how to write a critique of a research paper

Writing a Critique Paper: Seven Easy Steps

Were you assigned or asked by your professor to write a critique paper? It’s easy to write one. Just follow the following four steps in writing a critique paper and three steps in presenting it, then you’re ready to go.

One of the students’ requirements I specified in the course module is a critique paper. Just so everyone benefits from the guide I prepared for that class, I share it here.

To standardize the format they use in writing a critique paper, I came up with the following steps to make their submissions worthwhile.

Table of Contents

Step-by-step procedure in writing a critique paper.

I quickly wrote this simple guide on writing a critique paper to help you evaluate any composition you want to write about. It could be a book, a scientific article, a gray paper, or whatever your professor assigns. I integrated the essence of the approach in this article.

The critique paper essentially comprises two major parts, namely the:

1) Procedure in Writing a Critique Paper, and the

First, you will need to know the procedure that will guide you in evaluating a paper. Second, the format of the critique paper refers to how you present it so that it becomes logical and scholarly in tone.

The Four Steps in Writing a Critique Paper

Here are the four steps in writing a critique paper:

To write a good critique paper, it pays to adhere to a smooth flow of thought in your evaluation of the piece. You will need to introduce the topic, analyze, interpret, then conclude it.

Introduce the Discussion Topic

Introduce the topic of the critique paper. To capture the author’s idea, you may apply the  5Ws and 1H approach  in writing your technical report.

That means, when you write your critique paper, you should be able to answer the Why , When , Where , What , Who , and How questions. Using this approach prevents missing out on the essential details. If you can write a critique paper that adheres to this approach, that would be excellent.

Here’s a simplified example to illustrate the technique:

The news article by John Doe was a narrative about a bank robbery. Accordingly, a masked man  (Who)  robbed a bank  (What)  the other day  (When)  next to a police station  (Where) . He did so in broad daylight  (How) . He used a bicycle to escape from the scene of the crime  (How) . In his haste, he bumped into a post. His mask fell off; thus, everyone saw his face, allowing witnesses to describe him. As a result, he had difficulty escaping the police, who eventually retrieved his loot and put him in jail because of his wrongdoing  (Why) .

Hence, you give details about the topic, in this case, a bank robbery. Briefly describe what you want to tell your audience. State the overall purpose of writing the piece and its intention.

Analyze means to break down the abstract ideas presented into manageable bits.

What are the main points of the composition? How was it structured? Did the view expressed by the author allow you, as the reader, to understand?

If you want to split a log, what would you do? Do you use an ax, a chainsaw, or perhaps a knife? The last one is out of the question. It’s inappropriate.

Now, you are ready to interpret the article, book, or any composition once the requisites of analysis are in place.

Visualize the event in your mind and interpret the behavior of actors in the bank robbery incident. You have several actors in that bank heist: the robber, the police, and the witnesses of the crime.

Imagine, his mode of escape is a bicycle. What got into him? Maybe he did not plan the robbery at all. Besides, there was no mention that the robber used a gun in the heist.

If we examine the police’s response, they were relatively quick. Right after the robber escaped the crime scene, they appeared to remedy the situation. The robber did not put up a fight.

If we look at the witnesses’ behavior, we can discern that perhaps they willingly informed the police of the bank robber’s details. They were not afraid. And that’s because the robber appears to be unarmed. But there was no specific mention of it.

Assess or Evaluate

Finally, judge whether the article was a worthwhile account after all. Did it meet expectations? Was it able to convey the information most efficiently? Or are there loopholes or flaws that should have been mentioned?

Format of Presenting the Critique Paper

The logical format in writing a critique paper comprises at least three sections: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. This approach is systematic and achieves a good flow that readers can follow.

Introduction

In any scientific article, there is always a thesis that guides the write-up. A thesis is a statement that expresses what the author believes in and tries to test in his study. The investigation or research converges (ideally) to this central theme as the author’s argument.

If you need more information about this, please refer to my previous post titled “ How to Write a Thesis .”

How is the introduction of a critique paper structured? It follows the general guidelines of writing from a broad perspective to more specific concerns or details. See how it’s written here:  Writing a Thesis Introduction: from General to Specific .

This section is similar to the results and discussion portion of a scientific paper. It describes the outcome of your analysis and interpretation.

Besides, who wants to adopt the perspective of an author who has not even got hold of a mobile phone if your paper is about  using mobile phones to facilitate learning during the pandemic caused by COVID-19 ? Find a more recent one that will help you understand the situation.

Objectively examine the major points presented by the author by giving details about the work. How does the author present or express the idea or concept? Is he (or she) convincing the way he/she presents his/her paper’s thesis?

Therefore, always find evidence to support your position. Explain why you agree or disagree with the author. Point out the discrepancies or strengths of the paper.

If you have read up to this point, then thank you for reading my musings. I hope that helped you clarify the steps in writing a critique paper. A well-written critique paper depends on your writing style.

Read More : How to Write an Article with AI: A Guide to Using AI for Article Creation and Refinement

Final Tip : Find a paper that is easy for you to understand. In that way, you can clearly express your thoughts. Write a critique paper that rocks!

Related Reading

Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological bulletin , 105 (1), 51.

Related Posts

How to write the results and discussion: 9 tips, hybrid learning vs online classes: 37 key points to ponder, researcher’s euphoria: discovering something new, about the author, patrick regoniel.

Dr. Regoniel, a hobbyist writer, served as consultant to various environmental research and development projects covering issues and concerns on climate change, coral reef resources and management, economic valuation of environmental and natural resources, mining, and waste management and pollution. He has extensive experience on applied statistics, systems modelling and analysis, an avid practitioner of LaTeX, and a multidisciplinary web developer. He leverages pioneering AI-powered content creation tools to produce unique and comprehensive articles in this website.

SimplyEducate.Me Privacy Policy

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

• 1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
• 2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
• 3 Article Critique Outline
• 4 Article Critique Formatting
• 5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
• 6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
• 7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
• 8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

• A brief summary of the article .
• A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
• A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

• Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
• Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
• Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
• Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
• Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
• Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
• Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

• The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
• The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
• The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

• Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
• Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
• Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

• Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
• Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
• Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
• Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
• The purpose of the study
• The research question or questions
• The methods used
• The outcomes
• The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
• Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

• Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
• Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
• Use evidence from to support your points.
• Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

• Writing well

How to write a critique

• Starting well
• How to write an annotated bibliography
• How to write a case study response
• How to write an empirical article
• How to write an essay
• How to write a literature review
• How to write a reflective task
• How to write a report
• Finishing well

Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued.

• Study the work under discussion.
• Make notes on key parts of the work.
• Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work.
• Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.

Example template

There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or Canvas site for guidance from your lecturer. The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one example.

Introduction

Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:

• name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator
• describe the main argument or purpose of the work
• explain the context in which the work was created - this could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience
• have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be - for instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.

Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.

Critical evaluation

This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.

A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.

Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:

• Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
• What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
• What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
• What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
• What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
• How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
• Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?

This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.

To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your evaluation of the work.

This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:

• a statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work
• a summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation was formed
• in some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.

Reference list

Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style to use.

• Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
• Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
• Mainly focused on the critical evaluation of the work?
• Systematically outlined an evaluation of each element of the work to achieve the overall purpose?
• Used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my assessment of elements of the work?
• Formed an overall evaluation of the work, based on critical reading?
• Used a well structured introduction, body and conclusion?
• Used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation; and appropriate referencing style?

Further information

• University of New South Wales: Writing a Critical Review
• University of Toronto: The Book Review or Article Critique

Global links and information

• Referencing and using sources
• Background and development
• Changes to QUT cite|write
• Need more help?
• Current students
• Current staff
• TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12079 (Australian University)
• CRICOS No. 00213J
• ABN 83 791 724 622
• Last modified: 28-May-2024
• Accessibility
• Right to Information
• Feedback and suggestions

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.

