ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE

How to Write an Article Review

Writing an article review, which is also sometimes referred to as an article critique, is a
special type of writing that involves reading an article and then providing the reader with
your personal take on its content.
In general, article review essays should start with a heading that includes a citation of the
sources that are being reviewed. The first paragraph, which is the introduction to the
article review, should provide a summary of the article highlights. This summary should
not provide every last detail about the article being reviewed. Rather, it should only discuss
the most important details. If you find yourself carrying on or needing more than one
paragraph to write your summary, you need to revisit the paragraph and find ways to trim
down the length of your summary.
Following the brief summary of your article, you will then need to explain why the article is
significant. Questions you should ask yourself when writing these paragraphs include:
Does the article fill a void within the literature that already exists on the topic?
Does the article contain any information that would be considered breakthrough
information?
Will the information contained within this article cause other people in the field to change
their ideas about the subject matter or does it simply revisit information that is already
known in the field?
In your final paragraphs, you will need to present your personal evaluation of the article.
Some questions you should ask yourself in order to come up with your personal evaluation
include whether or not the article is well written and clear. You should also consider
whether or not any information was missing and if more research is needed on the topic.
If you are writing the article review for a class, try to connect the article to organizational
and industrial experience and try to connect the content of the article to information that
you have been studying in your course.
As you write your article review, keep in mind that you are doing more than just a book
report. Rather than focus on telling what the article was about, your article review should
reflect your personal opinions on the article as well as how it affects you or the field in
which it was written.
After you have finished writing your article review, be sure to go back and re-read it. This
way, you will be able to look at it with a fresh set of eyes and you may notice errors that you
had not previously noticed.
Outline of the Article Review
Please include the following categories in your article review.
Full Bibliographic Reference
1

ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE

Introduction: Objectives, Article Domain, Audience, Journal and Conceptual/Emprical

Classification
Very Brief Summary
Results
Contributions
Foundation
Synthesis with other materials
Analysis & Additional Analysis
General Critique)
Further Critique of a Conceptual Article -or- Further Critique of an Empirical Article
Issues (in your opinion)
Questions
Annotated Bibliography
Citation Analysis Appendix
1. Full Bibliographic Reference
State the full bibliographic reference for the article you are reviewing (authors, title,
journal name, volume, issue, year, page numbers, etc.) Important: this is not the
bibliography listed at the end of the article, rather the citation of the article itself!
2. Introduction: Objectives, Article Domain, Audience, Journal and Conceptual/Emprical
Classification
Paragraph 1: State the objectives (goals or purpose) of the article. What is the article's
domain (topic area)?
Paragraph 2: 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.
3. Brief Summary
2

ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE

For an article review, do not spend much space summarizing the article. Instead focus on
analysis of the article.
Thus, in this section, summarize the article only very briefly.
Paragraph 1: what is the problem or opportunity being addressed
Paragraph 2: which solution is proposed (the solution could be a new model or a theory
that explains the problem)
Paragraph 3: what evidence is put forth that this solution is appropriate (If this is an
empirical article, be sure to briefly describe what kind of empirical study was done as part
of the evidence)
4. Results
Very briefly summarize the important points (observations, conclusions, findings) 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.
5. 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
frameworks, models, etc.) together in an insightful way that has not been done before?
Does it provide new solutions? Does it provide new results? Does it identify new issues?
Does it provide a comprehensive survey or review of a domain? Does it provide new
insights?
Also, is it salient (relevant and current) to a particular scientific issue or managerial
problem? Are the issues addressed introduced in a way that their relevance to practice is
evident? Would answers to the questions raised in the article likely to be useful to
researchers and managers?
Note: Do not discuss the contributions of the technologies the article describes, but rather
the contributions of the article itself!The article's contributions should be original. Describe
each contribution clearly in a separate paragraph or bullet point. Discuss why the
contribution is important.Alternatively, if you believe the article makes no contributions,
explain why clearly.
6. 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.)

ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE

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.)
7. Synthesis with Class Materials
Synthesis means analyzing a particular topic by comparing and contrasting it with, and
thinking about it from the viewpoint of, the class materials from across the semester. These
materials include the articles, models, frameworks, guidelines and other concepts we've
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!
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. 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 all of
these, do your synthesis comparison in as much depth as you can!
8. 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?
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.)
9. General Critique
In this section you should state your opinions of how well (or poorly) the authors did their
research and presented the research results in the article. Your critique can contain both
positive and negative comments.Justify and explain in detail each of your critique points in
a separate paragraph of at least 4-5 sentences.
The following are suggestions only:
Does it build upon the appropriate foundation (i.e., upon appropriate prior research)?
4

ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE

Did the authors choose the correct approach, and then execute it properly?
How confident are you in the article's results, and why?
Are its ideas really new, or do the authors simply repackage old ideas and perhaps give
them a new name?
Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the article's introduction and outline?
What are the article's shortcomings (faults) and limitations (boundaries)? Did it discuss all
of the important aspects and issues in its domain (topic area)?
In what way should the article have made a contribution, but then did not?
Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases or occurrences?
How complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Do the authors include an adequate
discussion, analysis and conclusions? Did they justify everything adequately? Did they
provide enough background information for the intended audience to understand it? For
you to understand it?
Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations?
Ask yourself these questions when justifying your critique points:
why/why not?
how?
what distinguishes the differences/different approaches, and in what ways?
9.1. Further Critique of a Conceptual Article (only for conceptual articles)
A critique of a conceptual article examines the logic of the arguments made by the authors.
Both strengths and weaknesses should be identified in a critique. Explain and justify each
of your critique points in at least 3-4 sentences. Give examples whenever possible.
To the best of your abilities, discuss each of the following categories in a separate
paragraph:
1. LOGICAL CONSISTENCY: Do any parts of the article or research contradict or
invalidate other parts? If so, have the authors acknowledged and explained this
adequately?
2. COHERENCE: Does the article make sense? Did the authors approach this article (and
this research) sensibly? Does the article develop an argument that follows a coherent line of
reasoning? Are the boundaries of the argument reasonably well defined? Does the
argument anticipate most, if not all, rival arguments?
Does the article flow in a logical sequence? Do later parts build logically upon earlier
parts?
5

ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE

3. SUBSTANCE: Does the article provide an argument or a line of reasoning that offers
insight into important issues, or does it merely summarize previous studies in a shallow
way that does not reflect depth of analysis? Does the article provide ways (a model,
framework, guidelines, etc.) to guide future thinking about the issue(s) the author is
addressing?
4. FOCUS: Is there a clear audience that the authors address? Was the article written at
the appropriate level for this audience?
9.2. Further Critique of an Empirical Article (only for empirical articles)
A critique of an empirical article examines the strength of the empirical evidence
supporting the author's argument. Both strengths and weaknesses should be identified in a
critique. Explain and justify each of your critique points in at least 3-4 sentences.
To the best of your abilities, discuss each of the following categories in a separate
paragraph:
1. CLARITY: Is the article's purpose and argument clear? Do the researchers clearly
develop a major research question, proposition, or hypothesis that is to be evaluated in the
empirical study and discussed in this article? If the study is exploratory (preliminary), is
sufficient justification for an exploratory strategy given?
2. THEORETICAL GROUNDING: Is the researcher's argument grounded in more basic
theory? Is it clear whether the structure of the empirical study (i.e., what they do) was
derived from theory, or just made up? In theory-building articles, is the need for new
theory adequately established?
3. DESIGN OF RESEARCH INVESTIGATION: Is it clear exactly how the empirical study
was carried out? Is the design of the research approach (field study, experiments,
questionnaires, etc. - both contents and how they will be used) adequate to address the
common threats to internal and external validity? Have appropriate controls been
established, and is the selection of research sites justified? Are the hypotheses and
experiments, etc., significant?
4. MEASUREMENT: Empirical studies can have quantitative measurements (i.e., numeric
results) and qualitative or subjective measurements. Are the measures used adequately
described (i.e., what is measured in the study and how)? Are data on the reliability and
validity of these measures reported? Does the article feel anecdotal or solidly supported
with evidence? For example, in case or field studies, are the results well documented? Is it
clear who the subjects were, and with whom interviews were carried out? Were important
results cross-checked, i.e., determined across a range of subjects or just gotten from one or
two subjects?
5. ANALYSIS: Is the analysis of empirical data conducted properly? Do the data conform
to the requirements of any statistical tests used? Are qualitative data adequately described
and presented?

ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In discussing the results of the empirical study, do

the authors remain true to the actual findings of the study? Are the claims made in the
conclusion of the article actually supported by the empirical data? If the study is
exploratory, do the authors offer research questions or hypotheses for future research?
7. BIASES: Do the biases of the authors affect the design of the research or the
interpretation of the results? Are the authors aware of potential biases and the affect on the
study?
10. Issues (listed by the author)
What open questions or issues has the author stated remain unresolved? Discuss each in a
separate paragraph of 5-10 sentences. Each issue's paragraph should take the following
format:
what is the issue?
why do you believe this is an important issue?
in what way is it unresolved
suggestions for resolving it - if you give your own suggestions (instead of or in addition to
the authors', then precede each with "I would propose ..." If it has been resolved since the
article was written, then state how it was resolved.
11. Issues (in your opinion)
List several open questions or issues which remain unresolved in your opinion? For
example, what possible future research questions could arise from this article? Discuss each
in a separate paragraph of 5-10 sentences. Each issue's paragraph should take the
following format:
what is the issue?
why do you believe this is an important issue?
in what way is it unresolved
suggestions for resolving it
12. Questions
List three insightful questions of your own, arising from this article. Do not ask definitions,
but rather questions that really make one think.
13. Annotated Bibliography
For every item you have cited in your report, you need a full reference and an annotation
explaining it.

ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINE

List the full bibliographic references (authors, title, journal name, volume, issue, year, page
numbers, etc.) for anything you have cited in your review.
IMPORTANT: This is NOT the bibliography listed at the end of the article. It is the
bibliographic references for any readings you yourself referred to inside your review.
Write 2-4 sentences describing the article.
Write 2-3 sentences describing why you cited it.
14. Citation Analysis Appendix
If the article has no citations then write in that section "I found no citations in the [Science
Citation Index or the Social Sciences Citation Index or on the Internet]."
Note, if your article has more than 20 citations, you only need to include a selection of
them:
State how many citations each index has and the Web search found
List 1-2 citations for each year in which the article has been cited. Try to include citations
from several different journals spread over your selection ? Include a citation analysis to
see who has cited it and how.