A guide for critique of research articles

Following is the list of criteria to evaluate (critique) a research article. Please note that you should first summarize the paper and then evaluate different parts of it.

Most of the evaluation section should be devoted to evaluation of internal validity of the conclusions. Please add at the end a section entitled ''changes in the design/procedures if I want to replicate this study." Attach a copy of the original article to your paper.

Click here to see a an example (this is how you start) of a research critique.

Click here to see the original article.

The following list is a guide for you to organize your evaluation. It is recommended to organize your evaluation in this order. This is a long list of questions. You don’t have to address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions . Some questions may not be relevant to your article.


1.     Is there a statement of the problem?

2.     Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data?

3.     Is background information on the problem presented?

4.     Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?

5.     Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

Review of Related Literature

1.     Is the review comprehensive?

2.     Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation?

3.     Are most of the sources primary, i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources?

4.     Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of various studies compared and contrasted, i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?

5.     Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?

6.     Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?

1.     Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?

2.     Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference?

3.     If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

4.     Is each hypothesis testable?

Method          Subjects

1.     Are the size and major characteristics of the population studied described?

2.     If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?

3.      Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?

4.     Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?

5.     Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?

6.     Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represented?      


1.     Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?

2.     Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content?

3.     Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables?

4.     Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample under study?

5.     Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?

6.     Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?

7.     If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?

8.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its development and validation described?

9.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?

Design and Procedure

1.     Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the   study?

2.     Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?

3.     If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the subsequent study?

4.     Are the control procedures described?

5.     Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or she was unable to control for?

1.     Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented?

2.     Was the probability level, α, at which the results of the tests of significance were evaluated,

       specified in advance of the data analyses?

3.     If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the

       required assumptions for parametric tests?

4.     Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the


5.     Was every hypothesis tested?

6.     Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom?

7.     Are the results clearly presented?

8.     Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?

9.     Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?

Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)

1.     Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?

2.     Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results

        obtained by other researchers in other studies?

3.     Are generalizations consistent with the results?

4.     Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?

5.     Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed?

6.     Are recommendations for future action made?

7.     Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on statistical

       significance only, i.e., has the author avoided confusing practical and statistical


8.     Are recommendations for future research made?

Additional general questions to be answered in your critique.

1. What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?

2. Describe the sample used in this study.

3. Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.

4. What type of research is this?  Explain.

5. How was the data analyzed?

6. What is (are) the major finding(s)?

How to Critique an Article

how to critique an article methodology

What Is an Article Critique?

An article critique is an assignment that requires a student to critically read a research article and reflect upon it. The key task is to identify the strong and weak sides of the piece and assess how well the author interprets its sources. Simply put, a critique reflects upon the validity and effectiveness of the article's author's arguments in his or her work.

The key to success in writing this paper is critical thinking. The task of every research article author is to convince readers of the correctness of their viewpoint, even if it is skewed. Thus, the only ways to distinguish solid arguments from weak ones are to be a good researcher, have the right tools to pick out facts from fiction and possess solid critical thinking skills.

How to write a critique paper – In this guide, we will take you through the process of writing this type of work step by step. However, before we move on, it is worth noting that the main purpose of a good article critique is to bring up points that determine whether a reviewed article is either correct or incorrect—much like you would do while writing a persuasive essay. Although the purpose is similar, the structure of the article critique that we are going to address in this guide is slightly different from the standard 5-paragraph essay; however, both formats are suitable for convincing readers about the validity of your point of view.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

This form of assignment is naturally challenging and rather confusing. It is no wonder why students may begin to feel overwhelmed with figuring out how to write an article critique.

critique an article

To help you get your task done with ease, we have prepared a simple 3-step guide on how to summarize and critique an article:

Step 1: Reading the Article

First of all, to critique the article, you need to read it carefully. It is recommended to read the piece several times—until you fully understand the information presented for a better outcome. Next, you need to address the following questions:

1. Why is the article's author considered an expert in their field?

What makes a particular author's opinion sound valid? Does the author know about the topic? What do other field experts say about the author? Is the article's author covered in academic praise or not taken seriously?

2. What is the author's thesis/hypothesis?

What is the main message the author is trying to convey? Is this message clear? Or are there just plenty of general phrases without any specific details?