• Linguistics
• Composition Studies

Writing Critical Reviews: A Step-by-Step Guide

• February 2022
• In book: Study Skills for International Postgraduates (Second Edition) (pp.194-207)
• Edition: 2nd
• Chapter: 11
• Publisher: Bloomsbury

• University of Melbourne

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• BUS HIST REV
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY
• Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

• Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
• What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
• Was the sample too small to generalize from?
• Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
• How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
• How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
• Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
• Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
• How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
• What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

• << Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

• Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

• How to Write It
• Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

• Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
• Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
• Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
• Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

• Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
• Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

• How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
• Did the results support their hypothesis?
• Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.  

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

• As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
• Reading scientific articles can be challenging at first. Remember that this is a skill that takes time to learn but that your skills will become stronger the more that you read.
• Take a rough draft of your paper to your school's writing lab for additional feedback and use your university library's resources.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews .  Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article?   Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles .  Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Getty

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon

Assistant professor of chemical and biomedical engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

When I was a research student, review writing improved my understanding of the history of my field. I also learnt about unmet challenges in the field that triggered ideas.

For example, while writing my first review 1 as a PhD student, I was frustrated by how poorly we understood how cells actively sense, interact with and adapt to nanoparticles used in drug delivery. This experience motivated me to study how the surface properties of nanoparticles can be modified to enhance biological sensing. When I transitioned to my postdoctoral research, this question led me to discover the role of cell-membrane curvature, which led to publications and my current research focus. I wouldn’t have started in this area without writing that review.

Collection: Careers toolkit

A common problem for students writing their first reviews is being overly ambitious. When I wrote mine, I imagined producing a comprehensive summary of every single type of nanomaterial used in biological applications. It ended up becoming a colossal piece of work, with too many papers discussed and without a clear way to categorize them. We published the work in the end, but decided to limit the discussion strictly to nanoparticles for biological sensing, rather than covering how different nanomaterials are used in biology.

My advice to students is to accept that a review is unlike a textbook: it should offer a more focused discussion, and it’s OK to skip some topics so that you do not distract your readers. Students should also consider editorial deadlines, especially for invited reviews: make sure that the review’s scope is not so extensive that it delays the writing.

A good review should also avoid jargon and explain the basic concepts for someone who is new to the field. Although I trained as an engineer, I’m interested in biology, and my research is about developing nanomaterials to manipulate proteins at the cell membrane and how this can affect ageing and cancer. As an ‘outsider’, the reviews that I find most useful for these biological topics are those that speak to me in accessible scientific language.

Bozhi Tian likes to get a variety of perspectives into a review. Credit: Aleksander Prominski

BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style

Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.

In my lab, we start by asking: what is the purpose of this review? My reasons for writing one can include the chance to contribute insights to the scientific community and identify opportunities for my research. I also see review writing as a way to train early-career researchers in soft skills such as project management and leadership. This is especially true for lead authors, because they will learn to work with their co-authors to integrate the various sections into a piece with smooth transitions and no overlaps.

After we have identified the need and purpose of a review article, I will form a team from the researchers in my lab. I try to include students with different areas of expertise, because it is useful to get a variety of perspectives. For example, in the review ‘An atlas of nano-enabled neural interfaces’ 2 , we had authors with backgrounds in biophysics, neuroengineering, neurobiology and materials sciences focusing on different sections of the review.

After this, I will discuss an outline with my team. We go through multiple iterations to make sure that we have scanned the literature sufficiently and do not repeat discussions that have appeared in other reviews. It is also important that the outline is not decided by me alone: students often have fresh ideas that they can bring to the table. Once this is done, we proceed with the writing.

I often remind my students to imagine themselves as ‘artists of science’ and encourage them to develop how they write and present information. Adding more words isn’t always the best way: for example, I enjoy using tables to summarize research progress and suggest future research trajectories. I’ve also considered including short videos in our review papers to highlight key aspects of the work. I think this can increase readership and accessibility because these videos can be easily shared on social-media platforms.

ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference

Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .

One of my roles as a journal editor is to evaluate proposals for reviews. The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic.

It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the most interesting reviews instead provide a discussion about disagreements in the field.

Careers Collection: Publishing

Scientists often centre the story of their primary research papers around their figures — but when it comes to reviews, figures often take a secondary role. In my opinion, review figures are more important than most people think. One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad trends and suggest underlying mechanisms that could explain all of the different conclusions.

An important role of a review article is to introduce researchers to a field. For this, schematic figures can be useful to illustrate the science being discussed, in much the same way as the first slide of a talk should. That is why, at Nature Reviews, we have in-house illustrators to assist authors. However, simplicity is key, and even without support from professional illustrators, researchers can still make use of many free drawing tools to enhance the value of their review figures.

Yoojin Choi recommends that researchers be open to critiques when writing reviews. Credit: Yoojin Choi

YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions

Research assistant professor, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon.

I started writing the review ‘Biosynthesis of inorganic nanomaterials using microbial cells and bacteriophages’ 4 as a PhD student in 2018. It took me one year to write the first draft because I was working on the review alongside my PhD research and mostly on my own, with support from my adviser. It took a further year to complete the processes of peer review, revision and publication. During this time, many new papers and even competing reviews were published. To provide the most up-to-date and original review, I had to stay abreast of the literature. In my case, I made use of Google Scholar, which I set to send me daily updates of relevant literature based on key words.

Through my review-writing process, I also learnt to be more open to critiques to enhance the value and increase the readership of my work. Initially, my review was focused only on using microbial cells such as bacteria to produce nanomaterials, which was the subject of my PhD research. Bacteria such as these are known as biofactories: that is, organisms that produce biological material which can be modified to produce useful materials, such as magnetic nanoparticles for drug-delivery purposes.

Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing

However, when the first peer-review report came back, all three reviewers suggested expanding the review to cover another type of biofactory: bacteriophages. These are essentially viruses that infect bacteria, and they can also produce nanomaterials.

The feedback eventually led me to include a discussion of the differences between the various biofactories (bacteriophages, bacteria, fungi and microalgae) and their advantages and disadvantages. This turned out to be a great addition because it made the review more comprehensive.

Writing the review also led me to an idea about using nanomaterial-modified microorganisms to produce chemicals, which I’m still researching now.

PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology

PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.

Just before the coronavirus lockdown, my PhD adviser and I decided to write a literature review discussing the integration of medical imaging with genomics to improve ovarian cancer management.

As I was researching the review, I noticed a trend in which some papers were consistently being cited by many other papers in the field. It was clear to me that those papers must be important, but as a new member of the field of integrated cancer biology, it was difficult to immediately find and read all of these ‘seminal papers’.

That was when I decided to code a small application to make my literature research more efficient. Using my code, users can enter a query, such as ‘ovarian cancer, computer tomography, radiomics’, and the application searches for all relevant literature archived in databases such as PubMed that feature these key words.

The code then identifies the relevant papers and creates a citation graph of all the references cited in the results of the search. The software highlights papers that have many citation relationships with other papers in the search, and could therefore be called seminal papers.

My code has substantially improved how I organize papers and has informed me of key publications and discoveries in my research field: something that would have taken more time and experience in the field otherwise. After I shared my code on GitHub, I received feedback that it can be daunting for researchers who are not used to coding. Consequently, I am hoping to build a more user-friendly interface in a form of a web page, akin to PubMed or Google Scholar, where users can simply input their queries to generate citation graphs.

Tools and techniques

Most reference managers on the market offer similar capabilities when it comes to providing a Microsoft Word plug-in and producing different citation styles. But depending on your working preferences, some might be more suitable than others.

Reference managers

Here is a comparison of the more popular collaborative writing tools, but there are other options, including Fidus Writer, Manuscript.io, Authorea and Stencila.

