Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Department
College of Computing
Sciences
New Jersey Institute
of Technology
Research Paper Review - Structure and
Format Guidelines
Michael Bieber
This set of guidelines was originally designed for a course, so it
includes grading guidelines, which most readers can ignore.
Notes:
1. Follow the guidelines here on structuring and formatting your review.
2. Include each category in a separate section or subsection. Ensure that you discuss
each category! (If a category does not apply, then actually write in that
(sub)section that the category does not apply.) We will be looking for each
category when grading.
3. Reference other articles you've read, if appropriate. Just as in the articles you've
read, include a reference marker where you refer to each in your review, and
provide full bibliographic references in a bibliography section at the end of your
report.
4. Your final report should be 4 full pages or more (if measured in Times New
Roman 10pt single spaced), which is equivalent to 7-10 pages in most Web
browsers. This does not include your bibliography, citation analysis, diagrams or
large gaps between parts of your report. There is no maximum length.
5. Do not copy any part of the article into your review. If you want to use more than
3-4 of the author's words, then use quotation marks, and add a page number from
the article (if available) when you cite this quotation.
6. Proof-read your review for grammar and clarity as well as spelling. Spell checkers
do not fix grammar. You should be sure that you have caught all mistakes and
written clearly. Most word processors have a grammar checker - use it!
7. For the printed copy of your review, turn in just a plain stapled black & white
copy of your review. Do not put your review in a folder. Avoid fancy covers,
colors or fonts. We want to judge your content, not visual presentation.
8. Please reread the note on plagiarism posted in the syllabus and on the course Web
site.
Grading Notes
We have included the grading criteria in these guidelines.
Unless otherwise noted, the categories are:
great: fully discussed, explained well and well-justified
ok: partial discussion; not explained well or well-justified
poor: barely discussed
zero: not discussed
Length Grading
We take 5 points off for each full page missing (i.e., less than 4 full
pages) and 3 points off for every half page missing. Note that large
gaps between sections will not count towards the full page length.
Editing Grading
Has the review been prooofread for both spelling and grammar? If not
up to 3 points off for poor grammar and up to 3 points off for poor
spelling.
the authors missed, think about things the authors write in a new light,
or see that the authors indeed covered a topic thoroughly.
Note: For the on-line reviews done in some class sections, this
category may be broken up into several separate subcategories. For
the written review, please discuss all of these subcategories together
as follows.
Paragraph 1: State the objectives (goals or purpose) of the article.
What is the article's domain (topic area)?
Paragraph 2:
Audience: State the article's intended audience. At what level is it written, and
what general background should the reader have; what general background
materials should the reader be familiar with to understand the article?
Appropriate Journal?: Why is the journal appropriate (or inappropriate) for this
article? (Check the mission statement or purpose of the journal itself from its
cover or its Web site.)
Paragraph 3: State whether the article is "conceptual" or "empirical",
and why you believe it is conceptual or empirical. Empirical articles
and conceptual articles have a similar objective: to substantiate an
argument proposed by the author. While a conceptual article supports
such an argument based on logical and persuasive reasoning, an
empirical article offers empirical evidence to support the argument.
Empirical articles offer substantial, detailed evidence which the authors
analyze using statistical methods. Empirical articles must include
hypotheses (or propositions), detailed research results, and (statistical)
analyses of this empirical evidence. Empirical research includes
experiments, surveys, questionnaires, field studies, etc, and to limited
degree, case studies. Conceptual articles may refer to such empirical
evidence, but do not provide the detailed analysis of that evidence. Of
course, both types of articles can use real life examples to back up
their points. Just because an article provides examples, does not
necessarily mean that it is empirical. (The lesson to take home is not to
consider a conceptual article to be an empirical one just because it
provides some summarized or some unanalyzed data.)
Grading: Objectives: great - 3; ok - 2; poor - 1
Grading: Audience/Journal Appropriateness: great - 3; ok - 2; poor - 1
Grading: Conceptual vs. empirical: great - 2; ok/poor - 1
4. Results
Very briefly summarize the important points (observations,
conclusions, findings) and "take home messages" in the article.
Please do not repeat lists of items in the articles - just summarize the
essence of these if you feel they are necessary to include.
Grading: great - 8; ok - 5; poor - 2
5. Class Readings
1. Does this article directly cite any of the class readings, i.e., does any
class reading appear explicitly in its bibliography or reference section?
If not, state this explicitly. If so, clearly describe how the authors use
the cited article. How does the article you are reviewing relate to
and/or build upon the class article it cites?
If this article does not cite any class readings then just state this. (If
you do not state this explicitly, you will not receive credit for this
section.) Do not discuss any other readings, such as other readings on
the same topic or by the same author. Save any discussions of similar
articles for your synthesis section below.