3. Who is the article's target audience?

Is the article geared toward a general audience? Or does it appeal to a specific group of people and use only understandable language for that audience?

4. Are the arguments presented valid?

Are the sources used by the author from all over the place? Does it seem like some sources are taken from areas that share a cult-like vocabulary?

5. What are the logical fallacies in the author's viewpoint?

Are there any logical blindspots? How much do they affect the outcome?

6. Is the conclusion clear and logical? Did the author arrive at a clear outcome in his or her work?

Found Yourself in a Situation Where You Type ' write an essay for me '?

Professional writing help is right here.

Step 2: Collecting Proof

The first step will help you read and understand the piece, look at it from a critical point of view, and reflect upon it. Now, when you have an idea about which way you should be heading in your critique paper, it is the time to start gathering evidence. Here are the main steps you should undertake:

1. Define Whether the Author Is Following Formal Logic One of the key things to look for when writing an article critique is the presence of any logical fallacies. Establishing that the author's general idea follows logic is not easy, but it is essential to coping with the task.

Often, undereducated people have some common logical fallacies. An example is to accept certain information based on the feelings and/or emotions it evokes rather than focusing on the supporting arguments.

Here is a list of some common examples of logical fallacies with brief explanations of each:

2. Search for Any Biased Opinions in the Article Another step is to evaluate the piece based on biased opinions. The thing is that people often pick sides of an argument based on the outcomes rather than the evidence. So, if the result makes them feel bad in any way, they can search for any proof that would discredit it and, thus, make them feel better.

3. Pay Attention to the Way the Author Interprets Others’ Texts. Does He or She Look at Others’ Viewpoints through Inappropriate Political Lenses? It takes much time and experience in research practice to recognize the fingerprints of all the political slants out there. To grasp the concept, let's look at the subject of animal studies. To begin with, it's worth noting that some people become involved in certain industries due to their emotional involvement in their related topics. For example, people who write about animals are likely those who genuinely love them. This can put their work at risk of being biased toward portraying animals in a way that gives their topic more importance than it deserves. This is a clear example of what you should be looking for.

When reading and re-reading the article, find and highlight cases in which the author overstates the importance of some things due to his or her own beliefs. Then, to polish your mental research instruments, go back to point 1 of this list to review the list of logical fallacies you can look out for.

4. Check Cited Sources Another big step to writing a perfect critique paper is identifying whether the author cited untrustworthy sources of information. Doing this is not easy and requires a certain experience.

For example, let's look at Breitbart news. How would you define whether it is an untrustworthy source or not? To rate trustworthiness, one should know about its long history of distorting facts to suit a far-right agenda. Learning this requires paying a lot of attention to local and international news.

5. Evaluate the Language Used in the Article Language is vital in every article, regardless of the field and topic. Therefore, while working on your critique, you should pay close attention to the language the article's author uses.

Just to give you a clear example of what you should be looking for: some words have cultural meanings attached to them, which can create a confrontation in the article. Such terms can place people, objects, or ideas into the 'them' side in the 'us vs. them' scenario.

For example, if someone conservative refers to an opponent using the word “leftist”, this can be considered a form of attacking the messenger and not the message. A similar concept applies to a case when someone progressive refers to an opponent using the word “bigot”.

Using such language in an article is a clear sign of logical fallacies. Authors use it to discredit their opponents on the merit of who they are rather than what they say. This is poor word choice because the debate does not get resolved.

6. Question the Research Methods in Scientific Articles

This may not always be mandatory, but if you write an article critique for a scientific piece, you are expected to question and evaluate how the author did their research.

To do this, ask the following questions:

Step 3: Formatting Your Paper

Just like any other written assignment, a critique paper should be formatted and structured properly. A standard article critique consists of four parts: an introduction, summary, analysis, and conclusion. Below is a clear checklist to help you grasp the idea of how a good paper should be formatted:

‍ Introduction ‍

Conclusion ‍

How to Critique a Journal Article

So, you were assigned to write a critique paper for a journal article? If you are not sure where to start, here is a step-by-step guide on how to critique a journal article:

critique an article

1. Collect basic information Regardless of the article subject you are going to critique; your paper has to contain some basic information, including the following:

2. Read the article once and re-read after First, get an overview of it and grasp the general idea of it. A good critique should reflect your qualified and educated opinion regarding the article. To shape such an opinion, you have to read the piece again, this time critically, and highlight everything that can be useful for writing your paper.