Collaborative writing tools

*Markdown and LaTex are code-based formatting languages favoured by physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists who code on a regular basis, and less popular in other disciplines such as biology and chemistry.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Friends or foes? An academic job search risked damaging our friendship

Career Column 14 AUG 24

‘Who will protect us from seeing the world’s largest rainforest burn?’ The mental exhaustion faced by climate scientists

Career Feature 12 AUG 24

Why I’ve removed journal titles from the papers on my CV

Career Column 09 AUG 24

The need for equity in Brazilian scientific funding

Correspondence 13 AUG 24

Canadian graduate-salary boost will only go to a select few

A hike of postdoc salary alone will not retain the best researchers in low- or middle-income countries

Chatbots in science: What can ChatGPT do for you?

Scientists are falling victim to deepfake AI video scams — here’s how to fight back

Career Feature 07 AUG 24

Tenure-track Assistant Professor

Position Description Brain Immunology and Glia (BIG) Center at the Washington University School of Medicine invites applications for a tenure-track...

Saint Louis, Missouri

Washington University School of Medicine - St. Louis

Post Doctoral Associate Radiation Oncology

The Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, has an exciting opportunity for a Postdoctoral Associate.

Miami, Florida

University of Miami/UHealth System

Editor (Applied and Industrial Microbiology)

We’re seeking a biologist who has a critical eye, a deep understanding of their subject and interests beyond, and who can think on their feet.

London, Madrid or Pune (hybrid working)

Springer Nature Ltd

Research assistant (praedoc) (m/f/d)

Fachbereich Physik - Institut für Theoretische Physik AG Netz Research assistant (praedoc) (m/f/d) full-time job limited to 3 years (end of project...

14195, Berlin (DE)

Freie Universität Berlin

Faculty Positions in Bioscience and Biomedical Engineering (BSBE) Thrust, Systems Hub, HKUST (GZ)

Tenure-track and tenured faculty positions at all ranks (Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor)

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

How to Write Critical Reviews

When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.

Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

Understanding the Assignment

To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.

Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.

Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!

Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.

Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.

Write the introduction

Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.

If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.

Explain relationships

For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.

Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.

In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.

Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).

As you write, consider the following questions:

• Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
• Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
• What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
• What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?

Provide an overview

In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.

Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.

The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.

• What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
• How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?

Write the body

The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.

Organize using a logical plan

Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:

• First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
• Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

• What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
• What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
• Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
• Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
• Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.

Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.

And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.

Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.

Write the conclusion

You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.

You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.

Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.

Consider the following questions:

• Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
• How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
• How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
• What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

How to Structure and Write an Effective Critique Paper

Critique papers are an essential part of academic writing, especially in the fields of humanities and social sciences. They involve analyzing a piece of work and objectively evaluating its strengths and weaknesses. Writing a critique paper can be challenging, requiring careful reading, research, and analysis. Yet, it is possible to produce a high-quality essay with careful planning and attention to detail.

This article will teach you how to write an article critique by explaining the types of critique essays, their structure, and the steps involved in how to write a critique essay. The article also provides essay tips for producing a well-written and effective critique.

What is a Critique Paper?

A critique paper is an academic paper as a response to a body of work, such as a play, concept, scholarly article, poetry, book, or research paper. Its purpose is to objectively assess the work in question, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. But also to provide a detailed analysis of its content, structure, and methodology.

This kind of essay can be one of the trickiest assignments, and not everyone can produce a well-scrutinized, original piece of writing. That’s why many students reach for assistance from analytical essay writing services that guarantee to handle the job with the help of professional writers and experts. These services proved to be of high quality and effective support to many schoolers who chose to try them in a variety of different disciplines.

Knowing how to write an article critique requires careful reading, analysis, and an evaluative approach. A well-written critique paper example demonstrates the writer’s ability to analyze and evaluate works. It should also be organized logically, guiding the reader through the analysis. Additionally, writers should be aware of their biases and assumptions and strive to critique objectively. On a final note, it’s essential to review the guidelines and follow the required structure. This is to ensure that the article critique meets the assignment’s expectations.

Types of Critical Essays

There are several types of essays of this kind, each with its approach and focus. To follow we have a list of the most common ones.

Descriptive

A descriptive critical essay combines elements of descriptive writing with a thorough analysis. In this type of essay, the writer describes a particular work in detail and then evaluates it based on certain criteria. They can provide a deep and insightful understanding of the work using sensory details and descriptive language.

An evaluative essay consists of a personal judgment to evaluate the value or effectiveness of a particular work or idea. In this type of essay, the writer analyzes the work and expresses their opinion on its merits or shortcomings. At the same time, they must avoid personal bias and focus on facts rather than one’s opinions or feelings. However, it’s also essential to provide a personal perspective and interpretation of the work as long as it’s supported by evidence.

Interpretive

This type of essay involves analyzing and interpreting the meaning and significance of the work being evaluated. It delves deeper into the themes, symbolism, and underlying conveyed messages. When writing an interpretive essay, it’s important to be clear and concise. Avoid confusing the reader by using jargon or unnecessarily complex language.

Structure of Critique Paper

The structure of a typical critique essay example includes an introduction, a summary, an analysis, and a conclusion. The paper format is a crucial element. Just like when you write your research papers , a critique benefits from a clear one to guide the reader. Therefore, work on defining the critique essay outline before starting the writing process. One of the most common formatting styles to adopt is the APA format (APA: American Psychological Association), which has specific rules and guidelines. And keep in mind that some specific elements should be included in each section:

Introduction: The introduction’s function is to provide background relevant information. It should also include the thesis statement, which is the writer’s main argument or position on the topic. The thesis statement should be clear and specific and presented in a way that engages the reader.

Summary: The summary provides an overview of the text. It must be objective, unbiased, and accurately summarize the piece’s main points. The summary has to be brief and to the point and should only include the most important details of the work.

Analysis: The analysis is where the writer provides their evaluation of the text being critiqued. This section is the most detailed and extensive part of the paper, containing the facts that prove your main argument and support your thesis. The analysis should focus on the thesis statement and provide a clear and logical argument.

Conclusion: In the conclusion, the paper’s main points are summarized, and the thesis statement is restated to emphasize the writer’s main position. It should provide a final evaluation of the work and include recommendations for improvement.

Essential Steps to Write a Critique Essay

Critique writing requires a thoughtful and detailed approach. You can find below the essential steps to follow:

Read and observe the work:

Before beginning the essay, you should read and observe the work, taking notes on its relevant elements. It is crucial to pay attention to details and to identify both strengths and weaknesses.

Conduct research:

In addition to analyzing the work, you need to research the author, director, or artist and the work’s historical and cultural context. This step can be time and effort-consuming. That’s why as a student who’s probably stuck with many assignments, you can consider to pay for research paper , which will solve the problem most efficiently. The research can provide valuable insights into the work and help you develop a more informed critique.

Develop a thesis statement:

Based on the analysis of the work and any research conducted, you should develop a clear and specific thesis statement that accurately presents your main argument or evaluation of the piece.

Write your critique:

Once you have your thesis statement, you can begin writing your critique essay. Begin by providing some background information on the work in an introduction. In the body of your essay, provide evidence and analysis to support your evaluation. Use specific examples and quotes from the text to support your arguments. Consider including external sources to provide additional context or compare the work to similar works. Finally, end your essay with a conclusion summarizing your main points and restating your thesis statement.

Revise and edit:

After completing the first draft of your essay, you should revise and edit it carefully. Pay attention to your argument’s structure, clarity, and coherence. Also, ensure that your essay logically progresses from one concept to the next. It’s important to note that when you format an essay , considerations may vary depending on the assignment’s specific requirements. Some may require additional sections, such as a discussion of the author’s background or a comparison to other works.

How to start a critique paper?

Starting a critique paper requires careful consideration and preparation. It is important to read and understand the subject thoroughly, including its purpose, structure, and context. Once you have a clear understanding of the subject, you should identify specific criteria to use in your evaluation, such as style, structure, effectiveness, relevance, and accuracy. Taking notes on the subject’s strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement will help you organize your thoughts, and creating an outline that includes the introduction, analysis, and conclusion will ensure a well-structured paper. Finally, a strong thesis statement that clearly states your evaluation of the subject and the criteria you will use to evaluate it is crucial to the success of your critique paper.

