And in this issue: of the CMEJ: Bahji A, Smith J, Danilewitz M, Crockford D, el-Guebaly N, Stuart H. Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review. . 2021; 12(3) 10.36834/cmej.69739
More recently, authors such as Greenhalgh 4 have drawn attention to the perceived hierarchy of systematic reviews over scoping and narrative reviews. Like Greenhalgh, 4 we argue that systematic reviews are not to be seen as the gold standard of all reviews. Instead, it is important to align the method of review to what the authors hope to achieve, and pursue the review rigorously, according to the tenets of the chosen review type. Sometimes it is helpful to read part of the literature on your topic before deciding on a methodology for organizing and assessing its usefulness. Importantly, whether you are conducting a review or reading reviews, appreciating the differences between different types of reviews can also help you weigh the author’s interpretation of their findings.
In the next section we summarize some general tips for conducting successful reviews.
In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are conducting. Systematic reviews tend to address very focused questions often summarizing the evidence of your topic. Other types of reviews tend to have broader questions and are more exploratory in nature.
Following your question, choose an approach and plan your methods to match your question…just like you would for a research study. Fortunately, there are guidelines for many types of reviews. As Cook points out the most important consideration is to be sure that the methods you follow lead to a defensible answer to your review question. To help you prepare for a defensible answer there are many guides available. For systematic reviews consult PRISMA guidelines ; 13 for scoping reviews PRISMA-ScR ; 14 and SANRA 15 for narrative reviews. It is also important to explain to readers why you have chosen to conduct a review. You may be introducing a new way for addressing an old problem, drawing links across literatures, filling in gaps in our knowledge about a phenomenon or educational practice. Cook refers to this as setting the stage. Linking back to the literature is important. In systematic reviews for example, you must be clear in explaining how your review builds on existing literature and previous reviews. This is your opportunity to be critical. What are the gaps and limitations of previous reviews? So, how will your systematic review resolve the shortcomings of previous work? In other types of reviews, such as narrative reviews, its less about filling a specific knowledge gap, and more about generating new research topic areas, exposing blind spots in our thinking, or making creative new links across issues. Whatever, type of review paper you are working on, the next steps are ones that can be applied to any scholarly writing. Be clear and offer insight. What is your main message? A review is more than just listing studies or referencing literature on your topic. Lead your readers to a convincing message. Provide commentary and interpretation for the studies in your review that will help you to inform your conclusions. For systematic reviews, Cook’s final tip is most likely the most important– report completely. You need to explain all your methods and report enough detail that readers can verify the main findings of each study you review. The most common reasons CMEJ reviewers recommend to decline a review article is because authors do not follow these last tips. In these instances authors do not provide the readers with enough detail to substantiate their interpretations or the message is not clear. Our recommendation for writing a great review is to ensure you have followed the previous tips and to have colleagues read over your paper to ensure you have provided a clear, detailed description and interpretation.
Finally, we leave you with some resources to guide your review writing. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 We look forward to seeing your future work. One thing is certain, a better appreciation of what different reviews provide to the field will contribute to more purposeful exploration of the literature and better manuscript writing in general.
In this issue we present many interesting and worthwhile papers, two of which are, in fact, reviews.
A chance for reform: the environmental impact of travel for general surgery residency interviews by Fung et al. 18 estimated the CO 2 emissions associated with traveling for residency position interviews. Due to the high emissions levels (mean 1.82 tonnes per applicant), they called for the consideration of alternative options such as videoconference interviews.
Understanding community family medicine preceptors’ involvement in educational scholarship: perceptions, influencing factors and promising areas for action by Ward and team 19 identified barriers, enablers, and opportunities to grow educational scholarship at community-based teaching sites. They discovered a growing interest in educational scholarship among community-based family medicine preceptors and hope the identification of successful processes will be beneficial for other community-based Family Medicine preceptors.
Exploring the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: an international cross-sectional study of medical learners by Allison Brown and team 20 studied the impact of COVID-19 on medical learners around the world. There were different concerns depending on the levels of training, such as residents’ concerns with career timeline compared to trainees’ concerns with the quality of learning. Overall, the learners negatively perceived the disruption at all levels and geographic regions.
The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment? by Susan Humphrey-Murto and co-authors 21 considered factors that lead to the publication of studies supported by local medical education grants. They identified several factors associated with publication success, including previous oral or poster presentations. They hope their results will be valuable for Canadian centres with local grant programs.
Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical learner wellness: a needs assessment for the development of learner wellness interventions by Stephana Cherak and team 22 studied learner-wellness in various training environments disrupted by the pandemic. They reported a negative impact on learner wellness at all stages of training. Their results can benefit the development of future wellness interventions.
Program directors’ reflections on national policy change in medical education: insights on decision-making, accreditation, and the CanMEDS framework by Dore, Bogie, et al. 23 invited program directors to reflect on the introduction of the CanMEDS framework into Canadian postgraduate medical education programs. Their survey revealed that while program directors (PDs) recognized the necessity of the accreditation process, they did not feel they had a voice when the change occurred. The authors concluded that collaborations with PDs would lead to more successful outcomes.
Experiential learning, collaboration and reflection: key ingredients in longitudinal faculty development by Laura Farrell and team 24 stressed several elements for effective longitudinal faculty development (LFD) initiatives. They found that participants benefited from a supportive and collaborative environment while trying to learn a new skill or concept.
The effect of COVID-19 on medical students’ education and wellbeing: a cross-sectional survey by Stephanie Thibaudeau and team 25 assessed the impact of COVID-19 on medical students. They reported an overall perceived negative impact, including increased depressive symptoms, increased anxiety, and reduced quality of education.
In Do PGY-1 residents in Emergency Medicine have enough experiences in resuscitations and other clinical procedures to meet the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum? Meshkat and co-authors 26 recorded the number of adult medical resuscitations and clinical procedures completed by PGY1 Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Emergency Medicine residents to compare them to the Competence by Design requirements. Their study underscored the importance of monitoring collection against pre-set targets. They concluded that residency program curricula should be regularly reviewed to allow for adequate clinical experiences.
Rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults by Anita Cheng and team 27 studied whether rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults helped residents prepare for difficult conversations with parents expecting complications with their baby before birth. They found that while rehearsal simulation improved residents’ confidence and communication techniques, it did not prepare them for unexpected parent responses.
Peer support programs in the fields of medicine and nursing: a systematic search and narrative review by Haykal and co-authors 28 described and evaluated peer support programs in the medical field published in the literature. They found numerous diverse programs and concluded that including a variety of delivery methods to meet the needs of all participants is a key aspect for future peer-support initiatives.
Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review by Bahji et al. 6 identified addiction interventions to build competency for psychiatry residents and fellows. They found that current psychiatry entrustable professional activities need to be better identified and evaluated to ensure sustained competence in addictions.
Six ways to get a grip on leveraging the expertise of Instructional Design and Technology professionals by Chen and Kleinheksel 29 provided ways to improve technology implementation by clarifying the role that Instructional Design and Technology professionals can play in technology initiatives and technology-enhanced learning. They concluded that a strong collaboration is to the benefit of both the learners and their future patients.
In his article, Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process, 30 Simon Field provided guidelines for maximizing opportunities for successful promotion experiences. His seven tips included creating a rubric for both self-assessment of likeliness of success and adjudication by the committee.
Six ways to get a grip on your first health education leadership role by Stasiuk and Scott 31 provided tips for considering a health education leadership position. They advised readers to be intentional and methodical in accepting or rejecting positions.
Re-examining the value proposition for Competency-Based Medical Education by Dagnone and team 32 described the excitement and controversy surrounding the implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) by Canadian postgraduate training programs. They proposed observing which elements of CBME had a positive impact on various outcomes.
In their work, Interprofessional culinary education workshops at the University of Saskatchewan, Lieffers et al. 33 described the implementation of interprofessional culinary education workshops that were designed to provide health professions students with an experiential and cooperative learning experience while learning about important topics in nutrition. They reported an enthusiastic response and cooperation among students from different health professional programs.
In their article, Physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal education: an innovative approach to teach medical students musculoskeletal assessment techniques, Boulila and team 34 described the implementation of physiotherapist-led workshops, whether the workshops increased medical students’ musculoskeletal knowledge, and if they increased confidence in assessment techniques.
Instagram as a virtual art display for medical students by Karly Pippitt and team 35 used social media as a platform for showcasing artwork done by first-year medical students. They described this shift to online learning due to COVID-19. Using Instagram was cost-saving and widely accessible. They intend to continue with both online and in-person displays in the future.
Adapting clinical skills volunteer patient recruitment and retention during COVID-19 by Nazerali-Maitland et al. 36 proposed a SLIM-COVID framework as a solution to the problem of dwindling volunteer patients due to COVID-19. Their framework is intended to provide actionable solutions to recruit and engage volunteers in a challenging environment.
In Quick Response codes for virtual learner evaluation of teaching and attendance monitoring, Roxana Mo and co-authors 37 used Quick Response (QR) codes to monitor attendance and obtain evaluations for virtual teaching sessions. They found QR codes valuable for quick and simple feedback that could be used for many educational applications.
In Creation and implementation of the Ottawa Handbook of Emergency Medicine Kaitlin Endres and team 38 described the creation of a handbook they made as an academic resource for medical students as they shift to clerkship. It includes relevant content encountered in Emergency Medicine. While they intended it for medical students, they also see its value for nurses, paramedics, and other medical professionals.
