Article review writing format, steps, examples and illustration PDF Compiled by Mohammed Yismaw PDF

Preview

Summary

Article review writing Introduction The purpose of this document is to help students and researchers understand how review of an academic journal is conducted and reported in different fields of study. Review articles in academic journals that analyze or discuss researches previously published by ot...

Description

Article review writing Introduction The purpose of this document is to help students and researchers understand how review of an academic journal is conducted and reported in different fields of study. Review articles in academic journals that analyze or discuss researches previously published by others, rather than reporting new research results or findings. Summaries and critiques are two ways to write a review of a scientific journal article. Both types of writing ask you first to read and understand an article from the primary literature about your topic. The summary involves briefly but accurately stating the key points of the article for a reader who has not read the original article. The critique begins by summarizing the article and then analyzes and evaluates the author’s research. Summaries and critiques help you learn to synthesize information from different sources and are usually limited to two pages maximum (Duke writing studio, 2007).

Preparing for the Review: Before You Read the Article consider:  What does the title lead you to expect about the article?  Study any sub-headings to understand how the author organized the content.  Read the abstract for a summary of the author's arguments. Approach to reading the article  Problems with the Science: Pay attention to the integrity of the science - not so much right or wrong because you may not be able to know what will be right or wrong  Problems with the Presentation:Poorly focused: Authors fail to develop their ideas systematically (they need to lead the reader through their thinking) Author may fail to be explicit about the logical structure of the study - they fail to specify goals, hypotheses, testable predictors of the hypotheses and conclusions For tables and figures, try to interpret the data first before reading the captions and detail.

Actions to Take 1. Skim the article without taking notes:  Read the abstract. The abstract will tell you the major findings of the article and why they matter.  Read first for the “big picture.”  Note any terms or techniques you need to define.  Jot down any questions or parts you don’t understand  If you are unfamiliar with any of the key concepts in the article, look them up in a textbook. 2. Re-read the article more carefully:  Pay close attention to the “Materials and Methods” (please note that in some journals this section is at the very end of the paper) and “Results” sections.  Ask yourself questions about the study, such as: Was the study repeated? What was the sample size? Is this representative of the larger population? What variables were held constant? Was there a control? What factors might affect the outcome? 3. Read the “Materials and Methods” and “Results” sections multiple times:  Carefully examine the graphs, tables, and diagrams.  Try to interpret the data first before reading the captions and details.  Make sure you understand the article fully. 4. Before you begin the first draft of your summary:  Try to describe the article in your own words first.  Try to distill the article down to its “scientific essence.”  Include all the key points and be accurate.  A reader who has not read the original article should be able to understand your summary.

5. Write a draft of your summary:  Don’t look at the article while writing, to make it easier to put the information in your own words and avoid unintentional plagiarism.  Refer back to the article later for details and facts.  Ask yourself questions as you write: What is the purpose of the study? What questions were asked? How did the study address these questions? What assumptions did the author make? What were the major findings? What surprised you or struck you as interesting? What questions are still unanswered?

General Critique In this section one should state his/her opinions of how well the authors presented and discussed the research results including interpretations in the article. It should contain both positive and negative comments with due justification. Following issues may be addressed: - Does it build upon the appropriate foundation (i.e. , upon appropriate prior research)? - Is the approach and execution is correct? - Confidence with respect to the article’s results, and why? - Does article throws upon exclusive new ideas? - What are the article’s shortcomings and limitations? - Are all important aspects and issues of its domain covered? - Examine and comment the logic given in the article

Suggested Format of an article review

uous information.

Illustrative Example for article review Article Reviewed: Matthias, M., Sascha, V., & Jonathan, L. (2014). Identifying Customer Requirements for location-based Services. The article “Identifying Customer Requirements for location-based Services” by Matthias Möller, Sascha Vukovic, Jonathan Landgrebe (2014 )aims to explore strategies that can be effectively used in the early development phase of location-based mobile technologies. They define location-based services as those providing location-specific information additionally tailoring it to user characteristics and personal details. Some examples of such services could be car navigation or tourist tour planning (Schiller & Voisard, 2004). This technology can significantly reduce user effort in finding information that is specific to his/her current location and time. Successful implementation of these strategies, according to the authors, could help companies to adapt customer orientation and to innovate in a way that would best respond to current needs of the users and achieve higher profits (Zairi & Duggan, 1999). The article by Möller, Vukovic, and Landgrebe makes an important contribution into our understanding of the way research can be don’t in the areas, where demand is “sticky”, therefore the findings will be hard to generalize and to transfer to other areas. The research is further complicated by the need of service providers to anticipate the needs of the clients rather than to follow them, therefore it is crucial to ensure that even latent demand is identified and met (Young & Pagoso, 2008). In order to address both the “stickiness” of demand and the need to

work with customers on formulating product characteristics the authors used Iterative User and Manufacturer-Based Design introduced by Eric von Hippel (von Hippel, 2005). Bearing this framework in mind, Möller, Vukovic, and Landgrebe provide readers with a structured approach to the research question and developed a coherent an logical structure that initiates with problem definition and discussion and ends with a discussion of the potential research limitations as well as of some future research areas. Although the authors critically evaluate their studies in the end of the paper, the limitations analysis could be further expanded to include some suggestion for further improvement. Firstly, although the ideas behind Iterative User and Manufacturer-Based Design are extensively used in the articles, the authors do not elaborate on the alternative methods to develop research and innovation process as suggested by von Hippel. This could give readers a deeper understanding of the specific features of location-based services that make it necessary to seek for new ways to develop research in the field. Furthermore, clear definition of the “sticky” needs as well as more detailed discussion of the characteristics of sticky demand would facilitate understanding of the research by the readers, who do not have extensive prior knowledge in the field. Secondly, there are certain assumptions made in the article that may not necessarily hold true in the real life. Thus, the article suggests that the fulfilment of attractive and must-be requirements will necessarily foster profitable relations and lead to customer loyalty. Although this conclusion seems logical, there are a number of exogenous factors, such as demand elasticity and the cost of introducing new features that may alter the effect of new characteristics. Thus, if consumers will have to pay extra for location-based features they may decrease consumptions, thus lowering profitability. Several limitation of the research methodology make it hard to generalize the results obtained. As it is already mentioned in the article, the user sample selected for the experiment consisted of people, who had technical background and prior experience with location-based services. Therefore, the results in terms of characteristics desirability must have been rather biased. Thus, some of the features that are considered a “must have” for sophisticated users may be just attractive or even indifferent for less experienced ones.

Moreover, new users may value other aspects of the service , such as “buddy service”, therefore limiting innovation scope to include only the features demanded by users with advanced technical knowledge may limit the satisfaction of the much wider user group, who have no prior technical experience. Another point worth consideration is the status of technology used for the experiment. As the idea of rapid prototyping is to allow users to experience new technology firsthand, the quality of the offered prototype may be far below that of the final product. Therefore, initial problems with using the new service may lead to frustration, thus the final customers’ opinions will not reflect the real utility of the final product. The article could be further improved if the authors developed in greater details the implications that rapid prototyping and Iterative User and Manufacturer-Based Design may have on the location-based service industry. In particular, some discussion of the potential replication of the experiment for other services could help to enhance the value of the article for service providers. Moreover, some discussion of the dynamism of the industry that makes it hard to draw conclusions and to develop long-term product development strategies could help to evaluate the research more critically. Despite the limitations of the research by Möller, Vukovic, and Landgrebe discussed above the article makes a significant contribution into the research of location-based services, which can be used both for further research and for practical application by service providers.

Compiled by: Muhammed Yismaw, Lecturer in Accounting and Finance Email: [email protected]...