Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This set of guidelines is for the written article review assignments. It also provides the set of categories for on-line
article critique discussions. However, the grading structure and length requirements in this document only apply to the
written reviews, not to the any article critique discussions on-line.
Notes:
1. See the article review assignment for details on which articles to choose and how to submit your review.
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.
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 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. To the best of your knowledge, are they? Are the article's take-home
messages new?
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.
Grading: great - 8; ok - 5; poor - 2
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}
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?
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: four items up to 16 points total (10 points plus 6 points extra credit) - for each item: great - 4; ok - 2; poor 1
{adapted from guidelines from Dr. Dan Robey, Georgia State University}
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?
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?
Grading: for each: great - 3 ok - 2; poor - 1
{adapted from guidelines from Dr. Dan Robey, Georgia State University}
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?
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?
Grading: for each: great - 2 ok/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