The alarming situation of medical student mental health by D’Eon and team 39 appealed to medical education leaders to respond to the high numbers of mental health concerns among medical students. They urged leaders to address the underlying problems, such as the excessive demands of the curriculum.
In the shadows: medical student clinical observerships and career exploration in the face of COVID-19 by Law and co-authors 40 offered potential solutions to replace in-person shadowing that has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They hope the alternatives such as virtual shadowing will close the gap in learning caused by the pandemic.
Canadian Federation of Medical Students' response to “ The alarming situation of medical student mental health” King et al. 41 on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (CFMS) responded to the commentary by D’Eon and team 39 on medical students' mental health. King called upon the medical education community to join the CFMS in its commitment to improving medical student wellbeing.
Re: “Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology” 42 was written by Kirubarajan in response to the article by Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology by Black and team. 43 Kirubarajan applauded the development of the podcast to meet a need in medical education, and suggested potential future topics such as interventions to prevent learner burnout.
Response to “First year medical student experiences with a clinical skills seminar emphasizing sexual and gender minority population complexity” by Kumar and Hassan 44 acknowledged the previously published article by Biro et al. 45 that explored limitations in medical training for the LGBTQ2S community. However, Kumar and Hassen advocated for further progress and reform for medical training to address the health requirements for sexual and gender minorities.
In her letter, Journey to the unknown: road closed!, 46 Rosemary Pawliuk responded to the article, Journey into the unknown: considering the international medical graduate perspective on the road to Canadian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic, by Gutman et al. 47 Pawliuk agreed that international medical students (IMGs) do not have adequate formal representation when it comes to residency training decisions. Therefore, Pawliuk challenged health organizations to make changes to give a voice in decision-making to the organizations representing IMGs.
In Connections, 48 Sara Guzman created a digital painting to portray her approach to learning. Her image of a hand touching a neuron showed her desire to physically see and touch an active neuron in order to further understand the brain and its connections.
Service Alert
Text: 336-308-8801
Email: [email protected]
Call: 336-633-0204
Schedule: Book-a-Librarian
Like us on Facebook
Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.
A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.
Introduction
Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.
Body Paragraphs
Interpret the information from the article:
Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.
From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut
Additional Resources
All links open in a new window.
Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)
How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)
How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Email citation, add to collections.
Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.
Affiliation.
Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.
PubMed Disclaimer
Full text sources.
NCBI Literature Resources
MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer
The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.
Guidelines:
Presentations:
Table of contents
Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.
An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.
To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.
If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:
An article critique typically includes the following:
When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.
When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:
When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.
An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.
You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.
When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.
Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.
Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.
Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.
Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.
Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.
When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:
When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.
It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.
When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?
Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.
However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.
When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.
Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.
Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.
Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.
Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.
Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.
It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.
It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.
Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Methodology
Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.
What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .
There are five key steps to writing a literature review:
A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.
Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes
What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.
When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:
Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
See an example
Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.
You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.
Download Word doc Download Google doc
Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .
If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .
Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.
Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:
You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.
Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.
You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.
For each publication, ask yourself:
Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.
You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.
As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.
It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.
The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.
Try for free
To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:
This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.
There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).
The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.
Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.
If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.
For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.
If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:
A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.
You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.
Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.
The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.
Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.
As you write, you can follow these tips:
In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.
When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !
This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.
Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.
Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Statistics
Research bias
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .
It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.
There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:
Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.
The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .
A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .
An annotated bibliography is a list of source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a paper .
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/
Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".
I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”
Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued.
There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or Canvas site for guidance from your lecturer. The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one example.
Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:
Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.
This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.
A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.
Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:
This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.
To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your evaluation of the work.
This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:
Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style to use.
QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.
A guide for critique of research articles
Following is the list of criteria to evaluate (critique) a research article. Please note that you should first summarize the paper and then evaluate different parts of it.
Most of the evaluation section should be devoted to evaluation of internal validity of the conclusions. Please add at the end a section entitled ''changes in the design/procedures if I want to replicate this study." Attach a copy of the original article to your paper.
Click here to see a an example (this is how you start) of a research critique.
Click here to see the original article.
The following list is a guide for you to organize your evaluation. It is recommended to organize your evaluation in this order. This is a long list of questions. You don’t have to address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions . Some questions may not be relevant to your article.
Introduction
1. Is there a statement of the problem?
2. Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data?
3. Is background information on the problem presented?
4. Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?
5. Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?
Review of Related Literature
1. Is the review comprehensive?
2. Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation?
3. Are most of the sources primary, i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources?
4. Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of various studies compared and contrasted, i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?
5. Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?
6. Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?
1. Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?
2. Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference?
3. If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?
4. Is each hypothesis testable?
Method Subjects
1. Are the size and major characteristics of the population studied described?
2. If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?
3. Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?
4. Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?
5. Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?
6. Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represented?
Instruments
1. Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?
2. Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content?
3. Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables?
4. Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample under study?
5. Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?
6. Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?
7. If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?
8. If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its development and validation described?
9. If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?
Design and Procedure
1. Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the study?
2. Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?
3. If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the subsequent study?
4. Are the control procedures described?
5. Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or she was unable to control for?
1. Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented?
2. Was the probability level, α, at which the results of the tests of significance were evaluated,
specified in advance of the data analyses?
3. If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the
required assumptions for parametric tests?
4. Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the
study?
5. Was every hypothesis tested?
6. Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom?
7. Are the results clearly presented?
8. Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?
9. Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?
Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)
1. Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?
2. Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results
obtained by other researchers in other studies?
3. Are generalizations consistent with the results?
4. Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?
5. Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed?
6. Are recommendations for future action made?
7. Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on statistical
significance only, i.e., has the author avoided confusing practical and statistical
significance?
8. Are recommendations for future research made?
Additional general questions to be answered in your critique.
1. What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?
2. Describe the sample used in this study.
3. Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.
4. What type of research is this? Explain.
5. How was the data analyzed?
6. What is (are) the major finding(s)?
Home » Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types
Table of Contents
Definition:
Research Report is a written document that presents the results of a research project or study, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions, in a clear and objective manner.
The purpose of a research report is to communicate the findings of the research to the intended audience, which could be other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public.
Components of Research Report are as follows:
The introduction sets the stage for the research report and provides a brief overview of the research question or problem being investigated. It should include a clear statement of the purpose of the study and its significance or relevance to the field of research. It may also provide background information or a literature review to help contextualize the research.
The literature review provides a critical analysis and synthesis of the existing research and scholarship relevant to the research question or problem. It should identify the gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the literature and show how the current study addresses these issues. The literature review also establishes the theoretical framework or conceptual model that guides the research.
The methodology section describes the research design, methods, and procedures used to collect and analyze data. It should include information on the sample or participants, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques. The methodology should be clear and detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the study.
The results section presents the findings of the study in a clear and objective manner. It should provide a detailed description of the data and statistics used to answer the research question or test the hypothesis. Tables, graphs, and figures may be included to help visualize the data and illustrate the key findings.
The discussion section interprets the results of the study and explains their significance or relevance to the research question or problem. It should also compare the current findings with those of previous studies and identify the implications for future research or practice. The discussion should be based on the results presented in the previous section and should avoid speculation or unfounded conclusions.
The conclusion summarizes the key findings of the study and restates the main argument or thesis presented in the introduction. It should also provide a brief overview of the contributions of the study to the field of research and the implications for practice or policy.
The references section lists all the sources cited in the research report, following a specific citation style, such as APA or MLA.
The appendices section includes any additional material, such as data tables, figures, or instruments used in the study, that could not be included in the main text due to space limitations.
Types of Research Report are as follows:
Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Doctoral degree, although it can also be written by researchers or scholars in other fields.
Research paper is a type of research report. A research paper is a document that presents the results of a research study or investigation. Research papers can be written in a variety of fields, including science, social science, humanities, and business. They typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections.
A technical report is a detailed report that provides information about a specific technical or scientific problem or project. Technical reports are often used in engineering, science, and other technical fields to document research and development work.
A progress report provides an update on the progress of a research project or program over a specific period of time. Progress reports are typically used to communicate the status of a project to stakeholders, funders, or project managers.
A feasibility report assesses the feasibility of a proposed project or plan, providing an analysis of the potential risks, benefits, and costs associated with the project. Feasibility reports are often used in business, engineering, and other fields to determine the viability of a project before it is undertaken.
A field report documents observations and findings from fieldwork, which is research conducted in the natural environment or setting. Field reports are often used in anthropology, ecology, and other social and natural sciences.
An experimental report documents the results of a scientific experiment, including the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Experimental reports are often used in biology, chemistry, and other sciences to communicate the results of laboratory experiments.
A case study report provides an in-depth analysis of a specific case or situation, often used in psychology, social work, and other fields to document and understand complex cases or phenomena.
A literature review report synthesizes and summarizes existing research on a specific topic, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge on the subject. Literature review reports are often used in social sciences, education, and other fields to identify gaps in the literature and guide future research.
Following is a Research Report Example sample for Students:
Title: The Impact of Social Media on Academic Performance among High School Students
This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students. The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The findings indicate that there is a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students. The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers, as they highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities.
Introduction:
Social media has become an integral part of the lives of high school students. With the widespread use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, students can connect with friends, share photos and videos, and engage in discussions on a range of topics. While social media offers many benefits, concerns have been raised about its impact on academic performance. Many studies have found a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance among high school students (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Paul, Baker, & Cochran, 2012).
Given the growing importance of social media in the lives of high school students, it is important to investigate its impact on academic performance. This study aims to address this gap by examining the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students.
Methodology:
The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The questionnaire was developed based on previous studies and was designed to measure the frequency and duration of social media use, as well as academic performance.
