Critique Paper Guidelines

CRITIQUE PAPER Critiquing a scientific journal article in the field of agricultural extension involves
carefully evaluating various aspects of the study to determine its quality, validity, and contribution to the
field. Here's a format guide you can use to structure your critique:

1. Introduction: Begin your critique with a brief introduction where you provide the title of the article,
the names of the authors, the journal it was published in, and the publication date. Also, state the
purpose of your critique, which is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the article in terms of its
scientific rigor and contribution to agricultural extension.

2. Summary: Provide a concise summary of the article's main points, research question, methodology,
key findings, and conclusions. This sets the stage for your detailed critique.

3. Research Question and Hypotheses: Evaluate the clarity and significance of the research question or
questions posed in the article. Consider whether the hypotheses are clearly stated and logically follow
from the research question. Discuss how well the research question aligns with the scope of agricultural
extension.

4. Methodology: Assess the appropriateness and rigor of the research methods used in the study.
Consider aspects such as study design, sampling techniques, data collection methods, and statistical
analyses. Evaluate whether the chosen methods are suitable for addressing the research question and if
they were applied correctly.

5. Literature Review: Evaluate the depth and relevance of the literature review. Discuss whether the
authors effectively reviewed and synthesized existing literature to provide context for their study.
Consider whether any key studies or relevant theories were omitted.

6. Results: Critique the presentation of results and data. Assess whether the results are clearly
presented using appropriate tables, figures, and statistical measures. Discuss whether the results directly
address the research question and hypotheses. Analyze the interpretation of results to determine if they
align with the study's objectives.

7. Discussion and Conclusion: Evaluate the authors' interpretation of the results and how well they
address the research question. Discuss whether the conclusions drawn from the study are supported by
the evidence presented. Analyze the significance of the findings in the context of agricultural extension.
Consider whether the authors identify limitations and suggest directions for future research.

8. Contribution to Agricultural Extension: Assess the article's contribution to the field of agricultural
extension. Discuss whether the study adds new knowledge, insights, or practical implications. Consider
whether the findings have the potential to inform policy, practice, or further research in agricultural
extension.

9. Strengths: Identify the strengths of the article, such as its clear research question, robust
methodology, innovative approach, or comprehensive literature review. Explain why these aspects
enhance the quality and credibility of the study.
10. Weaknesses: Highlight the weaknesses of the article, such as methodological limitations, gaps in the
literature review, ambiguous conclusions, or potential biases. Provide constructive feedback on how
these weaknesses could be addressed or improved in future work.

11. Overall Assessment: Provide an overall assessment of the article's quality, significance, and
contribution to the field of agricultural extension. Summarize your critique by discussing whether the
article effectively achieves its goals and how it fits within the broader landscape of research in the field.
12. Conclusion: Conclude your critique by summarizing the main points of your assessment and
reiterating the strengths and weaknesses you identified. Offer a final reflection on the article's potential
impact and the value it adds to the scientific discourse in agricultural extension.

Remember to provide evidence and examples from the article to support your critique at each step. Your
goal is to offer a balanced and constructive evaluation that helps both the authors and other readers
better understand the strengths and areas for improvement of the scientific journal article