critical appraisal, critical analysis) is a detailed commentary on and critical evaluation of a text. You might carry out a critical review as a stand-alone exercise, or as part of your research and preparation for writing a literature review. The following guidelines are designed to help you critically evaluate a research article.
How to Read a Scientific Article
You should begin by skimming the article to identify its structure and features. As you read, look for the author’s main points.
- Generate questions before, during, and after reading.
- Draw inferences based on your own experiences and knowledge.
- To really improve understanding and recall, take notes as you read.
What is meant by critical and evaluation?
- To be critical does not mean to criticise in an exclusively negative manner. To be critical of a text means you question the information and opinions in the text, in an attempt to evaluate or judge its worth overall.
- An evaluation is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a text. This should relate to specific criteria, in the case of a research article. You have to understand the purpose of each section, and be aware of the type of information and evidence that are needed to make it convincing, before you can judge its overall value to the research article as a whole.
Useful Downloads
- How to read a scientific paper
- How to conduct a critical review
- The Open University
- Student home
- Guest user / Sign out
- Study with The Open University
OpenLearn will be unavailable due to scheduled maintenance on Wednesday 15 March from 08.15 to 10.30.
My OpenLearn Profile
Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning
- Education & Development
- Free courses
- Succeeding in postgraduate study
- 4.4 Applying critical and reflective ...
- 1 Important points to consider when ...
About this free course
Become an ou student, download this course, share this free course.
Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.
1 Important points to consider when critically evaluating published research papers
Simple review articles (also referred to as ‘narrative’ or ‘selective’ reviews), systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide rapid overviews and ‘snapshots’ of progress made within a field, summarising a given topic or research area. They can serve as useful guides, or as current and comprehensive ‘sources’ of information, and can act as a point of reference to relevant primary research studies within a given scientific area. Narrative or systematic reviews are often used as a first step towards a more detailed investigation of a topic or a specific enquiry (a hypothesis or research question), or to establish critical awareness of a rapidly-moving field (you will be required to demonstrate this as part of an assignment, an essay or a dissertation at postgraduate level).
The majority of primary ‘empirical’ research papers essentially follow the same structure (abbreviated here as IMRAD). There is a section on Introduction, followed by the Methods, then the Results, which includes figures and tables showing data described in the paper, and a Discussion. The paper typically ends with a Conclusion, and References and Acknowledgements sections.
The Title of the paper provides a concise first impression. The Abstract follows the basic structure of the extended article. It provides an ‘accessible’ and concise summary of the aims, methods, results and conclusions. The Introduction provides useful background information and context, and typically outlines the aims and objectives of the study. The Abstract can serve as a useful summary of the paper, presenting the purpose, scope and major findings. However, simply reading the abstract alone is not a substitute for critically reading the whole article. To really get a good understanding and to be able to critically evaluate a research study, it is necessary to read on.
While most research papers follow the above format, variations do exist. For example, the results and discussion sections may be combined. In some journals the materials and methods may follow the discussion, and in two of the most widely read journals, Science and Nature, the format does vary from the above due to restrictions on the length of articles. In addition, there may be supporting documents that accompany a paper, including supplementary materials such as supporting data, tables, figures, videos and so on. There may also be commentaries or editorials associated with a topical research paper, which provide an overview or critique of the study being presented.
Box 1 Key questions to ask when appraising a research paper
- Is the study’s research question relevant?
- Does the study add anything new to current knowledge and understanding?
- Does the study test a stated hypothesis?
- Is the design of the study appropriate to the research question?
- Do the study methods address key potential sources of bias?
- Were suitable ‘controls’ included in the study?
- Were the statistical analyses appropriate and applied correctly?
- Is there a clear statement of findings?
- Does the data support the authors’ conclusions?
- Are there any conflicts of interest or ethical concerns?
There are various strategies used in reading a scientific research paper, and one of these is to start with the title and the abstract, then look at the figures and tables, and move on to the introduction, before turning to the results and discussion, and finally, interrogating the methods.
Another strategy (outlined below) is to begin with the abstract and then the discussion, take a look at the methods, and then the results section (including any relevant tables and figures), before moving on to look more closely at the discussion and, finally, the conclusion. You should choose a strategy that works best for you. However, asking the ‘right’ questions is a central feature of critical appraisal, as with any enquiry, so where should you begin? Here are some critical questions to consider when evaluating a research paper.