The participants were selected using a convenience sampling technique, and the survey questionnaire was distributed in the classroom during regular school hours. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.
The findings indicate that the majority of high school students use social media platforms on a daily basis, with Facebook being the most popular platform. The results also show a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students.
Discussion:
The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. The negative correlation between social media use and academic performance suggests that strategies should be put in place to help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. For example, educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the negative impact of social media on academic performance among high school students. The findings highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. Further research is needed to explore the specific mechanisms by which social media use affects academic performance and to develop effective strategies for addressing this issue.
Limitations:
One limitation of this study is the use of convenience sampling, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Future studies should use random sampling techniques to increase the representativeness of the sample. Another limitation is the use of self-reported measures, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Future studies could use objective measures of social media use and academic performance, such as tracking software and school records.
Implications:
The findings of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. Educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. For example, teachers could use social media platforms to share relevant educational resources and facilitate online discussions. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. They could also engage in open communication with their children to understand their social media use and its impact on their academic performance. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students. For example, schools could implement social media policies that restrict access during class time and encourage responsible use.
References:
Note*: Above mention, Example is just a sample for the students’ guide. Do not directly copy and paste as your College or University assignment. Kindly do some research and Write your own.
Research reports have many applications, including:
Here are some steps you can follow to write a research report:
The purpose of a research report is to communicate the results of a research study to a specific audience, such as peers in the same field, stakeholders, or the general public. The report provides a detailed description of the research methods, findings, and conclusions.
Some common purposes of a research report include:
A research report should be written after completing the research study. This includes collecting data, analyzing the results, and drawing conclusions based on the findings. Once the research is complete, the report should be written in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.
In academic settings, research reports are often required as part of coursework or as part of a thesis or dissertation. In this case, the report should be written according to the guidelines provided by the instructor or institution.
In other settings, such as in industry or government, research reports may be required to inform decision-making or to comply with regulatory requirements. In these cases, the report should be written as soon as possible after the research is completed in order to inform decision-making in a timely manner.
Overall, the timing of when to write a research report depends on the purpose of the research, the expectations of the audience, and any regulatory requirements that need to be met. However, it is important to complete the report in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.
There are several characteristics of a research report that distinguish it from other types of writing. These characteristics include:
Research reports have several advantages, including:
Despite their advantages, research reports also have some limitations, including:
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
Were you assigned or asked by your professor to write a critique paper? It’s easy to write one. Just follow the following four steps in writing a critique paper and three steps in presenting it, then you’re ready to go.
One of the students’ requirements I specified in the course module is a critique paper. Just so everyone benefits from the guide I prepared for that class, I share it here.
To standardize the format they use in writing a critique paper, I came up with the following steps to make their submissions worthwhile.
Step-by-step procedure in writing a critique paper.
I quickly wrote this simple guide on writing a critique paper to help you evaluate any composition you want to write about. It could be a book, a scientific article, a gray paper, or whatever your professor assigns. I integrated the essence of the approach in this article.
The critique paper essentially comprises two major parts, namely the:
1) Procedure in Writing a Critique Paper, and the
First, you will need to know the procedure that will guide you in evaluating a paper. Second, the format of the critique paper refers to how you present it so that it becomes logical and scholarly in tone.
Here are the four steps in writing a critique paper:
To write a good critique paper, it pays to adhere to a smooth flow of thought in your evaluation of the piece. You will need to introduce the topic, analyze, interpret, then conclude it.
Introduce the topic of the critique paper. To capture the author’s idea, you may apply the 5Ws and 1H approach in writing your technical report.
That means, when you write your critique paper, you should be able to answer the Why , When , Where , What , Who , and How questions. Using this approach prevents missing out on the essential details. If you can write a critique paper that adheres to this approach, that would be excellent.
Here’s a simplified example to illustrate the technique:
The news article by John Doe was a narrative about a bank robbery. Accordingly, a masked man (Who) robbed a bank (What) the other day (When) next to a police station (Where) . He did so in broad daylight (How) . He used a bicycle to escape from the scene of the crime (How) . In his haste, he bumped into a post. His mask fell off; thus, everyone saw his face, allowing witnesses to describe him. As a result, he had difficulty escaping the police, who eventually retrieved his loot and put him in jail because of his wrongdoing (Why) .
Hence, you give details about the topic, in this case, a bank robbery. Briefly describe what you want to tell your audience. State the overall purpose of writing the piece and its intention.
Analyze means to break down the abstract ideas presented into manageable bits.
What are the main points of the composition? How was it structured? Did the view expressed by the author allow you, as the reader, to understand?
If you want to split a log, what would you do? Do you use an ax, a chainsaw, or perhaps a knife? The last one is out of the question. It’s inappropriate.
Now, you are ready to interpret the article, book, or any composition once the requisites of analysis are in place.
Visualize the event in your mind and interpret the behavior of actors in the bank robbery incident. You have several actors in that bank heist: the robber, the police, and the witnesses of the crime.
Imagine, his mode of escape is a bicycle. What got into him? Maybe he did not plan the robbery at all. Besides, there was no mention that the robber used a gun in the heist.
If we examine the police’s response, they were relatively quick. Right after the robber escaped the crime scene, they appeared to remedy the situation. The robber did not put up a fight.
If we look at the witnesses’ behavior, we can discern that perhaps they willingly informed the police of the bank robber’s details. They were not afraid. And that’s because the robber appears to be unarmed. But there was no specific mention of it.
Finally, judge whether the article was a worthwhile account after all. Did it meet expectations? Was it able to convey the information most efficiently? Or are there loopholes or flaws that should have been mentioned?
The logical format in writing a critique paper comprises at least three sections: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. This approach is systematic and achieves a good flow that readers can follow.
In any scientific article, there is always a thesis that guides the write-up. A thesis is a statement that expresses what the author believes in and tries to test in his study. The investigation or research converges (ideally) to this central theme as the author’s argument.
If you need more information about this, please refer to my previous post titled “ How to Write a Thesis .”
How is the introduction of a critique paper structured? It follows the general guidelines of writing from a broad perspective to more specific concerns or details. See how it’s written here: Writing a Thesis Introduction: from General to Specific .
This section is similar to the results and discussion portion of a scientific paper. It describes the outcome of your analysis and interpretation.
Besides, who wants to adopt the perspective of an author who has not even got hold of a mobile phone if your paper is about using mobile phones to facilitate learning during the pandemic caused by COVID-19 ? Find a more recent one that will help you understand the situation.
Objectively examine the major points presented by the author by giving details about the work. How does the author present or express the idea or concept? Is he (or she) convincing the way he/she presents his/her paper’s thesis?
Therefore, always find evidence to support your position. Explain why you agree or disagree with the author. Point out the discrepancies or strengths of the paper.
If you have read up to this point, then thank you for reading my musings. I hope that helped you clarify the steps in writing a critique paper. A well-written critique paper depends on your writing style.
Read More : How to Write an Article with AI: A Guide to Using AI for Article Creation and Refinement
Final Tip : Find a paper that is easy for you to understand. In that way, you can clearly express your thoughts. Write a critique paper that rocks!
Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological bulletin , 105 (1), 51.
Discourse analysis of 20 newspaper advertisements, why are english language proficiency exams important, 10 pointers from one of the winners of a research paper contest, about the author, patrick regoniel.
Dr. Regoniel, a hobbyist writer, served as consultant to various environmental research and development projects covering issues and concerns on climate change, coral reef resources and management, economic valuation of environmental and natural resources, mining, and waste management and pollution. He has extensive experience on applied statistics, systems modelling and analysis, an avid practitioner of LaTeX, and a multidisciplinary web developer. He leverages pioneering AI-powered content creation tools to produce unique and comprehensive articles in this website.
Science Career
Pull back the curtain and get an insider’s view of the journal review process. See the dimensions that your manuscript is being rated along, the recommended dispositions that are available to the reviewers, and the most effective ways to respond to editorial feedback. Become a more effective reviewer by better understanding the editorial process, constraints, and objectives.
This program does not offer CE credit.
Learn about the multiple roles you play in managing your research team and how to become a more effective, productive leader.
September 2017 On Demand Tutorial
Learn the dos and don’ts of academic letter writing, and maximize the effectiveness of your letters in the promotion of your students and colleagues
Learn the kinds of questions you should ask, and expect, in interactions with students, colleagues, and academic administrators.
Find out how to negotiate your faculty job offer effectively to maximize your success in your new position.
For a Law Review Writing Checklist, see one of my favorites that includes a great checklist is Lisa Smith Butler The Law Review Article how to tell your story .
As you think about potential topics, it may be helpful to think about the many forms law review publications can take and view examples of them. The Scholarly Writing for Law Students, in its introduction, has created a categorical list of those forms and provides citations to examples.
Scholarly Writing for Law Students by Elizabeth Fajans; Mary R. Falk
Watch this video if you are interested in learning more about finding topics using Bloomberg Law.
As a practical matter, choosing an initial topic that is inherently ripe for a law review article is an option and a good place to start because they focus on an unresolved legal issue.
1. Circuit Splits - A circuit split is "[t]he existence of conflicting decisions between two or more of the United States courts of appeals, usu[ally] on a question of law. Circuit Split, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). A circuit spilt is a ripe topic for law review because it allows for the author to make a number of normative statements about the law at issue. U.S. Law Week , which can be accessed by Bloomberg, is a great resource for circuit splits. Watch the below video on how to use LexisNexis to find circuit splits.
2. Cases of First Impression - A case of first impression is "a case for the determination of which no precedent can be found." Case primae impressionis , Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1969). Like a circuit spilt, a case of first impression is a ripe topic for law review because it allows for the author to make a number of normative statements about the law at issue as it is an unresolved legal issue.
