The document outlines the format for writing an article review, including 14 categories to cover: introduction, summary, results, contributions, foundation, synthesis with concepts, analysis, critique, issues, relevance/impact, questions, and references. It provides details on what should be included in each category, such as stating the article's objectives in the introduction, listing its original contributions, and examining its logic and evidence. The guidelines aim to help structure an in-depth review that evaluates all aspects of an article.
The document outlines the format for writing an article review, including 14 categories to cover: introduction, summary, results, contributions, foundation, synthesis with concepts, analysis, critique, issues, relevance/impact, questions, and references. It provides details on what should be included in each category, such as stating the article's objectives in the introduction, listing its original contributions, and examining its logic and evidence. The guidelines aim to help structure an in-depth review that evaluates all aspects of an article.
The document outlines the format for writing an article review, including 14 categories to cover: introduction, summary, results, contributions, foundation, synthesis with concepts, analysis, critique, issues, relevance/impact, questions, and references. It provides details on what should be included in each category, such as stating the article's objectives in the introduction, listing its original contributions, and examining its logic and evidence. The guidelines aim to help structure an in-depth review that evaluates all aspects of an article.
The document outlines the format for writing an article review, including 14 categories to cover: introduction, summary, results, contributions, foundation, synthesis with concepts, analysis, critique, issues, relevance/impact, questions, and references. It provides details on what should be included in each category, such as stating the article's objectives in the introduction, listing its original contributions, and examining its logic and evidence. The guidelines aim to help structure an in-depth review that evaluates all aspects of an article.
Outline of the Article Review (For Examples - points and content)
Please include the following categories in your article review:
Introduction: Objectives, Article Domain, Audience, Journal and Conceptual/ Empirical
Classification. Contributions Foundation Synthesis with Concepts Analysis and Additional Analysis General Critique Further Critique of a Conceptual Article/ an Empirical Article Issues (as listed by the author) Issues (as per your opinion) Relevance/Impact Brief Summary Results Questions Full Bibliographic Reference
1. Introduction: Objectives, Article domain, Audience, Journal and Conceptual/ Empirical/Review
Classification - State the Objective of the Article (goals or purpose), its domain/ topic area. -Identify the intended audience of the article, i.e. what background should reader have; what background material one should be familiar to understand the article? - Is the journal appropriate (or inappropriate) for this article? - Classify whether the article is Conceptual or Empirical or Review
2. Brief Summary Summarize the article very briefly, roughly as under: Paragraph 1: What is the problem being addressed?
Paragraph 2: which solution is being proposed?
Paragraph 3: what evidence is put forward to support the solution provided (if article is of empirical type, highlight what kind of empirical study was conducted as part of the evidence)
3. Results Briefly summarize the important points (such as observations, conclusions, findings, inferences) and “take home points” in the article.
4. Contributions An article makes a contribution by adding to the knowledge of researchers in a research field. An article can make a contribution to research field in many ways. Does it provide a new way to look at a problem? Does it bring together or “synthesize” several concepts in an insightful way that has not been done before? Does it provide new results/ solutions or identify new issues? Are the issues addressed introduced in a way that their relevance/impact to practice is evident?
List the article’s original contribution. Discuss each contribution with due care.
5. Foundation Identify the key pieces of prior research upon which article are built. If the article is entirely new domain, “This article does not build upon any foundation research” may be specified.
6. Synthesis with Concepts
Synthesis means analysing a particular topic by comparing and contrasting it with, and thinking about it from the viewpoint of, the basic concepts related to the topic.
7. Analysis State that what has changed since the article was written? How do its lessons, ideas and theories still apply? To what extent has their issue been resolved?
8. 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
9a. Further Critiques of a Conceptual Article
One should examine the logic of the arguments made by the authors. Article shall be tested upon logical consistency, coherence in arguments, substance of article and focus. 9b. Further Critiques of an Empirical Article In this section the strength of the empirical evidence supporting the author’s argument shall be examined. Article shall be test upon clarity, theoretical grounding, design of hypotheses and research investigation, correctness (in measurements, analysis and inferences drawn). 10c. Further criticises of a Review Article The logical sequence of background information and the focus as the state-of the art research should be examined.
Article should be checked upon clarity, theoretical background, latest literature & critical review, scope for further research in the related area.
10. Issues (as listed by author)
State issues as listed by author. How they are addressed or not addressed?
11. Issues (as per your opinion)
State issues according to you which remain unresolved or issues which could arise in future. Also, provide suggestions for resolving them.
12. Relevance/Impact Determine how much this article has relevance/Impact, do a citation analysis.
13. Questions List three insightful questions of your own arising from this article that could really make one think.
14. Annotated Bibliography /References:
For every item you have cited in your review, you need a full reference and an annotation explaining it, as under: reviewing (authors, title, journal name, volume, issue, year, page numbers, etc)
1. List the full bibliographic references with volume, issue, page number, year. 2. Write 2-4 sentences describing the article. 3. Write 2-4 sentences describing why you cited it.
Robert Romanchuk-Byzantine Hermeneutics and Pedagogy in The Russian North - Monks and Masters at The Kirillo-Belozerskii Monastery, 1397-1501-University of Toronto Press (2007)