Look at the Abstract and then the Discussion : Are these accessible and of general relevance or are they detailed, with far-reaching conclusions? Is it clear why the study was undertaken? Why are the conclusions important? Does the study add anything new to current knowledge and understanding? The reasons why a particular study design or statistical method were chosen should also be clear from reading a research paper. What is the research question being asked? Does the study test a stated hypothesis? Is the design of the study appropriate to the research question? Have the authors considered the limitations of their study and have they discussed these in context?
Take a look at the Methods : Were there any practical difficulties that could have compromised the study or its implementation? Were these considered in the protocol? Were there any missing values and, if so, was the number of missing values too large to permit meaningful analysis? Was the number of samples (cases or participants) too small to establish meaningful significance? Do the study methods address key potential sources of bias? Were suitable ‘controls’ included in the study? If controls are missing or not appropriate to the study design, we cannot be confident that the results really show what is happening in an experiment. Were the statistical analyses appropriate and applied correctly? Do the authors point out the limitations of methods or tests used? Were the methods referenced and described in sufficient detail for others to repeat or extend the study?
Take a look at the Results section and relevant tables and figures : Is there a clear statement of findings? Were the results expected? Do they make sense? What data supports them? Do the tables and figures clearly describe the data (highlighting trends etc.)? Try to distinguish between what the data show and what the authors say they show (i.e. their interpretation).
Moving on to look in greater depth at the Discussion and Conclusion : Are the results discussed in relation to similar (previous) studies? Do the authors indulge in excessive speculation? Are limitations of the study adequately addressed? Were the objectives of the study met and the hypothesis supported or refuted (and is a clear explanation provided)? Does the data support the authors’ conclusions? Maybe there is only one experiment to support a point. More often, several different experiments or approaches combine to support a particular conclusion. A rule of thumb here is that if multiple approaches and multiple lines of evidence from different directions are presented, and all point to the same conclusion, then the conclusions are more credible. But do question all assumptions. Identify any implicit or hidden assumptions that the authors may have used when interpreting their data. Be wary of data that is mixed up with interpretation and speculation! Remember, just because it is published, does not mean that it is right.
O ther points you should consider when evaluating a research paper : Are there any financial, ethical or other conflicts of interest associated with the study, its authors and sponsors? Are there ethical concerns with the study itself? Looking at the references, consider if the authors have preferentially cited their own previous publications (i.e. needlessly), and whether the list of references are recent (ensuring that the analysis is up-to-date). Finally, from a practical perspective, you should move beyond the text of a research paper, talk to your peers about it, consult available commentaries, online links to references and other external sources to help clarify any aspects you don’t understand.
The above can be taken as a general guide to help you begin to critically evaluate a scientific research paper, but only in the broadest sense. Do bear in mind that the way that research evidence is critiqued will also differ slightly according to the type of study being appraised, whether observational or experimental, and each study will have additional aspects that would need to be evaluated separately. For criteria recommended for the evaluation of qualitative research papers, see the article by Mildred Blaxter (1996), available online. Details are in the References.
Activity 1 Critical appraisal of a scientific research paper
A critical appraisal checklist, which you can download via the link below, can act as a useful tool to help you to interrogate research papers. The checklist is divided into four sections, broadly covering:
- some general aspects
- research design and methodology
- the results
- discussion, conclusion and references.
Science perspective – critical appraisal checklist [ Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. ( Hide tip ) ]
- Identify and obtain a research article based on a topic of your own choosing, using a search engine such as Google Scholar or PubMed (for example).
- The selection criteria for your target paper are as follows: the article must be an open access primary research paper (not a review) containing empirical data, published in the last 2–3 years, and preferably no more than 5–6 pages in length.
- Critically evaluate the research paper using the checklist provided, making notes on the key points and your overall impression.
Critical appraisal checklists are useful tools to help assess the quality of a study. Assessment of various factors, including the importance of the research question, the design and methodology of a study, the validity of the results and their usefulness (application or relevance), the legitimacy of the conclusions, and any potential conflicts of interest, are an important part of the critical appraisal process. Limitations and further improvements can then be considered.
- Study and research support
- Academic skills
Critical thinking
Critical writing.
Students sometimes receive feedback such as "your essay is too descriptive" or "you need to show more critical analysis". While some description may be necessary – for instance if you are providing background information – most university assignments require you to produce work that is analytical and critical in its approach.
Your tutors want to know what you think
Your writing needs to show your interpretation of the evidence and source material, how you have used that information to demonstrate your understanding, and your subsequent position on the topic. Being critical in your writing means engaging in academic debates and research happening in your subject area.