How can I write a critique paper on a research article?

To write a critique paper on a research article, it is essential to consider key areas such as the research question and hypothesis, methodology, results, and overall evaluation. Firstly, determine whether the research question is clear, relevant, and testable. Secondly, evaluate the methodology used in the study to determine whether it’s appropriate for the research question. Thirdly, analyze the results presented in the research article to determine whether they are consistent with the research question and hypothesis. Lastly, evaluate the overall quality and contribution of the research article to the field. By considering these areas, you can provide a comprehensive critique of the research article.

What is the difference between summarizing and critiquing an article?

Many students struggle to distinguish between the two. They often summarize the work, neglecting to adopt a personal approach and use analytical skills. In such cases, custom essay writing service Edusson is the best option to handle the job for you. It also helps you improve your critical thinking and practical skills.

Related posts:

• 6 Step Process for Essay Writing
• How to Write a Diagnostic Essay (Without Fail)
• The Full Guide to Writing Comparison Essays with Point-by-Point Method
• Footnotes 101: A Guide to Proper Formatting

Improve your writing with our guides

How to Write a Scholarship Essay

Definition Essay: The Complete Guide with Essay Topics and Examples

Critical Essay: The Complete Guide. Essay Topics, Examples and Outlines

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

Writing Critiques

Writing a critique involves more than pointing out mistakes. It involves conducting a systematic analysis of a scholarly article or book and then writing a fair and reasonable description of its strengths and weaknesses. Several scholarly journals have published guides for critiquing other people’s work in their academic area. Search for a  “manuscript reviewer guide” in your own discipline to guide your analysis of the content. Use this handout as an orientation to the audience and purpose of different types of critiques and to the linguistic strategies appropriate to all of them.

Types of critique

Article or book review assignment in an academic class.

Text: Article or book that has already been published Audience: Professors Purpose:

• to demonstrate your skills for close reading and analysis
• to show that you understand key concepts in your field
• to learn how to review a manuscript for your future professional work

Published book review

Text: Book that has already been published Audience: Disciplinary colleagues Purpose:

• to describe the book’s contents
• to summarize the book’s strengths and weaknesses
• to provide a reliable recommendation to read (or not read) the book

Manuscript review

Text: Manuscript that has been submitted but has not been published yet Audience: Journal editor and manuscript authors Purpose:

• to provide the editor with an evaluation of the manuscript
• to recommend to the editor that the article be published, revised, or rejected
• to provide the authors with constructive feedback and reasonable suggestions for revision

Language strategies for critiquing

For each type of critique, it’s important to state your praise, criticism, and suggestions politely, but with the appropriate level of strength. The following language structures should help you achieve this challenging task.

Offering Praise and Criticism

A strategy called “hedging” will help you express praise or criticism with varying levels of strength. It will also help you express varying levels of certainty in your own assertions. Grammatical structures used for hedging include:

Modal verbs Using modal verbs (could, can, may, might, etc.) allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This text is inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field. This text may be inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field.

Qualifying adjectives and adverbs Using qualifying adjectives and adverbs (possible, likely, possibly, somewhat, etc.) allows you to introduce a level of probability into your comments. Compare:

Readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will probably find the theoretical model somewhat difficult to understand completely.

Note: You can see from the last example that too many qualifiers makes the idea sound undesirably weak.

Tentative verbs Using tentative verbs (seems, indicates, suggests, etc.) also allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This omission shows that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission indicates that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission seems to suggest that the authors are not aware of the current literature.

Offering suggestions

Whether you are critiquing a published or unpublished text, you are expected to point out problems and suggest solutions. If you are critiquing an unpublished manuscript, the author can use your suggestions to revise. Your suggestions have the potential to become real actions. If you are critiquing a published text, the author cannot revise, so your suggestions are purely hypothetical. These two situations require slightly different grammar.

Unpublished manuscripts: “would be X if they did Y” Reviewers commonly point out weakness by pointing toward improvement. For instance, if the problem is “unclear methodology,” reviewers may write that “the methodology would be more clear if …” plus a suggestion. If the author can use the suggestions to revise, the grammar is “X would be better if the authors did Y” (would be + simple past suggestion).

The tables would be clearer if the authors highlighted the key results. The discussion would be more persuasive if the authors accounted for the discrepancies in the data.

Published manuscripts: “would have been X if they had done Y” If the authors cannot revise based on your suggestions, use the past unreal conditional form “X would have been better if the authors had done Y” (would have been + past perfect suggestion).

The tables would have been clearer if the authors had highlighted key results. The discussion would have been more persuasive if the authors had accounted for discrepancies in the data.

Note: For more information on conditional structures, see our Conditionals handout .

Make a Gift

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Published: 01 October 2023

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

• Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
• Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
• Hypothesis or aims of the study
• Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

• What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
• What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
• Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
• Were there any obvious biases?
• If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

• There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
• Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
• The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

• Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Sarah Vogel View profile

Help and feedback, publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• CME Reviews
• Best of 2021 collection
• Abbreviated Breast MRI Virtual Collection
• Contrast-enhanced Mammography Collection
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Accepted Papers Resource Guide
• About Journal of Breast Imaging
• About the Society of Breast Imaging
• Guidelines for Reviewers
• Resources for Reviewers and Authors
• Editorial Board
• Advertising Disclaimer
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Manisha Bahl, A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article, Journal of Breast Imaging , Volume 5, Issue 4, July/August 2023, Pages 480–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

• narrative discourse

Society of Breast Imaging members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2631-6129
• Print ISSN 2631-6110
• Copyright © 2024 Society of Breast Imaging
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland.
• PMID: 16114192
• DOI: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38

Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• A guide to critiquing a research paper on clinical supervision: enhancing skills for practice. Fothergill A, Lipp A. Fothergill A, et al. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014;21(9):834-40. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12161. Epub 2014 May 13. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014. PMID: 24818837
• Critiquing research. Preston J. Preston J. Nurs Stand. 2015 Dec 2;30(14):61-2. doi: 10.7748/ns.30.14.61.s47. Nurs Stand. 2015. PMID: 26639295
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care. Lipp A, Fothergill A. Lipp A, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2015 Mar;35(3):e14-7. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.12.010. Epub 2015 Jan 24. Nurse Educ Today. 2015. PMID: 25638278 Review.
• Engaging nurses in research utilization. Wintersgill W, Wheeler EC. Wintersgill W, et al. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2012 Sep-Oct;28(5):E1-5. doi: 10.1097/NND.0b013e31826a008c. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2012. PMID: 22992644
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. Ryan F, Coughlan M, Cronin P. Ryan F, et al. Br J Nurs. 2007 Jun 28-Jul 11;16(12):738-44. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2007.16.12.23726. Br J Nurs. 2007. PMID: 17851363 Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Taylor & Francis

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Essay Papers Writing Online

How to craft an effective critique essay – a step-by-step guide to capturing readers’ attention, providing insightful analysis, and offering constructive feedback.

Evaluating someone else’s writing can be a challenging task, but with the right tools and approach, you can become a skillful critic in no time. Whether you’re analyzing a piece of literature, an article, or a research paper, a critique essay allows you to delve into the elements that make up a strong written work.

By honing your critical thinking skills, you’ll be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a piece and provide insightful feedback. Through this process, you’ll not only improve your own writing abilities but also enhance your understanding and appreciation of the written word.

In this comprehensive article, we will equip you with the essential techniques and strategies needed to write an effective critique essay. From analyzing the structure and organization of a piece to evaluating the author’s arguments and evidence, you’ll learn how to assess a work’s strengths and weaknesses with precision and clarity.

What is a Critique Essay and Why is it Important?

A critique essay is a type of academic writing that involves analyzing and evaluating a piece of work, such as a book, film, artwork, or research paper. Unlike a simple summary or review, a critique essay goes beyond providing a surface-level examination of the work and delves into an in-depth analysis of its strengths, weaknesses, and overall value.