Search "first impression", "case of first impression" or "matter of first impression" when researching in case law, legal news, blogs, or you can use Lexis+AI (please note that you should always check the results of AI).
3. Comparative State Surveys - Comparative state surveys will allow you to compare law across states as you search for unresolved legal issues.
2. Legal News
3. Legal Blogs
Typically, legal blogs are online platforms where individuals post their opinions about current legal trends. You can use blogs as a way to browse current topics being discussed.
Other general places you can search for topics are:
a. For a historical archive of primary and secondary sources in PDF, see HeinOnline .
b. For interdisciplinary publications, see JSTOR .
c. For new and unpublished working papers, see SSRN .
d. For a broader and more general search, see Goggle Scholar .
e. For new law journal publications, see Current Index to Legal Periodicals .
Peer Reviewed
Article metrics.
CrossRef Citations
Altmetric Score
PDF Downloads
Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research. Our analysis of a selection of questionable GPT-fabricated scientific papers found in Google Scholar shows that many are about applied, often controversial topics susceptible to disinformation: the environment, health, and computing. The resulting enhanced potential for malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base, particularly in politically divisive domains, is a growing concern.
Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Sweden
Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Sweden
Division of Environmental Communication, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
The use of ChatGPT to generate text for academic papers has raised concerns about research integrity. Discussion of this phenomenon is ongoing in editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, and on social media (Bom, 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2024; Thorp, 2023). There are now several lists of papers suspected of GPT misuse, and new papers are constantly being added. 1 See for example Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . While many legitimate uses of GPT for research and academic writing exist (Huang & Tan, 2023; Kitamura, 2023; Lund et al., 2023), its undeclared use—beyond proofreading—has potentially far-reaching implications for both science and society, but especially for their relationship. It, therefore, seems important to extend the discussion to one of the most accessible and well-known intermediaries between science, but also certain types of misinformation, and the public, namely Google Scholar, also in response to the legitimate concerns that the discussion of generative AI and misinformation needs to be more nuanced and empirically substantiated (Simon et al., 2023).
Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com , is an easy-to-use academic search engine. It is available for free, and its index is extensive (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). It is also often touted as a credible source for academic literature and even recommended in library guides, by media and information literacy initiatives, and fact checkers (Tripodi et al., 2023). However, Google Scholar lacks the transparency and adherence to standards that usually characterize citation databases. Instead, Google Scholar uses automated crawlers, like Google’s web search engine (Martín-Martín et al., 2021), and the inclusion criteria are based on primarily technical standards, allowing any individual author—with or without scientific affiliation—to upload papers to be indexed (Google Scholar Help, n.d.). It has been shown that Google Scholar is susceptible to manipulation through citation exploits (Antkare, 2020) and by providing access to fake scientific papers (Dadkhah et al., 2017). A large part of Google Scholar’s index consists of publications from established scientific journals or other forms of quality-controlled, scholarly literature. However, the index also contains a large amount of gray literature, including student papers, working papers, reports, preprint servers, and academic networking sites, as well as material from so-called “questionable” academic journals, including paper mills. The search interface does not offer the possibility to filter the results meaningfully by material type, publication status, or form of quality control, such as limiting the search to peer-reviewed material.
To understand the occurrence of ChatGPT (co-)authored work in Google Scholar’s index, we scraped it for publications, including one of two common ChatGPT responses (see Appendix A) that we encountered on social media and in media reports (DeGeurin, 2024). The results of our descriptive statistical analyses showed that around 62% did not declare the use of GPTs. Most of these GPT-fabricated papers were found in non-indexed journals and working papers, but some cases included research published in mainstream scientific journals and conference proceedings. 2 Indexed journals mean scholarly journals indexed by abstract and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, where the indexation implies journals with high scientific quality. Non-indexed journals are journals that fall outside of this indexation. More than half (57%) of these GPT-fabricated papers concerned policy-relevant subject areas susceptible to influence operations. To avoid increasing the visibility of these publications, we abstained from referencing them in this research note. However, we have made the data available in the Harvard Dataverse repository.
The publications were related to three issue areas—health (14.5%), environment (19.5%) and computing (23%)—with key terms such “healthcare,” “COVID-19,” or “infection”for health-related papers, and “analysis,” “sustainable,” and “global” for environment-related papers. In several cases, the papers had titles that strung together general keywords and buzzwords, thus alluding to very broad and current research. These terms included “biology,” “telehealth,” “climate policy,” “diversity,” and “disrupting,” to name just a few. While the study’s scope and design did not include a detailed analysis of which parts of the articles included fabricated text, our dataset did contain the surrounding sentences for each occurrence of the suspicious phrases that formed the basis for our search and subsequent selection. Based on that, we can say that the phrases occurred in most sections typically found in scientific publications, including the literature review, methods, conceptual and theoretical frameworks, background, motivation or societal relevance, and even discussion. This was confirmed during the joint coding, where we read and discussed all articles. It became clear that not just the text related to the telltale phrases was created by GPT, but that almost all articles in our sample of questionable articles likely contained traces of GPT-fabricated text everywhere.
Evidence hacking and backfiring effects
Generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) can be used to produce texts that mimic scientific writing. These texts, when made available online—as we demonstrate—leak into the databases of academic search engines and other parts of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication. This development exacerbates problems that were already present with less sophisticated text generators (Antkare, 2020; Cabanac & Labbé, 2021). Yet, the public release of ChatGPT in 2022, together with the way Google Scholar works, has increased the likelihood of lay people (e.g., media, politicians, patients, students) coming across questionable (or even entirely GPT-fabricated) papers and other problematic research findings. Previous research has emphasized that the ability to determine the value and status of scientific publications for lay people is at stake when misleading articles are passed off as reputable (Haider & Åström, 2017) and that systematic literature reviews risk being compromised (Dadkhah et al., 2017). It has also been highlighted that Google Scholar, in particular, can be and has been exploited for manipulating the evidence base for politically charged issues and to fuel conspiracy narratives (Tripodi et al., 2023). Both concerns are likely to be magnified in the future, increasing the risk of what we suggest calling evidence hacking —the strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base.
The authority of quality-controlled research as evidence to support legislation, policy, politics, and other forms of decision-making is undermined by the presence of undeclared GPT-fabricated content in publications professing to be scientific. Due to the large number of archives, repositories, mirror sites, and shadow libraries to which they spread, there is a clear risk that GPT-fabricated, questionable papers will reach audiences even after a possible retraction. There are considerable technical difficulties involved in identifying and tracing computer-fabricated papers (Cabanac & Labbé, 2021; Dadkhah et al., 2023; Jones, 2024), not to mention preventing and curbing their spread and uptake.
However, as the rise of the so-called anti-vaxx movement during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing obstruction and denial of climate change show, retracting erroneous publications often fuels conspiracies and increases the following of these movements rather than stopping them. To illustrate this mechanism, climate deniers frequently question established scientific consensus by pointing to other, supposedly scientific, studies that support their claims. Usually, these are poorly executed, not peer-reviewed, based on obsolete data, or even fraudulent (Dunlap & Brulle, 2020). A similar strategy is successful in the alternative epistemic world of the global anti-vaccination movement (Carrion, 2018) and the persistence of flawed and questionable publications in the scientific record already poses significant problems for health research, policy, and lawmakers, and thus for society as a whole (Littell et al., 2024). Considering that a person’s support for “doing your own research” is associated with increased mistrust in scientific institutions (Chinn & Hasell, 2023), it will be of utmost importance to anticipate and consider such backfiring effects already when designing a technical solution, when suggesting industry or legal regulation, and in the planning of educational measures.
Recommendations
Solutions should be based on simultaneous considerations of technical, educational, and regulatory approaches, as well as incentives, including social ones, across the entire research infrastructure. Paying attention to how these approaches and incentives relate to each other can help identify points and mechanisms for disruption. Recognizing fraudulent academic papers must happen alongside understanding how they reach their audiences and what reasons there might be for some of these papers successfully “sticking around.” A possible way to mitigate some of the risks associated with GPT-fabricated scholarly texts finding their way into academic search engine results would be to provide filtering options for facets such as indexed journals, gray literature, peer-review, and similar on the interface of publicly available academic search engines. Furthermore, evaluation tools for indexed journals 3 Such as LiU Journal CheckUp, https://ep.liu.se/JournalCheckup/default.aspx?lang=eng . could be integrated into the graphical user interfaces and the crawlers of these academic search engines. To enable accountability, it is important that the index (database) of such a search engine is populated according to criteria that are transparent, open to scrutiny, and appropriate to the workings of science and other forms of academic research. Moreover, considering that Google Scholar has no real competitor, there is a strong case for establishing a freely accessible, non-specialized academic search engine that is not run for commercial reasons but for reasons of public interest. Such measures, together with educational initiatives aimed particularly at policymakers, science communicators, journalists, and other media workers, will be crucial to reducing the possibilities for and effects of malicious manipulation or evidence hacking. It is important not to present this as a technical problem that exists only because of AI text generators but to relate it to the wider concerns in which it is embedded. These range from a largely dysfunctional scholarly publishing system (Haider & Åström, 2017) and academia’s “publish or perish” paradigm to Google’s near-monopoly and ideological battles over the control of information and ultimately knowledge. Any intervention is likely to have systemic effects; these effects need to be considered and assessed in advance and, ideally, followed up on.