3.Write your critique based on the evidence you have collected Here are the main questions to address when writing a journal article critique:

You might also be interested in an article about how to write a descriptive essay .

How to Critique a Research Article

If you are wondering how to critique a research article in particular, below we’ve outlined the key steps to follow.

Before you start writing:

While reading:

critique an article

Struggling to find the strong and weak points that can shape your critique? Here is a simple checklist to help you understand what to critique in a research article (separated by sections):


2. Review of the Relevant Literature

3. Hypothesis

1. Participants

2. Instruments

3. Design and Procedures

Discussion, Conclusion, or Suggestions

Abstract or Summary

Overall Impression

As you go through all these steps, you can transition to writing. When writing your critique paper, you should critically evaluate the research article you have read and use the evidence collected from the piece. To help you structure your research article critique properly, here is a sample outline of a critique of research for the article The Effects of Early Education on Children's Competence in Elementary School:

1. Bibliographic Information

2. Summary of the Article

3. Critique

4. Conclusion

You can always ask our professional essay writers for help. Leave us a notice write a research paper for me and we'll do it for you asap!

Video Guide: How to Write an Article Critique

Article critique example.

Now, as you know how to write this type of assignment step by step, our nursing essay writing service are going to share an example of journal article critique to help you grasp the idea of how the finished work should look.

“The education system cannot address what it does not acknowledge” (Shewchuk, and Cooper 942). Ontario, a province in Canada, understands this and has come up with an initiative and policies to improve equity in their schools. To achieve this, they have implemented an Equity and Inclusive Education (EIE) strategy. The practical purpose for EIE strategy is to ensure that in Ontario there is inclusive education, in which there are no biases, barriers, or power dynamics that discourages student learning possibilities. Acknowledging a problem and committing to finding its solution is the first step an administration can do to be supportive of their education system. However, the proper thought, research, and policy guidelines should be formulated to ensure the policies and strategy are inclusive of the potential issues, and have room for expansion. The procedures proposed are religious accommodative, anti-discrimination, and harassment of any kind. The policy should have a sound technique of how it will be implemented and reviewed and monitored after. Ontario has done just that, and the purpose of this article is to evaluate how well the equity program has been implemented in the province in attempts to foster equity in schools.

Need help with your paper? You can buy essay at our professional writing service.

Still Struggling to Grasp the Concept?

Writing an article critique is not easy because it requires lots of time to do background research. Not everyone has the time and energy to put into learning volumes about the many sides of an issue. Here you can find argumentative essay writer for any topic you can think of. Contact them today to get a high-quality article critique quickly.

Related Articles

movie review

How to Critique a Research Methodology

A research method is the specific procedure used to answer a set of research questions. Popular methods vary by field, but include qualitative as well as quantitative approaches. Qualitative approaches rely more on observation and interpretation, while quantitative methods focus on data collection and analysis. Research methods should not be confused with research methodology, which is the study of research methods.

Identifying and Critiquing a Research Method

Find the research method in a research paper by looking for a section by this title, which will typically be toward the beginning of the paper, after the abstract and introduction. The description of the research method should include a rationale for why it was chosen.

Ask yourself whether the method used makes sense in answering the research questions. Most basically, research questions which seek to understand a phenomenon may be best answered with qualitative methods such as case studies or narrative approaches. Research questions which seek to describe a phenomenon may be better suited to quantitative methods, such as experiments or surveys.

Match the research questions with the author’s conclusions. Make sure the research questions were answered specifically. Incomplete answers often indicate improper choice of research method.

Be aware of the most common methodological errors. First, even when a specific method answers specific research questions, data disparities and questions that arise during research often cause scientists to redesign their studies. Thus, a completed study should proceed logically from question to method to discussion and conclusions. If there are obvious questions left unanswered, a methodological error may be the cause.

Examine the researcher’s conclusions from a broad perspective. Ask yourself if they make significant contributions to existing knowledge about the topic. For example, if a study of apples reveals that they have seeds, this would not be a significant finding. Studies that merely support existing knowledge can be helpful, but an overly basic study can be the result of an improper method.

