2. Critiquing Scientific Papers
Introductions
1. Read the statement of purpose at the end of the introduction. What was the
objective of the study?
2. Consider the title. Does it precisely state the subject of the paper?
3. Read the statement of purpose in the abstract. Does it match the one in the
introduction?
4. Check the sequence of statements in the introduction. Does all the information
lead coherently to the purpose of the study?
3. Methods
1. Review all the methods in relation to the objective(s) of the study. Are the
methods valid for studying the problem?
2. Check the methods for essential information. Could the study be duplicated
from the methods and information given?
3. Check the methods for flaws. Is the sample selection adequate? Is the
experimental design sound?
4. Check the sequence of statements in the methods. Does all the information
belong there? Is the sequence of methods clear and pertinent?
4. Results
1. Examine the carefully the data as presented in the tables and diagrams. Does the title or legend
accurately describe the content? Are the column headings and labels accurate? Are the data
organized for ready comparison and interpretation? (A table should be self-explanatory, with a
title that accurately and concisely describes content and column headings that accurately
describe information in the cells.)
2. Review the results as presented in the text while referring to the data in the tables and diagrams.
Does the text complement, and not simple repeat, data? Are there discrepancies between the
results in the text and those in the tables?
3. Check all calculations and presentation of data
4. Review the results in light of the stated objectives. Does the study reveal what the researcher
intended?
5. Discussion
1. Check the interpretation against the results. Does the discussion merely repeat
the results? Does the interpretation arise logically from the data or is it too far-
fetched? Have the faults/flaws/shortcomings of the research been addressed?
2. Is the interpretation supported by other research cited in the study?
3. Does the study consider the key studies in the field?
4. Are there other research possibilities/directions suggested?
6. Conclusion
Should be written to relate directly to the aims of the project as stated in the
introduction. It must also indicate the extent to which the aims have been achieved. It
must summarize the key findings, outcomes, or information in your report. It should
acknowledge limitations and make recommendations for future work (where
applicable) and highlight the significance or usefulness of your work.
7. Conclusion
1. Did the study answer the general objective or the main problem? Was the answer sufficient?
2. How did other researchers view the significance of the research reported by your authors?
3. Did the research reported in your article result in the formulation of new questions or hypotheses
(by the authors, by other researcher)?
4. Have other researchers subsequently supported or refuted the observations/interpretations of
these authors?
5. Did the research make a significant contribution to human knowledge?
6. Did the research produce any practical applications?
7. What are the social, political, technological, medical implications of this research?
8. Recommendations
It should always address limitations and suggests how they might be overcome in
the future work
Recommendation must be able to address the following:
Potential research topics/ research areas that could be explored, either at the university
research or project-based levels.
The recommendation is oftentimes based on the conclusion as well – and this is the
section where the conclusion could be stated in a way that will be useful for policy
directions, for product utilization or for other purposes
9. Overview of the study
Reread the abstract. Does it accurately summarize the article?
Check the structure of the article (first headings, and then paragraphing). Is all the
material organized under the appropriate headings?
Are sections divided logically into subsections or paragraphs?
Are stylistic concerns, logic, clarity, and economy of expression addressed?