Our study focused on a selection of papers that were easily recognizable as fraudulent. We used this relatively small sample as a magnifying glass to examine, delineate, and understand a problem that goes beyond the scope of the sample itself, which however points towards larger concerns that require further investigation. The work of ongoing whistleblowing initiatives 4 Such as Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . , recent media reports of journal closures (Subbaraman, 2024), or GPT-related changes in word use and writing style (Cabanac et al., 2021; Stokel-Walker, 2024) suggest that we only see the tip of the iceberg. There are already more sophisticated cases (Dadkhah et al., 2023) as well as cases involving fabricated images (Gu et al., 2022). Our analysis shows that questionable and potentially manipulative GPT-fabricated papers permeate the research infrastructure and are likely to become a widespread phenomenon. Our findings underline that the risk of fake scientific papers being used to maliciously manipulate evidence (see Dadkhah et al., 2017) must be taken seriously. Manipulation may involve undeclared automatic summaries of texts, inclusion in literature reviews, explicit scientific claims, or the concealment of errors in studies so that they are difficult to detect in peer review. However, the mere possibility of these things happening is a significant risk in its own right that can be strategically exploited and will have ramifications for trust in and perception of science. Society’s methods of evaluating sources and the foundations of media and information literacy are under threat and public trust in science is at risk of further erosion, with far-reaching consequences for society in dealing with information disorders. To address this multifaceted problem, we first need to understand why it exists and proliferates.
Finding 1: 139 GPT-fabricated, questionable papers were found and listed as regular results on the Google Scholar results page. Non-indexed journals dominate.
Most questionable papers we found were in non-indexed journals or were working papers, but we did also find some in established journals, publications, conferences, and repositories. We found a total of 139 papers with a suspected deceptive use of ChatGPT or similar LLM applications (see Table 1). Out of these, 19 were in indexed journals, 89 were in non-indexed journals, 19 were student papers found in university databases, and 12 were working papers (mostly in preprint databases). Table 1 divides these papers into categories. Health and environment papers made up around 34% (47) of the sample. Of these, 66% were present in non-indexed journals.
Indexed journals* | 5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 19 |
Non-indexed journals | 18 | 18 | 13 | 40 | 89 |
Student papers | 4 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 19 |
Working papers | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 12 |
Total | 32 | 27 | 20 | 60 | 139 |
Finding 2: GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are disseminated online, permeating the research infrastructure for scholarly communication, often in multiple copies. Applied topics with practical implications dominate.
The 20 papers concerning health-related issues are distributed across 20 unique domains, accounting for 46 URLs. The 27 papers dealing with environmental issues can be found across 26 unique domains, accounting for 56 URLs. Most of the identified papers exist in multiple copies and have already spread to several archives, repositories, and social media. It would be difficult, or impossible, to remove them from the scientific record.
As apparent from Table 2, GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are seeping into most parts of the online research infrastructure for scholarly communication. Platforms on which identified papers have appeared include ResearchGate, ORCiD, Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology (JPTCP), Easychair, Frontiers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (IEEE), and X/Twitter. Thus, even if they are retracted from their original source, it will prove very difficult to track, remove, or even just mark them up on other platforms. Moreover, unless regulated, Google Scholar will enable their continued and most likely unlabeled discoverability.
Environment | researchgate.net (13) | orcid.org (4) | easychair.org (3) | ijope.com* (3) | publikasiindonesia.id (3) |
Health | researchgate.net (15) | ieee.org (4) | twitter.com (3) | jptcp.com** (2) | frontiersin.org (2) |
A word rain visualization (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023), which combines word prominences through TF-IDF 5 Term frequency–inverse document frequency , a method for measuring the significance of a word in a document compared to its frequency across all documents in a collection. scores with semantic similarity of the full texts of our sample of GPT-generated articles that fall into the “Environment” and “Health” categories, reflects the two categories in question. However, as can be seen in Figure 1, it also reveals overlap and sub-areas. The y-axis shows word prominences through word positions and font sizes, while the x-axis indicates semantic similarity. In addition to a certain amount of overlap, this reveals sub-areas, which are best described as two distinct events within the word rain. The event on the left bundles terms related to the development and management of health and healthcare with “challenges,” “impact,” and “potential of artificial intelligence”emerging as semantically related terms. Terms related to research infrastructures, environmental, epistemic, and technological concepts are arranged further down in the same event (e.g., “system,” “climate,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” “learning,” “education,” “sustainable”). A second distinct event further to the right bundles terms associated with fish farming and aquatic medicinal plants, highlighting the presence of an aquaculture cluster. Here, the prominence of groups of terms such as “used,” “model,” “-based,” and “traditional” suggests the presence of applied research on these topics. The two events making up the word rain visualization, are linked by a less dominant but overlapping cluster of terms related to “energy” and “water.”
The bar chart of the terms in the paper subset (see Figure 2) complements the word rain visualization by depicting the most prominent terms in the full texts along the y-axis. Here, word prominences across health and environment papers are arranged descendingly, where values outside parentheses are TF-IDF values (relative frequencies) and values inside parentheses are raw term frequencies (absolute frequencies).
Finding 3: Google Scholar presents results from quality-controlled and non-controlled citation databases on the same interface, providing unfiltered access to GPT-fabricated questionable papers.
Google Scholar’s central position in the publicly accessible scholarly communication infrastructure, as well as its lack of standards, transparency, and accountability in terms of inclusion criteria, has potentially serious implications for public trust in science. This is likely to exacerbate the already-known potential to exploit Google Scholar for evidence hacking (Tripodi et al., 2023) and will have implications for any attempts to retract or remove fraudulent papers from their original publication venues. Any solution must consider the entirety of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication and the interplay of different actors, interests, and incentives.
We searched and scraped Google Scholar using the Python library Scholarly (Cholewiak et al., 2023) for papers that included specific phrases known to be common responses from ChatGPT and similar applications with the same underlying model (GPT3.5 or GPT4): “as of my last knowledge update” and/or “I don’t have access to real-time data” (see Appendix A). This facilitated the identification of papers that likely used generative AI to produce text, resulting in 227 retrieved papers. The papers’ bibliographic information was automatically added to a spreadsheet and downloaded into Zotero. 6 An open-source reference manager, https://zotero.org .
We employed multiple coding (Barbour, 2001) to classify the papers based on their content. First, we jointly assessed whether the paper was suspected of fraudulent use of ChatGPT (or similar) based on how the text was integrated into the papers and whether the paper was presented as original research output or the AI tool’s role was acknowledged. Second, in analyzing the content of the papers, we continued the multiple coding by classifying the fraudulent papers into four categories identified during an initial round of analysis—health, environment, computing, and others—and then determining which subjects were most affected by this issue (see Table 1). Out of the 227 retrieved papers, 88 papers were written with legitimate and/or declared use of GPTs (i.e., false positives, which were excluded from further analysis), and 139 papers were written with undeclared and/or fraudulent use (i.e., true positives, which were included in further analysis). The multiple coding was conducted jointly by all authors of the present article, who collaboratively coded and cross-checked each other’s interpretation of the data simultaneously in a shared spreadsheet file. This was done to single out coding discrepancies and settle coding disagreements, which in turn ensured methodological thoroughness and analytical consensus (see Barbour, 2001). Redoing the category coding later based on our established coding schedule, we achieved an intercoder reliability (Cohen’s kappa) of 0.806 after eradicating obvious differences.
The ranking algorithm of Google Scholar prioritizes highly cited and older publications (Martín-Martín et al., 2016). Therefore, the position of the articles on the search engine results pages was not particularly informative, considering the relatively small number of results in combination with the recency of the publications. Only the query “as of my last knowledge update” had more than two search engine result pages. On those, questionable articles with undeclared use of GPTs were evenly distributed across all result pages (min: 4, max: 9, mode: 8), with the proportion of undeclared use being slightly higher on average on later search result pages.
To understand how the papers making fraudulent use of generative AI were disseminated online, we programmatically searched for the paper titles (with exact string matching) in Google Search from our local IP address (see Appendix B) using the googlesearch – python library(Vikramaditya, 2020). We manually verified each search result to filter out false positives—results that were not related to the paper—and then compiled the most prominent URLs by field. This enabled the identification of other platforms through which the papers had been spread. We did not, however, investigate whether copies had spread into SciHub or other shadow libraries, or if they were referenced in Wikipedia.
We used descriptive statistics to count the prevalence of the number of GPT-fabricated papers across topics and venues and top domains by subject. The pandas software library for the Python programming language (The pandas development team, 2024) was used for this part of the analysis. Based on the multiple coding, paper occurrences were counted in relation to their categories, divided into indexed journals, non-indexed journals, student papers, and working papers. The schemes, subdomains, and subdirectories of the URL strings were filtered out while top-level domains and second-level domains were kept, which led to normalizing domain names. This, in turn, allowed the counting of domain frequencies in the environment and health categories. To distinguish word prominences and meanings in the environment and health-related GPT-fabricated questionable papers, a semantically-aware word cloud visualization was produced through the use of a word rain (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023) for full-text versions of the papers. Font size and y-axis positions indicate word prominences through TF-IDF scores for the environment and health papers (also visualized in a separate bar chart with raw term frequencies in parentheses), and words are positioned along the x-axis to reflect semantic similarity (Skeppstedt et al., 2024), with an English Word2vec skip gram model space (Fares et al., 2017). An English stop word list was used, along with a manually produced list including terms such as “https,” “volume,” or “years.”