But why is writing a critique essay important? Well, there are several reasons. Firstly, it allows you to develop critical thinking skills by carefully examining and assessing the merits of a work. This type of analysis helps you become more discerning and thoughtful in your judgments, which is a valuable skill in many aspects of life.

In addition, writing a critique essay encourages you to become an active participant in the intellectual discourse surrounding a particular topic or field. By engaging with a work and providing your own analysis, you are contributing to the ongoing conversation and expanding the collective understanding of the subject matter.

Furthermore, a critique essay can serve as a useful tool for the creator of the work being critiqued. Constructive criticism can provide valuable insights and suggestions for improvement, helping the creator gain a fresh perspective and refine their skills.

Ultimately, the importance of writing a critique essay lies in its ability to foster critical thinking, contribute to intellectual discourse, and provide constructive feedback. Whether you are a student honing your analytical skills or a professional offering insights in your field, learning how to effectively critique a work is a valuable and essential skill.

Choosing a Topic for Your Critique Essay

When it comes to writing a critique essay, the first and most important step is choosing a topic that is both interesting and suitable for critique. The topic you choose will determine the direction and focus of your essay, as well as the arguments and evidence you will present. It is crucial to select a topic that you are passionate about and have a strong opinion on, as this will make the writing process more enjoyable and engaging.

When considering potential topics for your critique essay, it can be helpful to brainstorm a list of subjects that you have recently encountered in your studies, personal life, or current events. This can include books, movies, artworks, scientific studies, political speeches, or social issues. Reflect on your experiences and think about which topics have sparked your interest or elicited an emotional response.

Once you have a list of potential topics, narrow it down to one that you feel confident in critiquing. Consider the availability of resources and research materials related to the topic, as well as the relevance and significance of the subject matter. It is important to choose a topic that is not too broad or too narrow, but one that allows for a thorough analysis and evaluation.

Furthermore, when selecting a topic for your critique essay, consider the potential audience and the purpose of your writing. Are you writing for a specific academic or professional audience, or for a general readership? Is your goal to persuade, inform, or entertain? Understanding your audience and purpose will help you choose a topic that is relevant, engaging, and appropriate for your intended readers.

In conclusion, the process of choosing a topic for your critique essay requires careful consideration and reflection. By selecting a topic that you are passionate about, narrowing down your options, and considering the audience and purpose of your writing, you can ensure that your critique essay is engaging, informative, and well-structured.

Effective Methods for Analyzing and Evaluating the Work

When it comes to critiquing a piece of work, it is important to employ effective methods for analyzing and evaluating the work. These methods allow you to objectively assess the strengths and weaknesses of the work while providing constructive feedback.

One method for analyzing the work is to carefully examine the overall structure and organization. This involves evaluating the flow of ideas and the logical progression of the work. Pay attention to how well the work introduces and supports its main argument or thesis statement. Look for any inconsistencies or gaps in the logic and assess the effectiveness of the transitions between ideas.

Additionally, it is important to assess the use of evidence and examples in the work. Look for both quantitative and qualitative evidence that supports the main argument. Evaluate the credibility and relevance of the sources cited and determine if they strengthen the overall argument. Consider the quality of the examples provided and how well they illustrate the key points of the work.

Another critical aspect to evaluate in the work is the clarity and effectiveness of the writing style. Assess the use of language, considering factors such as clarity, conciseness, and precision. Look for any instances of wordiness or ambiguity and consider how well the writer communicates their ideas. Pay attention to the use of tone and voice and evaluate if they are appropriate for the intended audience.

Furthermore, it is essential to consider the originality and creativity of the work. Analyze whether the ideas presented are innovative and unique, or if they rely heavily on existing research and ideas. Evaluate the extent to which the writer brings a fresh perspective or contributes new insights to the topic. Consider the level of critical thinking and depth of analysis demonstrated in the work.

Finally, it is crucial to provide constructive feedback when evaluating the work. Identify specific strengths and weaknesses and provide evidence to support your analysis. Offer suggestions for improvement and recommend areas where the writer can further develop their ideas or arguments. Remember to maintain a balance between positive and negative feedback to help the writer grow and improve their work.

• Analyze the overall structure and organization of the work
• Assess the use of evidence and examples
• Evaluate the clarity and effectiveness of the writing style
• Analyze the originality and creativity of the ideas presented
• Provide constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement

By utilizing these effective methods for analyzing and evaluating the work, you will be able to provide a comprehensive critique that offers valuable insights and helps the writer enhance their work.

Tips for Writing a Strong and Persuasive Critique Essay

When crafting a critique essay, it is essential to adopt a strong and persuasive writing style to effectively convey your thoughts and opinions. By employing certain techniques and considerations, you can enhance the impact of your critique and make it more persuasive. This section will provide valuable tips to help you write a compelling critique essay.

First and foremost, clarity and conciseness are key. Make sure your critique is written in a clear and straightforward manner, avoiding any unnecessary jargon or complex language. This will ensure that your ideas are easily understood by your readers, allowing them to fully grasp your perspective.

Additionally, providing evidence and examples is crucial to strengthen your critique. Back up your opinions with credible sources, such as research studies, statistical data, or expert opinions. This will make your arguments more persuasive and lend credibility to your critique.

It is also important to offer a balanced perspective in your critique. While expressing your own views, be sure to acknowledge and address counterarguments or differing opinions. This will demonstrate your ability to consider multiple perspectives and make your critique more comprehensive and well-rounded.

Using persuasive language and rhetorical devices can significantly enhance the impact of your critique. Employ techniques such as persuasive appeals (ethos, logos, pathos), rhetorical questions, metaphors, and analogies to captivate your readers and engage them on an emotional and intellectual level.

Structuring your critique in a logical and organized manner is another essential aspect. Break down your critique into distinct sections, such as introduction, body paragraphs discussing various aspects of the subject, and a conclusion summarizing your main points and reinforcing your overall perspective. This will make your critique more coherent and reader-friendly.

Consider your target audience when writing your critique. Tailor your language, tone, and style to resonate with your intended readers. Adapt your arguments and examples to align with their interests, values, and beliefs. This will make your critique more relatable and persuasive to your specific audience.

Lastly, support your arguments with credible sources. Incorporating research findings, expert opinions, or firsthand experiences will strengthen the validity of your critique and provide additional weight to your arguments. This will make your critique more persuasive and enhance its overall impact.

By following these tips, you can ensure that your critique essay is not only strong but also persuasive. By employing clear and concise language, providing evidence and examples, offering a balanced perspective, using persuasive language and rhetorical devices, structuring effectively, considering your target audience, and supporting your arguments with credible sources, you can craft a compelling critique essay that effectively conveys your thoughts and opinions.

Related Post

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.

Title Page Setup

A title page is required for all APA Style papers. There are both student and professional versions of the title page. Students should use the student version of the title page unless their instructor or institution has requested they use the professional version. APA provides a student title page guide (PDF, 199KB) to assist students in creating their title pages.

Student title page

The student title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation, course number and name for which the paper is being submitted, instructor name, assignment due date, and page number, as shown in this example.

Title page setup is covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Section 2.3 and the Concise Guide Section 1.6

Related handouts

• Student Title Page Guide (PDF, 263KB)
• Student Paper Setup Guide (PDF, 3MB)

Student papers do not include a running head unless requested by the instructor or institution.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the student title page.

Professional title page

The professional title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation(s), author note, running head, and page number, as shown in the following example.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the professional title page.

How To Write A Summary For Research Paper

How To Write a Summary For a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

Published on: Aug 13, 2024

Last updated on: Aug 13, 2024

People also read

As a student, you’ll often need to summarize research papers. 

Whether you’re studying for exams, writing assignments, or participating in class discussions, knowing how to create a clear summary is essential. Summarizing helps you understand and communicate the main points of a research paper in a simpler way.

In this guide, we’ll show you how to write an effective summary for a research paper. You’ll learn how to pick out the most important information and present it clearly. 

By following these steps, you’ll be able to create summaries that help you and others quickly grasp the key insights of any research paper. 

