how to do a journal article review

how to do a journal article review

How to Write an Effective Journal Article Review

1. Understanding the Purpose of a Journal Article Review

Satarić (2012) is the author of the piece and he has provided an analysis through a discussion of past research attempting to achieve an evaluation of the efficiency of the Professional Development Schools program at the University of Maine, Maine, USA between 1997-2007. This article review will look at Satarić’s discussion, critical analysis and conclusions of the PDS discussion over a 10-year period whilst identifying any potential research on future related studies, its effect on the research outlined and a comparison of the PDS program in other universities cited in the article. Succeeding this, there will be an identification and analysis of the methodology seen in the use of Educational Programme Study at the University of Novi Sad, Serbia between 1993-2003 – later providing a comparison with the research, the effectiveness of the EPP and a general comparison. The final aim being an evaluation of the quality of the Teaching Development which took place at PDS shown by results and changes in the teacher’s environment and self-encouraged analyses.

The purpose of the journal article review is to develop and begin enhancing an understanding of the “affective, critical components and a framework to improve the teaching practice in the classroom”.

2. Evaluating the Structure and Content of the Article

This essay breaks up the content of two distinct sections, on structure and content, in order to enable the author to adequately and effectively explain their ideas, while it allows the reader to follow through the article more efficiently. The introduction gave a good overview of the article, but also could have been said about any other article in relation to the comparison between modern and traditional science or the pros and cons between a reductionist and system approach. No real specific details were given about what the article was about. After reading through the article, you can get a good idea of what the author was trying to do, but the introduction should have provided more detailed examples of what the reader can expect to encounter in this comparison. A reader could also question the validity of such an article, in relation to whether it is really an advancement in science. But this is outside the scope of discussion here.

3. Analyzing the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article

Important definite characteristics of a study that can be made are based on the desk or observational research. This may be shown through providing a method of achieving information on a particular subject where the evidence beforehand may have been limited, faulty, or nonexistent. An example is the qualitative study on reflective practice in student nurses as it depicts an area where little is known and provides a constructive building block for future research in this field. Other ways to provide definitive knowledge are to provide evidence that refutes previously held conceptions as demonstrated by an RCT study that aimed to assess the effect of burning raw onion to produce tears. High-quality studies are often those which try to compare the efficiency of certain treatments or interventions with others to see if there is a significantly noticeable difference. This is done by conducting a randomized controlled trial and comparing the two results. Any study that provides conclusive evidence on a topic is of worth as it will help end uncertainty.

The clearest alternative for identifying the strengths of an article is to ask: “Is this a good study?” A good study is defined as one that is relevant, has a clear interpretative aid, and has a probable impact on the profession (Oermann and Christman, 2009). Using these criteria, you can devise a scored plan (say 1-5) that will allow judgment of a study’s worth. As the article under review may be one limited space, there may only be a few brief and broad statements as to the worth of the study.

In “Six Guidelines for Critiquing an Empirical Study,” Oermann and Christman offer the following system for critiquing the strengths and weaknesses of a research article. This guideline is, in many ways, ideal for people like you who may be called upon to review an article prior to its publication.

4. Providing Constructive Criticism and Recommendations

The writing of a hypothesis is most frequently easier as study compared to a small real part of the research effort. Let’s say you have an idea, or there is some specific stimulus for writing a hypothesis. Now, much simpler part of the work is to refine the idea to one specific point. This step should already involve operationalization of the variables that would be in the hypothesis. Operationalization is essentially defining everything in terms of its methods of measurement so that it will be possible to represent in data analysis. Now armed with a specific idea, and operationalized variables, all the researchers need to do is apply different theories of types of research to decide the best way to test the hypothesis.

Paraphrase or directly quote the purpose, research questions, and hypotheses. Your assessment of the hypotheses should consider their generalizability to the real world and their logical coherence. Note that the test of a good hypothesis is whether it is refutable, and this usually involves deriving testable predictions from it. The title of the report should also be evaluated in terms of its relevance to the research reported. If relevant, compare the methods and analysis to similar studies, noting whether it is a strength or a weakness. All these comparisons provide a benchmark by which readers can assess the validity and significance of your critique.

5. Formatting and Presenting a Well-Written Journal Article Review

A statement was not provided regarding price as a tool with regard to value. Theory analysis is used in the article, indicating that price is a theory of value. The theory is based on the assertion that the value of a thing is the amount for which it will be exchanged for something. This is also known as the alternative cost theory. A very basic analysis of the concept, which is only a few steps above reiteration, but is still clear and can be related to the statement said about price as a theory of value. Both serve as a good base for comparison throughout the article and support the claim that a significant contribution to the subject has been made.

By avoiding detailed, restated summary and using a critical review to assess the article with your research into others on the same subject, the article on price/theory trade and the other articles being reviewed all share significantly valuable information. It would be more efficient for this article to forgo the summary and delve into the analysis of the other articles.

Do not begin your article review by introducing or restating the article’s basic ideas. Content alone is not an adequate criterion for an article review. Reiterating the beginning in the review gives readers the impression that you aren’t providing criticism. Discussing the content of the article begins with a significant commitment of your space to summarizing the article.