Haider, J., Söderström, K. R., Ekström, B., & Rödl, M. (2024). GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156
Antkare, I. (2020). Ike Antkare, his publications, and those of his disciples. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics (pp. 177–200). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0018
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ , 322 (7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
Bom, H.-S. H. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academic writing: A roundtable discussion. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging , 57 (4), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-023-00809-2
Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72 (12), 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495
Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751
Carrion, M. L. (2018). “You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science , 27 (3), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728024
Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala (2023). CDHUppsala/word-rain [Computer software]. https://github.com/CDHUppsala/word-rain
Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2023). Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School (HSK) Misinformation Review, 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-117
Cholewiak, S. A., Ipeirotis, P., Silva, V., & Kannawadi, A. (2023). SCHOLARLY: Simple access to Google Scholar authors and citation using Python (1.5.0) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764801
Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling , 11 (2), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6
Dadkhah, M., Oermann, M. H., Hegedüs, M., Raman, R., & Dávid, L. D. (2023). Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis , 10 (4), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090
DeGeurin, M. (2024, March 19). AI-generated nonsense is leaking into scientific journals. Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/technology/ai-generated-text-scientific-journals/
Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2020). Sources and amplifiers of climate change denial. In D.C. Holmes & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 49–61). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00013
Fares, M., Kutuzov, A., Oepen, S., & Velldal, E. (2017). Word vectors, reuse, and replicability: Towards a community repository of large-text resources. In J. Tiedemann & N. Tahmasebi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 271–276). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0237
Google Scholar Help. (n.d.). Inclusion guidelines for webmasters . https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html
Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., & Qiu, J. (2022). AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns , 3 (7), 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods , 11 (2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Haider, J., & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “Sting” in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 68 (2), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669
Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research , 13 (4), 1148–1154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164801/
Jones, N. (2024). How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature , 626 (8000), 697–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00372-6
Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology , 307 (2), e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171
Littell, J. H., Abel, K. M., Biggs, M. A., Blum, R. W., Foster, D. G., Haddad, L. B., Major, B., Munk-Olsen, T., Polis, C. B., Robinson, G. E., Rocca, C. H., Russo, N. F., Steinberg, J. R., Stewart, D. E., Stotland, N. L., Upadhyay, U. D., & Ditzhuijzen, J. van. (2024). Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes. BMJ , 384 , e076518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076518
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. Scientometrics , 107 , 1477–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1917-2
Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics , 126 (1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023). Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4 (5). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-127
Skeppstedt, M., Ahltorp, M., Kucher, K., & Lindström, M. (2024). From word clouds to Word Rain: Revisiting the classic word cloud to visualize climate change texts. Information Visualization , 23 (3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14738716241236188
Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Vetenskapsrådet.
Stokel-Walker, C. (2024, May 1.). AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/
Subbaraman, N. (2024, May 14). Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures: Wiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraud. The Wall Street Journal . https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc
The pandas development team. (2024). pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (v2.2.2) [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10957263
Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science , 379 (6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
Tripodi, F. B., Garcia, L. C., & Marwick, A. E. (2023). ‘Do your own research’: Affordance activation and disinformation spread. Information, Communication & Society , 27 (6), 1212–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2245869
Vikramaditya, N. (2020). Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch [Computer software]. https://github.com/Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch
This research has been supported by Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the research program Mistra Environmental Communication (Haider, Ekström, Rödl) and the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [2020.0004] (Söderström).
The authors declare no competing interests.
The research described in this article was carried out under Swedish legislation. According to the relevant EU and Swedish legislation (2003:460) on the ethical review of research involving humans (“Ethical Review Act”), the research reported on here is not subject to authorization by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (“etikprövningsmyndigheten”) (SRC, 2017).
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.
All data needed to replicate this study are available at the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WUVD8X
The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the article manuscript as well as the editorial group of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review for their thoughtful feedback and input.
It is probably safe to say that eLife has never experienced a year like 2023. My first year as Chair of the Board could hardly have been more exciting and, at times, dramatic. In January we launched our new publishing model, which focused on the review and curation of preprints and replaced accept–reject decisions with nuanced assessments, using structured vocabularies to describe the significance of the findings and the strength of evidence being reported.
We have been delighted with how well the model has gone. Contrary to expectations in some quarters, we continued to receive a healthy volume of submissions, with numbers growing over the course of the year. The model allows for a much shorter time to publication and so it was only a few weeks before we started posting Reviewed Preprints alongside Versions of Record from the legacy model on our website. Feedback for these articles was incredibly positive, and exciting new research published, fully peer-reviewed, in a fraction of the time it would take in a traditional journal.
The reason we changed our publishing model was that we believe the current system of incentives and rewards puts too much emphasis on the title of the journal a researcher publishes in. Our model provides the means to change this dynamic, focusing on what is published rather than where it is published. But it is not enough to simply provide an alternative model – we have always understood that there needs to be accompanying changes in research culture to support these new systems. We have therefore invested in community outreach to encourage institutions and funders to embrace new publishing models, and have highlighted the numerous positive stories we’re hearing from researchers who have published in eLife using our new model.
We have also continued to build open-source technology to support our endeavours, including new software to display Reviewed Preprints in a dynamic and compelling fashion, and added new features and groups to Sciety, expanding the number of reviewed preprints that are now discoverable.
In October, we parted ways with our Editor-in-Chief, Michael Eisen, and want to acknowledge the extraordinary vision and leadership he provided to eLife, which is allowing us to build on his legacy as we grow our publishing model. We were very grateful to our Deputy Editors, Tim Behrens and Detlef Weigel, who agreed to step into the role of co-Editors-in-Chief until we appoint a permanent replacement.
By demonstrating that the ‘publish, review, curate’ publishing model is better for both individual researchers and for science in general, we are creating an environment for new innovation in scholarly publishing, and are already seeing other organisations and institutions adopt these practices. It will be exciting to see how the movement grows over the coming years and, as always, we will continue to share news and updates openly.
Joanne Hackett Head of Genomic and Precision Medicine, IQVIA Chair, eLife Board of Directors
When we first announced our new model in 2022, we highlighted our plan to officially launch it in January 2023 – and indeed, by the end of the month, we had put out the call for authors to start submitting their work . Having made the switch, we carried out a significant amount of outreach activities throughout the year, with attendance at a number of scientific conferences – including the annual meetings of the Biophysical Society, American Society of Human Genetics, and Society for Neuroscience – and at publishing events including the SSP Annual Meeting, ALPSP Conference and Awards, and Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing. The initial announcement about our new model in 2022 led to vibrant discussions among the scientific and publishing communities, and we were pleased to see – and be part of – the ongoing conversations following the launch.
Throughout the year, we also worked with Incentivizing Collaborative and Open Research (ICOR) to report on the progress of the new model at three and six months on. Published in May, the first update showed that basic publishing statistics had not changed, community feedback was positive and submissions were steady. Following this positive start, the six-month update , issued in September, discussed how submissions again remained steady, Reviewed Preprints were visible earlier than traditionally peer-reviewed articles, and our authors and editors reported largely favourable experiences with the new model, with some concerns about quality and suggestions regarding the process being voiced. Again, we were pleased to see the community response to these updates, including interest in how the model has been working and what we learnt – and continue to learn – behind the scenes.
New appointments at elife, some goodbyes, and moving forward.
There were some notable comings and goings at eLife alongside this activity in 2023. In January, we welcomed four new members of our Board of Directors to help steer us in our ‘publish, review, curate’ mission. They joined at an exciting time for our organisation – just ahead of the launch of the new model – bringing with them an extensive range of experience and perspectives.
We also said goodbye to a number of our community members. First, we gave our thanks to Anna Akhmanova for her service as she stepped down from her role as eLife Deputy Editor in February, and we later appointed Yamini Dalal as a new Deputy Editor in September. With the end of the year also came the departure of our Editor-of-Chief Michael Eisen in October, and Deputy Editor Mone Zaidi in November, and the announcement that Deputy Editors Detlef Weigel and Tim Behrens would step up to share the role of Editor-in-Chief.
Through all of these changes, we remained focused on our mission to create a more open, inclusive and equitable future for research communication, with our new model paving the way. We continued towards making this a reality through our open-source technology efforts and community engagement initiatives.
At the end of 2022, eLife’s Technology and Innovation team outlined their steps to building the ‘publish, review, curate’ ecosystem of the future . For them, 2023 involved the ongoing development of open-source platforms that support the display, review, organisation, dissemination and curation of open research content. These include the Enhanced Preprint Platform that powers eLife’s Reviewed Preprints; Sciety , which facilitates the discovery and organisation of preprints and helps promote groups engaged in a flavour of the ‘publish, review, curate’ model; and Kotahi for publishing all of eLife’s public reviews and managing the peer-review process for several reviewing groups on Sciety. Each of these tools represents pieces of the larger ecosystem that includes preprint servers (such as bioRxiv, medRxiv, Research Square and SciELO Preprints), community-led publishing platforms (such as PubPub), and reviewer-centric websites (including PREreview) that can all grow by working together.
Back in 2022, we and PREreview announced our extended partnership to boost the engagement of early-career researchers, and researchers from traditionally underrepresented groups, in the public review of preprints. Our partnership involved further integrating PREreview into Sciety and collaborating on new opportunities for more researchers to participate in public review. In July 2023, our organisations announced support from the COAR Notify Initiative to help strengthen the connections between preprint review and curation services for authors, journals and the wider scientific community. This project involves putting in place the basic infrastructure and protocols needed for developing these connections. The aim is to lower existing technological and cost barriers so that as many of these services and their stakeholders as possible can more easily participate in the ‘publish, review, curate’ world.
eLife’s communities were also fully engaged with our efforts to promote the new model, as well as open and responsible research practices more broadly. We summarise just some of their outreach activities in 2023 below. Once again, all of these projects were underpinned by eLife’s core values of openness, integrity and inclusiveness in research and research communication.