Let’s start writing!

What is the Summary of a Research Paper? 

A research paper summary is a comprehensive overview that captures the core aspects of the study. It includes the research purpose, methodology, main findings, and conclusions. 

The goal is to provide a brief yet comprehensive snapshot of the paper’s key points, allowing readers to quickly grasp the study’s significance and relevance.

The ideal length of a research paper summary is typically one paragraph or about 10-15% of the original paper’s length. This ensures that the summary is brief yet comprehensive enough to convey the key points. 

For most research papers, a summary should be around 150-250 words, depending on the complexity and length of the original document.

5 Steps to Write a Research Paper Summary 

Writing a summary for a research paper involves several key steps to ensure you capture the essence of the study clearly and concisely. 

Here’s a simple guide on how to write a summary paragraph for a research paper:

Step 1: Read the Paper Thoroughly 

Before you can summarize a research paper, you need to understand it completely. Start by reading the entire paper carefully, paying close attention to the following sections:

• Abstract: The abstract provides a brief overview of the research, including the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. It can help you get a quick understanding of the paper’s key points.
• Introduction: Identify the research question or problem being addressed. Understand the background and significance of the study.
• Literature Review: Review this section to see how the research fits within the existing body of knowledge. Note key theories and previous findings referenced.
• Methods: Understand how the research was conducted, including the design, procedures, and tools used. Note the sample size and data collection methods.
• Results: Note the main findings of the study, including any data, statistics, or observations reported.
• Discussion: Comprehend the interpretation of the results. This section often explains the implications of the findings and how they fit with or challenge existing knowledge.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main conclusions drawn by the authors and their recommendations for future research or practical applications.

Take notes on these key points as you read to help you remember them later.

Step 2: Identify the Main Points 

Once you’ve read the paper, highlight the most important information. This typically includes:

Make sure to focus on the most important details rather than getting caught up in minor specifics.

Step 3: Create an Outline

Organize your notes into a brief outline. This will help you structure your summary logically. A typical outline might look like this:

• Introduction: State the research problem or question and include a brief description of the paper’s purpose. Mention the thesis statement and key points.
• Methods: Briefly describe the approach used in the study.
• Results: Summarize the key findings.
• Conclusion: Describe the conclusions drawn by the author and their significance.

Step 4: Write the Summary 

Using your outline, write a draft of the summary. Keep these tips in mind:

• Be Clear and Concise: Use simple language and avoid jargon. Aim to be as direct as possible.
• Stick to the Main Points: Include only the most important information from each section of the paper.
• Keywords: Use relevant keywords to help readers understand the focus and importance of the paper.
• Do Not Add New Information: Your summary should reflect what is in the research paper, not introduce new ideas or opinions.

Step 5: Review and Revise 

After writing your summary, take the time to review it. Check for clarity and accuracy:

• Compare with the Original: Ensure your summary accurately reflects the main points of the research paper.
• Check for Conciseness: Make sure your summary is brief and to the point, ideally no more than about 10-15% of the original paper’s length.
• Proofread: Correct any grammatical or spelling errors.

Mistakes to Avoid in Research Paper Summaries 

Creating an accurate and effective summary of a research paper requires attention to detail. Here are some common mistakes to avoid:

• Ignoring the Main Points: Ensure you cover the core elements—purpose, methods, findings, and conclusions. Missing any of these elements can lead to an incomplete overview.
• Adding Personal Opinions: A summary should reflect the original research without introducing new opinions or interpretations. Stick to the content provided in the paper.
• Being Overly Detailed: Focus on summarizing the main points rather than including every detail from the paper. Aim for clarity and conciseness, typically keeping the summary within 10-15% of the original length.
• Omitting the Research Purpose: Clearly state the research question or thesis. Failing to include the paper’s purpose can leave readers without essential context.
• Misrepresenting the Findings: Ensure that your summary accurately reflects the research paper’s conclusions and results. Misrepresentation can mislead readers and undermine the summary’s effectiveness.

By avoiding these mistakes, you can craft a clear, accurate, and effective summary that captures the essence of the research paper.

All in all, a well-crafted summary not only reflects a thorough understanding of the research but also helps readers quickly grasp the significance of the study. 

By following these guidelines, you can create summaries that are both informative and precise, contributing to clearer and more impactful academic writing.

For an effortless and accurate summarization process, use our advanced summarizer tool. It ensures precise, high-quality summaries, helping you save time and enhance your academic efficiency. 

Additionally, if you’re looking for an AI that will write a paper for you , explore MyEssayWriter.ai. 

Frequently Asked Questions

How to write an executive summary for a research paper.

An executive summary provides a concise overview of the research paper. Summarize the research question, key findings, methods, and conclusions in a concise overview. Focus on the main points and significance.

How to Write a Summary of a Research Article?

To write a summary of a research article, first read the article thoroughly. Identify and condense the article’s purpose, methods, results, and conclusions into a few sentences, keeping it clear and to the point.

How to Write a Synopsis for a Research Paper?

A synopsis is a summary that outlines the main points of a research paper. Outline the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions briefly. Include the purpose and significance of the study.

How to Write an Outline for a Term Paper?

To write an outline for a term paper, start by defining the main topic and thesis statement. Then organize key sections (introduction, body, conclusion) with bullet points for each section’s main ideas.

How to Summarize a Scientific Paper?

To summarize a scientific paper, briefly state the research objective, methods, key findings, and conclusions. Focus on presenting the main points clearly and concisely.

Caleb S. (Mass Literature and Linguistics, Masters)

Caleb S. is an accomplished author with over five years of experience and a Master's degree from Oxford University. He excels in various writing forms, including articles, press releases, blog posts, and whitepapers. As a valued author at MyEssayWriter.ai, Caleb assists students and professionals by providing practical tips on research, citation, sentence structure, and style enhancement.

On This Page On This Page

Get Access to Advanced Features with our Affordable Plans

Complimentary Trial

OFFER ENDS Today

Access to all Tools

No Credit Card needed

Quota: 1500 Words (6 pages)

Offer ends in: 03hr 19m 8s

For Monthly Usage

$ 9.99 /month

Up to 2500 words/month

Access to all features

AI Essay Writer

AI Essay Outliner

Go Big Monthly!

$ 14.99 /month

Up to 100,000 words/month

Access to all existing tools

50% off on custom essay orders

500 credits for plagiarism check

Top Annual Savings!

Advanced (4 Months FREE )

$ 99.99 /year

OFFER ENDS Soon

Unlimited essays

12 Months for the price of 8

Access to all upcoming tools

Get started for free

Please enter a valid Name

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Please enter atleast five characters

Please enter a valid Password

Show Password

Already have an account? Sign In here.

Please enter your email address

Forgot Password?

Don’t have an account? Sign Up

Verify Your Account

Enter the verification codes to confirm your identity.

Code sent to [email protected]

Send again in seconds

Code sent to +1 302 385 6690

Claim Free Essay

Your first custom essay order on our website is FREE!

Tips for Writing a Research Paper in STEM Fields

Photo by Karolina Kaboompics: https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-studying-and-writing-notes-on-paper-6958531/

Written by Staff

Aug 14, 2024

Writing a research paper in the STEM field involves a structured approach that adheres to specific academic standards and conventions. This structured approach not only organizes information effectively but also ensures the clarity and credibility of your findings. Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a novice, understanding the nuances of writing in these disciplines is crucial. This article will guide you through the key sections of a STEM research paper, offer tips for each section, and provide advice on maintaining clarity and objectivity to aid your scientific communication.

The Structure of a STEM Research Paper

A well-organized STEM research paper typically includes several key sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Each part plays a pivotal role in presenting the research:

• Introduction: Sets the stage by introducing the research question and its significance.
• Methods: Describes the experimental procedures or methodologies used.
• Results: Presents the findings of the research.
• Discussion: Interprets the results, linking back to the research question and broader field.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the findings and their implications, suggesting areas for future research.