2. Do any of the class readings cite your article (besides the textbook)?
If so, clearly describe how.
If no class readings cite your article, then write in your review "No class
readings cite this article." (If you do not state this explicitly, you will
not receive credit for this section.)
Be sure to add all references you cite to the bibliography.
Grading: great - 4; ok - 2; poor - 1 {If none, then score 4 by default if
this has been stated explicitly.}
6. Contributions
An article makes a "contribution" by adding to the knowledge of
researchers in a research field. An article can make a contribution to
the research field in many ways. Does it provide a new way to look at a
problem? Does it bring together or "synthesize" several concepts (or
7. Foundation
Good research often is built upon theories and frameworks that other
researchers have developed. Sometimes articles will be substantially
based upon this prior work, and refer back to it in some detail. (Not all
research articles will do this.)
Which theoretical foundations does this article and research build on, if
any? In what ways? Include references/citations of the foundation work.
(You can determine this in part from the works the article cites.)
Note, however, that most works cited are not core foundational work,
but rather just support certain aspects of the article. Similarly, do not
confuse a general discussion of related topics as foundational work.
If the article does not build upon key pieces of prior research, then
write in your review "This article does not build upon any foundation
research." (If you do not state this explicitly, you will not receive credit
for this section.)
Grading: great - 4; ok - 3; poor -1 {If none, then score 4 by default if
this has been stated explicitly}
covered. (Of course, only certain materials will be relevant for any
given article.)
Note: You have to do this synthesis! You need to relate this article to
other things we have studied, so by definition you will not find this
analysis in the article itself!
Discuss the article's research ideas and results in terms of any relevant
materials covered in class or which you have found in the readings. You
can also check the concepts in the "to know" link on the "quick links"
portion of the course Web site. Cite these readings explicitly, including
their source in the bibliography and a bibliographic marker in the text
(e.g., [Turoff et al., 1999]).
You also could analyze the approach the author took to the article's
analysis and discussion. Discuss the article's approach and results in
terms of one or more of the frameworks, etc., from the text or
readings, or any you find elsewhere. For example, if the authors
discuss any type of information system, you could use Alter's WCA
analysis to examine how they approached that information system. Try
to do this for all the models and frameworks, etc., which apply to your
article.
As part of this analysis, reference other articles you've read, when
appropriate. Compare the approach, results and contribution with all
articles about similar topics or with a similar approach. For example, if
your article develops a new framework, compare it with
Bandyopadyhah's framework criteria (and vice versa - whoever does
Bandyopadyhah's article could test his criteria on frameworks from the
other readings). Include any articles you cite in the bibliography and
use bibliographic markers in the text.
For all of these, do your synthesis comparison in as much depth as you
can!
Grading: four items up to 20 points total (12 points plus 8 points extra
credit) - for each item: great - 5 ok - 2; poor - 1
Great: discussed deeply and relating the article in detail with the
synthesized models and frameworks.
OK: the synthesized information is only discussed in general
9. Analysis
Note: Many people assume this category is the same as "General
Critique". It is not. General Critique is a different category from this,
and follows below.
What has changed since the article was written? How do it's lessons,
ideas and theories still apply? To what extent has its issues been
resolved?
Grading: great - 4; ok - 2; poor - 1
Additional Analysis
Optionally, try applying the article's models, frameworks and
guidelines, etc. yourself. Do you find them useful?
In addition, you may optionally add your own additional analysis in a
separate subsection. (Do not repeat the author's analysis in the paper you could summarize this as part of the results section.)
Grading: this section is extra credit only: great - 8; ok - 5; poor - 2
Note: If you have any critiques in this section, they most likely belong
in the General Critique section instead.
Grading: 3 items up to 9 points total (6 points plus 3 points extra
credit) - for each item: great - 3; ok - 2; poor - 1
14. Impact
To determine how much impact this article has had, do a citation
analysis. Discuss what this citation analysis shows, and why; don't just
list the citations! (See the Citation Analysis Guidelines (.doc) and
Handout (.pdf) posted on the course Web site.)
If the article has no citations, then write in your review "I found no
citations in the Science Citation Index, the Social Sciences Citation
Index or on the Internet." Then clearly explain why you believe there
were no citations at all. If you found citations in some indexes or on the
Internet but not the others, then explain this as well.
Include your citation lists in an appendix to your review (see below for
details).
Grading - impact discussion: great - 3; ok - 2; poor - 1
15. Questions
List three insightful questions of your own, arising from this article. Do
not ask definitions, but rather questions that really make one think.
Grading: 3 questions, up to 6 points total - for each question: great/ok 2; poor - 1