In February, our Community Ambassadors published a reflective article on their recent work with eLife to help reform research culture and make science more accessible and reproducible. The article highlighted notable projects from the previous year, such as the two-day Einstein Foundation Awards symposium on ‘Global Dynamics in Responsible Research’ and the translation of materials from the Open Peer Reviewers in Africa training course. Developed by partner organisations AfricArXiv, Eider Africa, eLife, PREreview and the Training Centre in Communication (TCC Africa), Open Peer Reviewers in Africa aimed to raise awareness around preprints and foster the participation of African researchers in peer review. Both eLife and PREreview co-published a recap of the pilot following its conclusion, also in February 2023.
In April, we opened applications for candidates to join our Early-Career Advisory Group (ECAG). It was an exciting time to join the group as we increased opportunities for working closely with the eLife journal staff and editors on our new publishing model. In August, we announced three elected new members from Middle East/Western Asia, Southeast Asia and Northern America. Soon afterwards, in September, the ECAG hosted a webinar to discuss the first six months of eLife’s new model. Some members also gave separate talks on the new model at their institutions in Australia, Germany, India, the US and other countries across the globe.
In April and September, some of our Community Ambassadors ran two regional preprint events in Latin America and Asia, respectively. The first event, ‘ Preprints in Latin America ’, was held over two days and led by David Ramírez and other members of our community. Hosted at Universidad de Concepción, Chile, and held in Spanish, the event included discussions of the importance of preprints, open review and open science for the future of research in Latin America. The second event, called ‘ Open Science across Asia ’, was a one-hour webinar chaired by Rio Sugimura, raising awareness of similar open science practices across this region.
Sandwiched between these events was the fifth edition of the Ben Barres Spotlight Awards in July, shining a spotlight on pioneering researchers from groups that are underrepresented in biology and medicine, or from countries with limited research funding. For the third consecutive year, the awards welcomed applications from authors of preprints that have been reviewed publicly by eLife or other reviewing groups on Sciety. We were also proud to make the awards even more inclusive by expanding the eligibility criteria to specifically include neurodivergent researchers for the first time. In September, we announced a record 14 award recipients from nine countries, who had demonstrated the greatest potential of an award to promote catalytic changes for their research, careers or communities.
Finally, and also in September, we set up the eLife Community Alumni Network – a global platform for former eLife Community participants. This network enables the community to connect with like-minded individuals, promoting professional growth and nurturing meaningful connections for successful collaboration. We received 170 sign-ups to the Alumni following its launch in September. This number has remained steady since then, and we hope to welcome many more members over the coming months.
eLife once again published a significant number of research articles in 2023, covering all areas of the life sciences and medicine, along with Magazine articles on topics of broader interest. We highlight some of these articles below.
One highly viewed Magazine article called on all research labs to have a “ lab handbook ” that outlines the culture and ethos of the lab, explains what is expected of lab members, and describes how the lab supports its members so that they can develop as researchers. Other examples of popular content included an essay on “ persuasive communication devices ”, a plea for universities and researchers to “ rethink academia in a time of climate crisis ”, and a moving account by a young assistant professor who had recently been diagnosed with cancer for the second time in her career .
2023 also saw the publication of a number of Magazine articles on the theme of “ Being Neurodivergent in Academia ”. With an emphasis on first-hand accounts, this collection of articles provides insights into the diverse experiences of neurodivergent academics and highlights ways that research could become more neuroinclusive.
Below are some additional highlights selected from the 1,229 research articles and 1,575 Reviewed Preprints (total number of versions) published in eLife in 2023.
Hodel et al. demonstrated that infection with the bacteria Fusobacterium nucleatum , linked with gum disease and bad breath, may cause a small increase in the risk of developing coronary heart disease. Image credit: Public domain
Jangir et al. reported that the overuse of the antimicrobial colistin in agriculture and medicine may have led to the emergence of bacteria that are more resistant to the human immune system. Image credit: Etienne Girardet on Unsplash
Yeun Jr et al. developed a method of bulk-producing cell-cultured fat tissue which could be applied to the production of synthetic meat, giving it a more authentic texture and flavour. Image credit: Public domain
Pan et al. reported that inactive cells in the vertebrae could be targeted using anti-senescent drugs to relieve the spinal sensitivity that causes lower back pain. Image credit: Arpit from Pixabay
Grathwol et al. combined DNA from a mummified baboon with historical accounts to provide evidence connecting the ancient Egyptian trade of baboons with the ancient port city of Adulis. Image credit: N. J. Dominy ( CC BY 4.0 )
Zheng et al. provided insights into the physiological mechanisms of the deep-sea Planctomycetes bacteria, revealing its unique characteristics such as being the only known Phycisphaerae to use a budding mode of division. Image credit: Rikuan Zheng ( CC BY 4.0 )
Trautman et al. investigated the relationship between a high-protein diet and resistance exercise in mice, shedding light on why this type of diet is healthy in athletes but promotes disease and reduces lifespan in others. Image credit: Michal Jarmoluk from Pixabay
And a study from Karelina et al. presented findings with broad implications for the use of AlphaFold 2 models in ligand binding pose modelling – a common task in protein structure modelling. Image credit: Boghog, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
In 2023, the median time from submission to publication of Reviewed Preprints (first version) was 89 days. The median time from initial decision to acceptance of legacy-model papers was 231 days, showing that Reviewed Preprints help researchers to communicate their findings more quickly. We also report on the volume and publication of papers in our new and legacy models in 2023, along with our Community numbers, below.
Analysis of revenue.
Our publication fee income reduced in 2023, because income from Reviewed Preprints is recognised more slowly, and a lower proportion of those fees were recognised in the year, compared to prior years. We experienced an increase in grant income, driven by additional technology-specific grants. This growth in grant funding is also reflected in the rise of our technology and innovation expenditures.
During 2023, our development team spent the majority of their time on developing and improving the Enhanced Preprint Platform systems and software for our new publishing model, resulting in an increase in our publishing costs. Again, there was an increase in technology-specific grants to fund our expenditure on the Enhanced Preprint Platform and other projects that support the ‘publish, review, curate’ ecosystem.
Community expenditure decreased in 2023, primarily because an organisation that we were supporting secured joint external funding alongside us for long-term projects. Despite this reduction, we maintained the breadth and scale of our other activities, with apparent cost savings coming from accounting changes.
Revenue and expenditure, years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022
2023 £000 | 2022 £000 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Revenue | |||
Publication fees | 4,018 | 4,263 | |
Grants | 2,931 | 1,831 | |
Other income | 128 | 508 | |
7,077 | 6,602 | ||
Publishing | 4,538 | 4,357 | |
Technology and innovation | 1,823 | 1,328 | |
Community | 563 | 772 | |
6,924 | 6,457 | ||
Surplus/(deficit) before tax | 153 | 145 |
The full audited accounts for eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd for 2023 are available below. As a US-registered tax-exempt organisation, we also publish detailed financial information in our Form 990.
Questions and comments are welcome. Please annotate publicly on the article or contact us at hello [at] elifesciences [dot] org.
For the latest updates from eLife, sign up to receive our bi-monthly newsletter . You can also follow us on X (formerly Twitter), Mastodon , Facebook or LinkedIn .
Sign up here.
Reporting by Jennifer Rigby; Editing by Sharon Singleton and Ed Osmond
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab
An influential Democratic U.S. congressman said on Friday that he will vote against legislation that would restrict business with China's WuXi Biologics , BGI and other biotech companies on national security grounds.
The redesigned 2025 Toyota Camry comes standard with a hybrid powertrain and is available with all-wheel drive. It doesn’t look all that much different and it doesn’t do all that much different, but it does what Toyota does best by taking a good car and making it better.
The better comes from a hybrid powertrain rated at up to 51 mpg combined for the base LE model with front-wheel drive. That’s exceptional for a car that stretches into nearly full-size proportions. It’s roomy, well-equipped, safe, historically reliable, and has plenty of pep on the go. All-wheel drive just makes it better, and makes it the only AWD hybrid sedan aside from the larger Toyota Crown .
The ninth-generation Camry might not excite, but its practicality pleases as one of the most well-rounded cars on sale today. Here are some pros and cons in the week I spent driving a well-equipped XLE with AWD in and around Chicago and its suburbs.
The only other all-wheel-drive vehicles without a plug that rate as high as the 2025 Toyota Camry for fuel economy are from the same family. The smaller Corolla Hybrid AWD gets 48 mpg, while the sleek but much more cramped 2024 Toyota Prius AWD rates at 54 mpg. Toyota has the hybrid market cornered and that might be underselling it. On a 80-mile round-trip drive from the suburbs to the city and only 8 miles or so at highway speed, with the A/C set at 60 degrees on a 100-degree day, the trip meter read 48.6 mpg . Crossovers can’t match that efficiency, and most other AWD sedan hybrid options aside from the Crown can’t match its roominess.
A hybrid 2.5-liter inline-4 powers every Camry, but with all-wheel drive a third motor is added to drive the rear axle, and the power bumps from 225 hp to 232 hp . (AWD costs $1,525 extra on all Camrys.) The new hybrid system features lighter and more compact motors , and the hybrid transmission simulates an 8-speed automatic through paddle shifters that complement Normal, Eco, and Sport modes to offer a degree of variability for the driver. Even though it can’t match the power of the discontinued 301-hp V-6, the drive system doesn’t leave much to be desired. It’s responsive off the line and has plenty of gusto for passing moves.