The sources you select, the way you show how they agree or disagree with other pieces of evidence, and the way you structure your argument will all show your thought process and how you have understood the information you have read.
Use evidence to strengthen your position
Always keep your reader in mind and try to anticipate the questions they would ask — refer back to the Critical thinking questions (PDF) to help you with this. You can use evidence to help you strengthen your position, answer readers' questions, and "neutralise" opposing points of view.
Remember to keep descriptive statements to a minimum — there is no need to provide large amounts of background or historical information.
Make sure you move from description to analysis and evaluation . Give your interpretation of the facts, and explain the significance, consequences and implications of the statements you have made.
See our advice on structuring a paragraph for more information on how to attach analysis and evaluation to each point you make.
Descriptive vs critical writing examples
The following examples demonstrate the difference between descriptive writing and critical/analytical writing. They are taken from: Cottrell, S. 2003. The Study Skills Handbook . 2nd ed. London: Palgrave.
State what happened vs identify its significance
To write critically you will need to not only describe what happened, but also identify the significance of what happened.
Descriptive example
"The data shows that the incidence (new cases) of asthma rates in children under 15 years old increased rapidly from 1977, peaking in 1993 and then declining, though rates still remain significantly higher than pre-1976 levels."
Critical example
"The trend, from 1977 until 1993, of a rapid rise in rates of asthma diagnosis in children under 15 years, suggests that one of the causal factors was particularly prevalent during this time, but has since declined in importance or effect."
Explain the theory vs show its relevance
Descriptive writing will explain what the theory says. To write critically you need to go further and show why that theory is relevant.
"Carl Rogers' theory of a person-centred approach focuses on the freedom of the individual to determine what values should be used to measure successful personal outcomes or benefit, and is particularly relevant for social workers when wanting to take into account the diverse needs of the client group."
"Carl Rogers' theory of a person-centred approach is particularly suitable for social workers wanting to work with a client group with diverse needs because it allows the client to determine what values should be used to measure successful outcomes, rather than those externally determined by, for example, the service, state or dominant culture in society."
Note the method used vs indicate its appropriateness
Rather than simply noting the method used, which is the descriptive approach, a critical writer will show how appropriate that method was.
"In addition to competency-based questions, the candidates were asked to complete an in-tray exercise, which required them to allocate different priority levels to tasks, as an appropriate method to measure their likely performance in the actual job."
"In addition to competency-based questions, candidates were asked to complete an in-tray task prioritisation exercise. This was because it was considered a more effective way to measure likely performance in the actual role as the majority of the job would involve similar tasks, with little interaction with customers and therefore less requirement for highly developed communication skills."
You can apply our critical thinking model to your own work; use our Judging your own work (PDF) questions to help you decide if your writing is critical. These questions will take you through the description-analysis-evaluation stages. Take a look at further examples of descriptive writing vs. critical/analytical writing (PDF)
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
As the saying goes, it’s never too early to start thinking about retirement planning. As part of that planning, you’re probably anticipating drawing an income from sources other than a salaried full-time job.
The coin collection industry is rapidly growing, with more people interested in learning the art of coin collecting. You’ll occasionally get lucky with finding rare UK coins, ranging from rare mints to pure gold coins and sometimes even anc...
There are 154 recognized higher learning institutions that can award degrees in the United Kingdom, according to the U.K. government website. Over two million people are enrolled at U.K. universities as undergraduate and postgraduate studen...
Start Here · Analyzing the Text. 1. Identify how and why the research was carried out; 2. Establish the research context; 3. Evaluate the
A critical review (sometimes called a critique, critical commentary, critical appraisal, critical analysis) is a detailed commentary on and critical evaluation
following guidelines are designed to help you critically evaluate a research article. What is meant by critical? To be critical does not mean to criticise
Discussion. Critical
THE RESEARCH PAPER IN BASIC MEDICAL SCIENCES ... evaluate papers in related disciplines.
to acquire expertise in critically reading primary research papers, for.
How To Critique A Research Paper, Article, Journal (Critical Appraisal) · Key moments. View all · Key moments · Description · Key moments. View all
Read and Take Notes · What kind of article is it (for example does it present data or does it present purely theoretical arguments)? · What is the main area under
We often come across news articles making unjustified scientific/medical claims.
Make sure you move from description to analysis and evaluation. Give your interpretation of the facts, and explain the significance, consequences and
Writing the article: this requires the author or authors to present their research findings in a broadly scientific style. The layout of the article may also