Robin Donovan has been a freelance health writer specializing in chronic illness and women's health since 2008. Her work has appeared in "Cincinnati Magazine," "Southeast Ohio" magazine, "Perspectives" magazine, the "Athens News" and other publications. She has a master's degree in journalism from Ohio University.


How to Critique an Article (Psychology)


how to critique an article methodology


Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

colonnade and university hall

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

student at laptop

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

campus in spring

Find your Fit

UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.

campus in spring

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

campus in spring

Give Like a Star

Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.

alumni at gala

Bragging Rights

UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.

lincoln statue fall

Request Info


How to Review a Journal Article

rainbow over colonnade

For many kinds of assignments, like a  literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your  qualified opinion  and  evaluation  of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple  summary  of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.


Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes,  annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

Evaluating Methods

Evaluating Data

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.),  Digital games in language learning and teaching  (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an  annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.


How to critique a research article or prepare yourself for critique

how to critique an article methodology

The ability to write a well-crafted critique is a highly sought-after skill in academic work. Although some incorrectly perceive a critique as an opportunity to denigrate or ridicule the works of others, on the contrary, a well-written critique can be constructive and advance the original paper.

Below are some relevant considerations when you are either attempting to undertake a critical analysis/review of an article or about to write an article that will undergo a critical review. Each point is formulated as a question.

Are the introductory parts of the paper relevant?

The early parts of an article capture the main message that the researcher intends to convey. The abstract itself has to briefly capture the key aspects of the paper, from beginning to end. Most readers of an article will begin by examining the abstract first so as to have a general overview of what the paper is going to cover.

The article’s introduction section lays the important groundwork for the topic under investigation. It provides a brief description of the relevant concepts and provides the foundation upon which the remaining text is built. Another important component of the introductory parts of a paper is the study’s objective which needs to be clearly and concisely expressed for all readers to comprehend without any confusion.

Perhaps the most important section is the problem statement. It needs to be stated and discussed in a way that the reader can understand the underlying needs/problems that the research paper addresses. Having clearly stated the problem, the research questions and/or hypothesis should revolve around it.

Does the literature review match the subject matter being researched?

It is important that the literature review be organized in a systematic and coherent manner, according to the demands of the article. As a general rule of thumb, the majority of the literature review (and the article as a whole) should discuss contemporary views and citations. If your article is being written in the year 2021, for example, try to cite recent sources (e.g. from the past five years if possible). The definition of what constitutes “recent research” differs depending on the research area; some research subjects tend to change slowly over time whereas others (such as IT) move quickly. Thus, a five-year old paper in the field of organizational science may be considered somewhat recent, whereas a five-year old paper in AI research would be considered somewhat antiquated.

This is not to say that older citations should not be accommodated. Older citations can and should be used sparsely, and may be particularly useful in order to provide the historical background to the contemporary research. The researcher needs to present a balanced critical analysis of the literature that captures different angles or perspectives of the subject matter he or she is investigating. For example, the empirical literature should be broad enough to discuss contrasting findings related to the research topic that support the hypothesis and those that do not.

How appropriate is the research methodology/design?

This is another very important aspect of the research article. It represents a roadmap towards the resolution of the study’s hypothesis by delineating the approach taken to find answers for the initial research questions. A faulty approach can lead to incorrect findings and conclusions. For that reason, the researcher has to critically reflect on the topic that they are studying to come up with a combination of the most suitable ways of collecting, measuring (if the data is quantitative), and analyzing/interpreting the obtained data.

Some pertinent considerations here include the instruments/methods used to collect the data, sample size/sampling technique, validity and reliability measures, and data analysis techniques. The various forms of validation ensure that the instrument is measuring what it purports to measure and nothing else while reliability ensures consistency of the research findings should the study be repeated.

Is the data analysis/discussion of findings comprehensive enough?

Assuming the research methodology is suitable, and the researcher succeeds in measuring all relevant variables, it then follows that the data analysis or discussion chapter must be as comprehensive as possible.  Comprehensiveness implies that all key aspects of the problem, research questions and hypothesis should be discussed exhaustively. Likewise, the primary findings of the research paper should be compared and contrasted with findings from previous related studies.