The tester had the light gray interior. A soft-touch fabric with a checkered pattern covers the doors and dash, but it looked and felt like renovated hotel carpeting.
The material’s prominence might have been due to an odd interior design element. A panel walls off the passenger’s knees from the console, then arcs out like a lap table from the console to the door, as if both supporting the glove box and holding up the upper dash. There must be some structural reason for this protrusion, but it sticks out in the wrong ways.
The 60:40-split rear seats fold down to expand the 15.1 cubic feet of cargo room, but you can’t fold down the seats from the second row. The only way is to pull the latches at the edge of the trunk. It’s easy enough but it would be nice to be able to do it by leaning into the rear doors. Those rear doors can be narrow for larger bodies, but the 38.0 inches of rear legroom is generous even if headroom is not. Due to the hybrid battery pack under the rear seats, the folded seats sit higher than the cargo floor.
All-wheel drive and heated steering wheels go together like Midwestern winters and fleece-lined boots. The Camry XLE comes with a heated steering wheel, but the button for it sits by itself smack dab in the middle of the climate control panel. It’s almost hidden if not for the small icon in the digital display. It’s better than hiding it in the touchscreen or under other controls, but it’s unusual. The most convenient place for the heated steering wheel button is on the steering wheel itself. Owners will get used to it as quickly as their breath becomes visible in the cold.
The Camry has been the bestselling sedan in the U.S. since the George W. Bush era. The 2024 Honda Accord might have a higher TCC Rating of 7.3 out of 10 versus 7.0 for the Camry , but the Camry continues to lead the pack of sedans in efficiency, value, and roominess, and it has the added plus of offering all-wheel drive.
_______________________________________
2025 Toyota XLE AWD
Base price : $36,020, including a $1,095 destination fee
Price as tested : $42,232
Drivetrain : 232-hp 2.5-liter inline-4 with hybrid transmission and all-wheel drive
EPA fuel economy : 46/46/46 mpg
Pros : 46 mpg, all-wheel drive, good power
Cons : Odd dash panel, carpet-like dash cover, mixed rear seat space
2025.5 volvo xc90 kicks off renewed plug-in hybrid push, related articles.
An official website of the United States government
Here’s how you know
Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/08/us-ai-safety-institute-signs-agreements-regarding-ai-safety-research
These first-of-their-kind agreements between the u.s. government and industry will help advance safe and trustworthy ai innovation for all..
GAITHERSBURG, Md. — Today, the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced agreements that enable formal collaboration on AI safety research, testing and evaluation with both Anthropic and OpenAI.
Each company’s Memorandum of Understanding establishes the framework for the U.S. AI Safety Institute to receive access to major new models from each company prior to and following their public release. The agreements will enable collaborative research on how to evaluate capabilities and safety risks, as well as methods to mitigate those risks.
“Safety is essential to fueling breakthrough technological innovation. With these agreements in place, we look forward to beginning our technical collaborations with Anthropic and OpenAI to advance the science of AI safety,” said Elizabeth Kelly, director of the U.S. AI Safety Institute. “These agreements are just the start, but they are an important milestone as we work to help responsibly steward the future of AI.”
Additionally, the U.S. AI Safety Institute plans to provide feedback to Anthropic and OpenAI on potential safety improvements to their models, in close collaboration with its partners at the U.K. AI Safety Institute.
The U.S. AI Safety Institute builds on NIST’s more than 120-year legacy of advancing measurement science, technology, standards and related tools. Evaluations under these agreements will further NIST’s work on AI by facilitating deep collaboration and exploratory research on advanced AI systems across a range of risk areas.
Evaluations conducted pursuant to these agreements will help advance the safe, secure and trustworthy development and use of AI by building on the Biden-Harris administration’s Executive Order on AI and the voluntary commitments made to the administration by leading AI model developers.
About the U.S. AI Safety Institute
The U.S. AI Safety Institute , located within the Department of Commerce at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), was established following the Biden-Harris administration’s 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence to advance the science of AI safety and address the risks posed by advanced AI systems. It is tasked with developing the testing, evaluations and guidelines that will help accelerate safe AI innovation here in the United States and around the world.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Review process • Research]or many qualified nurses and nursing students research is research, and it is often quite difficult ... Research reports should be well written, grammatically correct, concise and well organized.The use of jargon should be avoided where possible. The style should be such that it
How is a critique different from a summary? A summary of a research article requires you to share the key points of the article so your reader can get a clear picture of what the article is about. A critique may include a brief summary, but the main focus should be on your evaluation and analysis of the research itself.
Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.
Ev en better you might. consider doing an argument map (see Chapter 9, Critical thinking). Step 5: Put the article aside and think about what you have read. Good critical review. writing requires ...
All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1, 2 In fact, ... You need to explain all your methods and report enough detail that readers can verify the main findings of each study you review. The most common reasons CMEJ reviewers recommend to decline a review ...
Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study 1. Critiquing the research article a. Title - Does it accurately describe the article? b. Abstract - Is it representative of the article? c. Introduction - Does it make the purpose of the article clear? d. Statement of the problem - Is the problem properly introduced? e.
General criteria for evaluating a research report are addressed. This outline of criteria can be used as a guide for nurses in critiquing research studies. A sample research report is summarized followed by a critique of the study. Readers have an opportunity to practice critiquing by doing their own analyses before reading the critique presented in the article.
A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author's argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher's claims. Introduction. Give an overview of the author's main points and how the author supports those ...
Abstract. Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and ...
A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care (Lipp & Fothergill) Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research (Coughlan et al.) ... How to Critique a Research Paper (University of Michigan) How to Write an Article Critique. Research Article Critique Form.
First, we'll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we'll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we'll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.
Agreeing with, defending or confirming a particular point of view. Proposing a new point of view. Conceding to an existing point of view, but qualifying certain points. Reformulating an existing idea for a better explanation. Dismissing a point of view through an evaluation of its criteria. Reconciling two seemingly different points of view.
Critiques evaluate and analyze a wide variety of things (texts, images, performances, etc.) based on reasons or criteria. Sometimes, people equate the notion of "critique" to "criticism," which usually suggests a negative interpretation. These terms are easy to confuse, but I want to be clear that critique and criticize don't mean the ...
The results wer e discussed appropriat ely- No misinterpretation. 11. Streng ths motioned are the true strengths. 12. Limitations are r eported do not aff ec t the applicability of the study-. 13 ...
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
How to write a critique. Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued. Study the work under discussion. Make notes on key parts of the work. Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work. Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or ...
Abstract. This article explores certain concepts relating to critiquing research papers. These include considering the peer review process for publication, demonstrating the need for critiquing, providing a way to carefully evaluate research papers and exploring the role of impact factors. Whilst all these features are considered in this ...
Critique of research articles. A guide for critique of research articles. Following is the list of criteria to evaluate (critique) a research article. Please note that you should first summarize the paper and then evaluate different parts of it. Most of the evaluation section should be devoted to evaluation of internal validity of the conclusions.
Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom. Here's how your outline might look: 1. Summary of the research and your overall impression. In your own words, summarize what the manuscript ...
The first step is to critique and appraise the research evidence. Through critiquing and appraising the research evidence, dialog with colleagues, and changing practice based on evidence, NPs can improve patient outcomes (Dale, 2005) and successfully translate research into evidence-based practice in today's ever-changing health care ...
A literature review report synthesizes and summarizes existing research on a specific topic, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge on the subject. Literature review reports are often used in social sciences, education, and other fields to identify gaps in the literature and guide future research. Research Report Example
2) Format of the Critique Paper. First, you will need to know the procedure that will guide you in evaluating a paper. Second, the format of the critique paper refers to how you present it so that it becomes logical and scholarly in tone. The Four Steps in Writing a Critique Paper. Here are the four steps in writing a critique paper:
Pull back the curtain and get an insider's view of the journal review process. See the dimensions that your manuscript is being rated along, the recommended dispositions that are available to the reviewers, and the most effective ways to respond to editorial feedback. ... Learn about the multiple roles you play in managing your research team ...
1. Begin of briefly critique by identifying the article's title, author(s), date of publication, and the name. researchers. (see the your journal other publication in which app ared. In your introduction, you should also of the Table publication describe 1). or the If the in paper purpose which was it appeared and the credentials and not ...
2. Cases of First Impression - A case of first impression is "a case for the determination of which no precedent can be found."Case primae impressionis, Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1969). Like a circuit spilt, a case of first impression is a ripe topic for law review because it allows for the author to make a number of normative statements about the law at issue as it is an unresolved ...
Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research.
At the end of 2022, eLife's Technology and Innovation team outlined their steps to building the 'publish, review, curate' ecosystem of the future.For them, 2023 involved the ongoing development of open-source platforms that support the display, review, organisation, dissemination and curation of open research content.
The review looked at cancers of the brain in adults and children, as well as cancer of the pituitary gland, salivary glands and leukemia, and risks linked to mobile phone use, base stations, or ...
The ninth-generation Camry hybrid with AWD gets 46 mpg; AWD costs $1,525 extra across the lineup; Some odd interior touches fluff the cabin; The redesigned 2025 Toyota Camry comes standard with a ...
The U.S. AI Safety Institute builds on NIST's more than 120-year legacy of advancing measurement science, technology, standards and related tools. Evaluations under these agreements will further NIST's work on AI by facilitating deep collaboration and exploratory research on advanced AI systems across a range of risk areas.