Importance of Following the Standard Format

Adhering to the standard format of a STEM research paper is critical for several reasons, even if you pay for a research paper . It provides a familiar structure for peers to follow and review your work effectively, enhancing the paper’s credibility and your reputation as a researcher. This format also helps maintain clarity by logically organizing the research process and findings, making it easier for readers to understand the progression of your study.

Variations by Discipline

While the basic structure of STEM research papers is generally consistent, certain disciplines may require additional or modified sections. For example, engineering papers often include a Design section where the specifics of the engineering solution are detailed. Understanding these disciplinary nuances is essential for tailoring your paper to meet the expectations of your specific scientific community.

Tips for Writing Each Section

Introduction.

The first step in drafting an introduction is to articulate a clear and compelling research question or hypothesis. This sets the direction for your entire study and defines the scope of your research. It’s important to provide a review of the relevant literature to frame your research question within the context of existing knowledge. Highlight gaps in the current research to justify your study and demonstrate its necessity. Conveying the significance of your research is crucial. Explain how your work fills a knowledge gap or addresses a pressing problem in your field. This not only captivates your audience but also underscores the value of your research.

Clarity and replicability are paramount in the Methods section. Describe your procedures in detail, ensuring that another researcher could replicate your study. This transparency is crucial for the validation and credibility of your work. Visual aids like diagrams and flowcharts can greatly enhance the comprehensibility of your methods, providing a clear visual representation of complex processes.

It’s important to explain why specific methods were chosen. This justification can be critical, especially when alternative approaches exist. For students who are not yet confident in their methodological choices, there are services available where one can pay for a research paper to be crafted, providing a professional example of how to effectively justify methodological decisions.

The key to presenting data effectively lies in the selection of appropriate visualization tools. Tables should be used to compare quantitative information efficiently, while graphs are ideal for showing trends over time. Charts, particularly pie charts, are effective for displaying proportional data. Ensure each visual is clearly labeled and includes a legend, if necessary, to enhance readability and interpretation.

Focus on presenting only the most relevant data to your study’s objectives. This selection process involves discerning which pieces of data directly support your research question or hypothesis and which are peripheral. Overloading the reader with too much information can lead to confusion and detract from the key findings of your research.

Explain the statistical tests used in your study and why they were chosen. For instance, if you employed a t-test or ANOVA, clarify the reason for its use and what the results indicate about your data. This not only helps in validating your results but also instills confidence in your research methodology. 

Discuss how the results you’ve presented relate back to your original research question or hypothesis. This is where you interpret what the data suggests within the context of your field. For example, if your hypothesis was confirmed, speculate on why this might be the case, or if it was disproven, offer potential reasons that could have influenced this outcome.

Compare your findings with those of previous research , highlighting both consistencies and discrepancies. This comparison helps to position your study within the larger field, providing a clearer understanding of where your research fits and what it adds to the existing body of knowledge.  For students unsure of how to articulate these points, options like pay for research paper creation can provide a template on effectively conveying the broader significance of research findings.

Emphasize the broader implications of your findings . For instance, if your study identifies a new way to enhance solar panel efficiency, discuss how this could impact renewable energy technology and policymaking. This helps to underline the significance of your research and can guide future studies.

Summarizing Key Findings

Briefly recap the major discoveries of your study, emphasizing how they address the research question posed at the outset. This summary should be concise and focused, giving readers a clear understanding of what was accomplished.

Addressing Limitations

It’s crucial to acknowledge any limitations in your study. This might include sample size, experimental design, or external factors that could have influenced the results. Acknowledging these limitations not only strengthens your credibility but also helps guide future research.

Suggestions for Future Research

Offer recommendations for further studies that could confirm or expand upon your findings. This could involve varying the experimental conditions, exploring additional variables, or applying the study in a different context.

Writing Style and Clarity

While technical language is necessary, it should be accessible to readers within your field. Avoid overly complex terminology that might alienate newcomers and ensure that any specialized terms are clearly defined. Present your findings neutrally and factually. Avoid injecting personal opinions or biases into your descriptions, focusing instead on what the data reveals. Aim for clarity and precision in your writing. This means being concise and direct, avoiding verbose descriptions that could obscure your main points. Thoroughly proofread and edit your paper to eliminate grammatical errors and improve flow. Consider using professional services that pay for paper writing as a means to ensure that your document meets academic standards.

Proper Citation and Avoiding Plagiarism

Ensure all references are accurately cited in the appropriate format for your discipline. This is crucial not only for avoiding plagiarism but also for allowing readers to verify and follow up on your research. Your work should be original and genuinely contribute to your field. Replicating existing studies without proper attribution or failing to bring new insights can undermine your credibility and ethical standing. Employ citation management tools to keep track of your sources and streamline the writing process. Tools like EndNote, Mendeley, or Zotero can save time and ensure citation accuracy.

Collaboration and Peer Review

Collaboration can enhance the quality of research by bringing together diverse perspectives and expertise. Working with co-authors from different specialties can enrich the content and depth of your paper. Before submitting your paper, seek feedback from colleagues or mentors. Constructive criticism can help refine your arguments and ensure your paper is robust and coherent. The peer review process can be daunting but is essential for improving your research. Be open to feedback and ready to make revisions. This process is not just about correcting flaws but also about enhancing the scientific dialogue.

Writing a research paper in STEM fields is a demanding but rewarding endeavor. By meticulously planning your study, adhering to rigorous standards, and clearly communicating your findings, you can contribute valuable insights to your field. Remember, the goal is to advance knowledge and foster scientific progress. Whether you choose to write independently or pay someone to write a paper, the integrity and impact of your research should always be your top priority.

• Majors & Minors
• About Our Faculty
• Academic Experience
• Academic Support
• Graduate Programs
• Get Involved
• Athletics & Sports at UWEC
• Meet Blugolds
• Living in Eau Claire
• Music, Arts, & Culture
• First-Year Visits
• Transfer Visits
• Group Visits
• Plan Your Trip
• What to Expect
• Virtual Tour Options
• First-Year Student
• Transfer Student
• International Students
• High School Special Student
• Graduate Student
• Other Student
• UWEC Application
• Contact Admissions
• Tuition & Fees
• Financial Aid
• Scholarships
• Net Price Calculator
• University Mission
• Campus History
• Accreditation
• Campus Events and Calendars
• Collaborations and Partnerships
• Points of Pride
• Work at UW-Eau Claire 

WRIT Portfolio Option

Learn about your portfolio.

During your first two semesters at UWEC, you may submit a WRIT Portfolio to attempt to modify your placement in a Blugold Seminar Course (for example, a student placed in WRIT 114/116 might receive a modified placement to WRIT 118/120). In some cases, the WRIT Portfolio can fulfill the University Writing Requirement altogether. The fee for submitting a WRIT Portfolio is $75 and it is nonrefundable. Submitting a WRIT Portfolio does not guarantee any particular outcome. Your placement might remain the same after portfolio review.

The submission of a WRIT Portfolio is limited to new students and transfer students through the student's second semester at UW-Eau Claire. Portfolios submitted by September 15 and January 15 will be considered during their respective semesters; portfolios submitted after these deadlines will be considered the following semester.

By submitting a WRIT Portfolio, you agree to postpone taking your Blugold Seminar course until the next term (that is, if you submit a WRIT Portfolio by September 15, you will not take a WRIT course in the fall; if you submit by January 15, you will not take a WRIT course in the spring). WRIT Portfolio results will be sent before registration for the next term begins. 

Portfolios are reviewed by several faculty members, and are assessed according to whether or not they demonstrate competency in the Blugold Seminar Learning Outcomes : Rhetorical Knowledge, Research and Inquiry, Writing Craft, and Digital Literacy.

Should I submit a portfolio?

Portfolio process.

Any incoming (first year or transfer) student is welcome to submit a WRIT Portfolio during their first two semesters at UWEC. 

