A framework of literary comparison

1. Raj K. Bhattarai, PhD
Nepal Commerce Campus
Tribhuvan University

2.  I: Article identifiers
 F: Format of the article
 I: Phenomena of the interest of the author(s)
 A: Aim or objectives of the article
 M: Measurement of the study matter
 A: Analysis of the data
 R: Results of the study
 T: Testimony of the findings
 UC: Unified comments
The framework Initials: IF-I-AM-ART-UC

3. Description Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper N
Author(s)
Title
Key words
Journal name
Year
Volume (Issue)
Page range
Cited by
Study location
Article Identifiers

4. Format of the article
Description Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper N
Article type
Style (APA, MLA, etc.)
Heading 1
Heading 2
Citation style
Reference period
Reference items
Number of table
Number of figure

5. Phenomena of interest
Description Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper N
Research gap
Research question(s)
Theoretical foundation
Conceptual framework

6. Aim in the article
Description Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper N
Objective/hypothesis 1
Objective/hypothesis 2
Objective/hypothesis 3
Objective/hypothesis N

7. Measurement of the mater
Description Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper N
Construct definition
Object identification
Attribute classification
Rater entity
Selection item-type
Answer scale
Enumeration and scoring

8. Analysis of the data
Description Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper N
Study context
Population and sample
Quantitative tools
Qualitative tools
Test and experiment
Modelling
Association/relations

9. Results of the study
Description Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper N
Result: Science
Result: Image
Result: Concept
Finding 1
Finding 2
Finding 3
Finding N
Conclusion
Future research prospect

10. Testimony of the findings
Description Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper N
Innovative contribution
Reliability test
Validity test
Limitations
Underlying assumptions
Fundamental claims
Justifications
Cited by
Agree with
Disagree with

11. Unified comment of the reviewer(s)
Description Paper 1 Paper 2 Paper 3 Paper N
Ontological standing
Epistemological standing
Implications of the article
Reviewer’s remark 1
Reviewer’s remark 2
Reviewer’s remark 3
Reviewer’s remark N

12. Thanks