Formal Critique There are many acceptable formats for critiquing the scientific literature. The purpose of this outline and the following article “Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research” is to provide ideas and guidance to those who may not already have a preferred writing style. Suggested Critique Format: Heading • Critique/Review • Reviewer • Your Major, Department, University, City, State • Article Title • Author(s) • Journal: (include name of journal, volume, pages) Overview/Brief Description Without going into detail or injecting your personal opinion, provide a summary of the study. Include the following information: • The objective of the study and why the author believes it to be significant. • Summarize how the author investigated his/her objective. • Describe the most noteworthy results • Present the author’s main conclusions Strengths and Weaknesses (1-2 paragraphs on each) The following is a list of important aspects to consider when evaluating scientific literature. Not all may be relevant to a particular study. Consider these points and address a subset of them or other relevant points in the strengths or weaknesses portion of your review. Remember that justification is key for addressing strengths and weaknesses.• How appropriate is the Title? • Does the study have scientific merit? Did it contribute to society’s understanding of ecology? • Were the methods sufficient to test the author’s objective? • Could the study be duplicated to acquire similar results? • Are figures and tables well organized and necessary? Do the results address the main objectives of the study? • Are the conclusions supported by the results? • Is the paper well written/easy to follow? • Does this study inspire additional research? If so, provide examples. *Clarity and conciseness should be emphasized in your critiques. Avoid scientific jargon. The Critique is limited to 2 pages (doubled spaced).