If statistical (and any other) software were used in the measurements, the printouts from such software should be appropriately displayed to aid the analysis. Some of these printouts can also be displayed in the appendix section. The software type and version used for each measurement should be indicated below each printout (e.g., Eviews, version 11).

Does the conclusion capture what has been researched?

The conclusion is a rehash of all the previous sections of the article. It traces the article from the introduction to the discussion of findings. If done correctly, it should read like a summary, highlighting the key aspects of the article, especially the important findings and how they relate to the research problem. Particular care should be taken not to introduce any new ideas in the conclusion phase that are not originally part of the other sections.

How “polished” is the writing style?

This is to some extent governed by individual creativity since every research paper is bound to be different in style depending on the author. The researcher is however expected to organize his/her ideas according to their level of academic achievement. For instance, an undergraduate project is understandably less polished than a PhD thesis.

Whatever the level may be, there are fundamental rules every research article must follow. One such rule is the avoidance of plagiarism. Hence, all ideas that are not original to the researcher must be properly cited to avoid any wrongdoings. Another important rule is ensuring that the article is free from all forms of errors, be they typing, grammar, or punctuation errors. Ideas should be conveyed in a logical order where the proposed arguments clearly follow from the antecedent assumptions that have been made.

All institutions have a formal style guide for writing academic papers (e.g., APA, Chicago, MLA, etc). It is important to strictly adhere to the reference guide provided by the institution or publication.

how to critique an article methodology

When writing your research paper, it is essential that all the sections or chapters are meticulously crafted so as to survive even the harshest critical analysis. However, even if you do write a well-crafted research paper or thesis, that will not make you immune to criticism. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, don’t take it personal, it’s only business. Use the criticism to improve your work, and if you believe the critique is unwarranted, be prepared to defend your study using well-crafted arguments.

Write Better Research Notes

Avidnote is our app for writing and organizing your research notes online. It’s free to to use. Click below to find out more.

how to critique an article methodology

Submit your response Cancel reply

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

Email address

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

Privacy Overview


  1. Methodology critique sample

    how to critique an article methodology

  2. 😂 What is a critique of an article. How To Critique An Article: Step By Step Article Critique

    how to critique an article methodology

  3. Pin on Research Article Critique Sample

    how to critique an article methodology

  4. Example Of Methodology In Journal Article : Critical Critique Scientific Journal Articles Cover

    how to critique an article methodology

  5. Qualitative Research Paper Critique Example : Much more than documents

    how to critique an article methodology

  6. Critique Paper Example Journal

    how to critique an article methodology


  1. What is Research? Business Research

  2. An Overview of Articles

  3. How to write Methodology of the Research Article in Urdu By Dr. Nouman

  4. Conferência: Transference and the Methodology of Critique (Amy Allen)

  5. Writing a Critique

  6. Financial Quarterback LIVE iHeartMedia


  1. The Critique Process:

    1. state a definition for research critique. ... determining if the design and methodology are ... Read the research article or report in its.


    WHAT IS AN ARTICLE CRITIQUE? A critique is a systematic ... method is established, the reader can critique the research design for methodological rigour.

  3. Writing an Article Critique

    How is a critique different from a summary? ... A summary of a research article requires you to share the key points of the article so your reader can get a clear

  4. A guide for critique of research articles

    Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation) · 1. What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)? · 2. Describe the sample used in this study. · 3. Describe

  5. How to Critique an Article in 3 Steps (with Example)

    How to Critique a Research Article · Introduction · Method · Results · Discussion, Conclusion, or Suggestions · Abstract or Summary · Overall

  6. How to Write an Article Critique

    Did the author use appropriate methods to gather. Page 2. the evidence? Was the evidence used by the author accurate? Are the article and the evidence still

  7. How to Critique a Research Methodology

    Find the research method in a research paper by looking for a section by this title, which will typically be toward the beginning of the paper, after the

  8. Method

    Method · Are the measures widely used in the field? · Are the measures reliable and valid? · Are they appropriate for the group or age being

  9. How to Review a Journal Article

    Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes, annotating, and

  10. How to critique a research article or prepare yourself for ...

    How to critique a research article or prepare yourself for critique · Are the introductory parts of the paper relevant? · Does the literature review match the