Before you decide to submit a WRIT Portfolio, you should determine your initial placement in WRIT courses at UW-Eau Claire, which you'll receive during summer orientation, or you can determine using your UWENGL placement test score or AP English scores and the information on the WRIT Courses and Placement page . Discuss your placement information with parents/guardians, teachers, guidance counselors, and/or college advisors to determine if you should attempt to modify your placement by submitting a WRIT Portfolio.

Your portfolio will be anonymously reviewed by two Blugold Seminar faculty and by the director of the Writing Program. All reviewers will use the same rubric to assess your work. You may view the rubric at this link . Feel free to consult this rubric as you prepare your portfolio.

Self-Survey Tool

The following self-survey will help you decide if you should submit a portfolio or not. Please check all that adequately describe you:

ATTITUDES ___ I like writing and English classes.  ___ I generally feel confident about my writing skills.  ___ I am confident helping others with their writing.  ___ Other relevant attitudes: _____________________________________ 

EXPERIENCES ___ I have had relatively positive experiences with writing in and out of school.  ___ I earned a 3.5 or higher average GPA in my high school English courses.  ___ I graduated in the top 10% of my class.  ___ I took AP English.  ___ I took other college prep classes (AP, IB, other advanced/accelerated courses).  ___ I took a college course while still in high school (e.g., dual enrollment, Youth Options, Academic Alliance, CAPP).  ___ Other relevant experiences: _____________________________________ 

What do I submit for a portfolio?

Portfolio submission requirements.

WRIT Portfolio submission requirements are: 

• A self-assessment essay
• An analysis paper
• A documented, research-based project
• Writer's choice

Before beginning the submission process, please review the overall expectations as well as the detailed descriptions of the required components of the WRIT Portfolio. Each of the four components of the WRIT Portfolio will share the following characteristics:

• Must be wholly original, representing your own work and ability.
• Must have been written within the past two years.
• Must be clear electronic copies (without any teacher comments or grades) in pdf or MS Word format.
• Must not contain any identifying information (for example, your name or student ID).
• May have been produced in any course (not just an English course) or in a non-academic context, and may have been revised for the purpose of submission to the WRIT Portfolio.

Details on the Requirements

1. self-assessment essay.

This is a very specific kind of essay that you need to write exclusively for this portfolio. Do not re-use a similar essay from a different class. You are asked to select five (5) of the learning outcomes for the Blugold Seminar at UW-Eau Claire and explain how the documents in elements 2-4 of your portfolio clearly demonstrate these skills. Approximately 1000 words.

2. Analysis paper

This paper should demonstrate your textual analysis skills. These kinds of papers typically have an argumentative and analytical thesis supported by clear and compelling textual evidence. The strongest analysis papers for a WRIT Portfolio will apply rhetorical terms and concepts to a text.

3. Documented, research-based project

The paper or project should demonstrate your ability to do college-level research; to find, evaluate, and integrate relevant source materials; and to write a sustained, research-based discussion or argument.

4. Writer's choice

This element can include one stand-alone paper/project, or it can be comprised of up to four shorter pieces (for example, another paper or digital project of any genre, such as blogs, podcasts, journalistic pieces, creative work, writing for community organizations, etc.).

Elements 2-4 together should total 12 pages minimum. There is no maximum page limit for your portfolio, but you should remain within reasonable limits.

Please remember that all material you submit for the WRIT Portfolio must be your own original work; submitted portfolios will be subject to annual randomized checks for plagiarism. Please know that a lack of familiarity with plagiarism and academic dishonesty, UW System policies for academic integrity, or the Blugold Code does not exempt any student from sanctions for academic dishonesty.

How do I submit a portfolio?

All portfolios must be submitted electronically. No paper or emailed portfolios will be considered. You will need the following materials:

• Your UW-Eau Claire email account as well as Blugold ID#. If you do not have these, contact New Student Orientation via email ( [email protected] ) or phone (715-836-5053).
• Clean copies of your work (without any teacher comments or grades) in pdf or MS Word format. Feel free to revise this work before submitting. Remove all identifying information, if possible. Remember that all material you submit must be your own original work and all submitted portfolios will be subject to annual randomized checks for plagiarism.
• A check or money order for $75 payable to UW-Eau Claire. All portfolios will be considered on a rolling basis if payment is postmarked by September 15 or January 15.
• A completed payment submission  form .

To submit your WRIT portfolio, go to the WRIT credit by portfolio submission  form . After you submit your portfolio, mail the completed payment submission form with your check or money order.

Please use the contact form below to ask any questions you have about the WRIT portfolio option.

Blugold Seminar

Centennial Hall 4102 1698 Park Avenue Eau Claire , WI 54701 United States

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire

105 Garfield Avenue  P.O. Box 4004  Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004 

715-836-4636

Amazing Tips About How To Write A Historical Paper

The introduction and conclusion serve important roles in a history paper. Suppose you are taking an early american history class and your professor has distributed the following essay prompt: Writing a history paper is a process.

012 How To Write History Essay Example Outline Template Thatsnotus

Writing A Historical Research Paper

Free 5+ Paper Outline Samples In Pdf Ms Word

How To Write Historical Fiction In 10 Steps The History Quill

History Essay Writing 19+ Examples, Format, Pdf Examples

Historical Research Sample Paper

However, there are certain strategies that can be employed to make the whole process.

How to write a historical paper . Writing in history. Try underlining the topic sentence of every paragraph. Successful papers are not completed in a single moment of genius or inspiration, but are.

Who, when, where, what and why: About writing in history. In a short guide to writing about history richard marius outlines fourteen steps that every student should follow in writing a historical research paper.

Historical writing should always be analytic, moving beyond. Students encounter in writing history papers. Paragraphs are the building blocks of your paper.

Historiography means “the writing of history.” in a research paper, the writer asks. The first two or three sentences of your introduction should provide a general introduction to the historical topic which your essay is about. Thus, one of the best strategies for writing an introduction to your history essay is to keep it “bare bones” in the first draft, initially working only toward a version that covers the.

Write a historiography. To do it well requires several steps of refinement. How do i pick a topic?

What is a history paper? To write effective history and history essays, in fact to write successfully in any area, you should begin your essay with the thesis or argument you want to prove with concrete. Steps for writing a history paper.

Primary sources and secondary sources. Creating a paper for history day is similar to other research papers you have written and generally falls into three basic steps: How to write a thesis statement:

Writing with historical research and analysis. What is a primary source? Writing a history paper is your opportunity to do the real work of historians, to roll up your sleeves and dig deep into the past.

If your paragraphs are weak, your paper cannot be strong. There is no single method for writing a history paper; Background reading the first step to a history research paper is of course, background reading and research.

Please note that this booklet cannot cover everything you need to know about historical writing and research. They are not simply perfunctory additions in academic writing, but are critical to your task of making a. In the context of a class assignment,.

The Ultimate Guide To Writing A Brilliant History Essay

History And Critique Essay

Historical Fiction Topics To Write About, Story Ideas, And

History Essay A Complete Writing Guide For Students

History Research Paper Outline Example Format For A

Writing Historical Fiction Pdf Narrative

An Old Historian Looks At The New Historicism. A Review Article

How To Compose A History Essay

Comprehensive Research Paper Outline History You Never Seen Before

Buy Essay Uk Questions; Is It Legal To Academic Essays Online?

Writing a history research paper the center..

43+ Research Paper Examples

019 Essay Example In Writing Historical Research Report It Is Best To

Partnership, popular posts.

• How To Repair A Power Steering Pump
• How To Reduce Size Of Audio File
• How To Rebuild Fuel Injectors
• How To Stop Adrenaline
• How To Restore An Apple Tv
• How To Start With Struts
• How To Start Computer In Bios
• How To Start A Conversation With A Guy
• How To Make Money In Combat Arms
• How To Get A Job You Love
• How To Make Money With Timeshares
• How To Get Rid Of Spyware Guard 2008
• How To Make Money With Forums
• How To Keep Cornrows
• How To Keep A Session Alive