Critical Review

Objectives
To develop the capacity of students to critically and
scientifically evaluate published works
To introduce students to current research issues and results
in selected areas of computer science and networking
To develop their report writing and communication skills
What is a critical review?
The critical review is a writing task where you are asked to
summarise and evaluate a text
The critical review can be of a book, a chapter, or a journal article
A critical review combines a summary and a critical comment
Writing the critical review usually requires you to read the
selected text in detail and to also read other related texts so that
you can present a fair and reasonable evaluation of the selected
text
Why are you asked to write a critical
review?

to enable you to demonstrate that you can:

◦ read to understand the main points in an article
◦ analyse the findings or argument of the article
◦ decide the appropriate criteria by which to evaluate
the article
◦ provide a critical evaluation of the article based on
the criteria selected
 What is meant by critical?
tobe critical does not mean to criticise in a negative
manner
It requires you to question the information and
opinions in a text and present your evaluation or
judgement of the text
you should attempt to understand the topic from
different perspectives (i.e. read related texts) and in
relation to the theories, approaches and frameworks
 What steps should you take in
summarising an article?
Take a quick overview of the article by reading
◦ the title
◦ the abstract
◦ the introduction
◦ the subheadings
◦ the conclusion

 Read the article without taking notes in order to gain an

overall idea of its aim and main idea
Read the article again analytically and make
notes of main ideas and main topic
◦ Highlight important ideas
◦ Make brief notes in the margin or on paper
 Check your notes to ensure that they include:
◦ the main aim of the article, e.g. to analyse, explain,
evaluate, argue, citicise, discuss opposing views
◦ the methodological approach, e.g. empirical research,
financial analysis, textual analysis
◦ the main findings/conclusions
Use your notes to write a summary
In your summary ensure that you have
paraphrased not plagiarised the authors' words
and used quotations sparingly
 Critical Review Checklist
Heading   Questions to be asked Yes No Don't
Know

Title • Is the title concise?    

 
  • Is the title informative?      

  • Does the title clearly indicate the research?    

 
  • Does the title clearly indicate the research approach      
used?

Author(s) • Does the author(s) have appropriate academic      

qualifications?

• Does the author(s) have appropriate professional      

qualifications and experience?
 

Abstract • Is there an abstract included?      

  • Does the abstract identify the research problem?      

  • Does the abstract state the hypotheses (if appropriate)?      

  • Does the abstract outline the methodology?      

  • Does the abstract give details of the sample subjects?      

  • Does the abstract report major findings?      

Introduction • Is the problem clearly identified?      

  • Is a rationale for the study stated?      

  • Are limitations of the study clearly stated?      

Literature Review • Is the literature review up-to-date?      

  • Does the literature review identify the underlying      

theoretical framework(s)?

  • Does the literature review present a balanced evaluation      

of material both supporting and challenging the position
being proposed?

  • Does the literature clearly identify the need for the      

research proposed?

  • Are important references omitted?      

Hypothesis • Does the study use an experimental approach?      

  • Is the hypothesis capable of testing?      

  • Is the hypothesis unambiguous?      

Operational definitions • Are all terms used in the research question/      
problem clearly defined?

Methodology • Does the methodology section clearly state the      

research approach to be used?

  • Is the method appropriate to the research problem?      

  • Are the strengths and weaknesses of the approach    

chosen stated?

 
Subjects • Are the subjects clearly identified?      

Sample Selection • Is the sample selection approach congruent with the      

method to be used?

  • Is the sample size clearly stated?      

Data collection • Are any data collection procedures adequately      

described?

  • Has the validity and reliability of any instruments been      

clearly stated?
Ethical considerations • If the study involves human subjects has the study  
ethical committee approval?  

  • Is informed consent sought?      

  • Is confidentiality assured?      

  • Is anonymity guaranteed?      

Results • Are results presented clearly?      

  • Are the results internally consistent?      

  • Is sufficient detail given to enable the reader to judge how      

much confidence can be placed in the findings?

  • Does graphic material enhance clarity of the results being      

presented?

Data analysis • Is the approach appropriate to the type of data collected?      

  • Is any statistical analysis correctly performed?      

  • Is there sufficient analysis to determine whether      

'significant differences' are not attributable to variations in
other relevant variables?

  • Is complete information (test value, df, and p) reported?      

Discussion • Is the discussion balanced?      

  • Does the discussion draw upon previous research?      

  • Are the weaknesses of the study acknowledged?      

  • Are clinical implications discussed?      

Conclusions • Are conclusions supported by the results obtained?      

  • Are the implications of the study identified?      

Recommendations • Do the recommendations suggest further areas for      

research?

  • Do the recommendations identify how any weaknesses      

in the study design could be avoided in future
research?
Structure of a Critical Review
Criticalreviews, both short (one page) and long (four
pages), usually have a similar structure.
Headings are usually optional for longer reviews and
can be helpful for the reader

◦ Introduction
◦ Summary
◦ Critique
 Introduction
The length of an introduction is usually one
paragraph for a journal article review and two
or three paragraphs for a longer book review
Include a few opening sentences that announce
the author(s) and the title, and briefly explain
the topic of the text.
Present the aim of the text and summarise the
main finding or key argument
Conclude the introduction with a brief
statement of your evaluation of the text
This can be a positive or negative evaluation or,
as is usually the case, a mixed response
 Summary
Present a summary of the key points along with a
limited number of examples
You can also briefly explain the author’s
purpose/intentions throughout the text and you may
briefly describe how the text is organised
The summary should only make up about a third of
the critical review
 Critique
The critique should be a balanced discussion and
evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable
features of the text
Good reviews also include other sources to support
the evaluation (remember to reference)
You can choose how to sequence your critique. Here
are some examples to get you started:
◦ Most important to least important conclusions you make
about the text
◦ If your critique is more positive than negative, then present
the negative points first and the positive last.
◦ If your critique is more negative than positive, then present
the positive points first and the negative last
 Conclusion
This is usually a very short paragraph
Restate your overall opinion of the text
Briefly present recommendations
If necessary some further qualification or
explanation of your judgement can be
included.
This can help your critique sound fair and
What makes a good critical review?

 A good critical review:

◦ gives correct information about the author, date and
article in the introduction
◦ summarises the purpose and main idea of the article in the
introduction
◦ shows evidence of analytical thinking in the summary
section
◦ evaluates the article against a number of criteria
◦ provides a final evaluation indicating the balance that is seen
to exist between the strengths and weaknesses of the article
◦ makes sufficient reference to the author of the article
◦ makes appropriate use of reporting verbs
◦ makes appropriate use of summarising vocabulary - words
that sum up the ideas in previous sentences and paragraphs
◦ provides clear transitions between paragraphs that are helpful
in guiding the reader through the review
◦ provides full bibliographical details of the article at the end of
the review.