Research Critique
Radiography (2005) 11, 55e59
REVIEW ARTICLE
Critiquing a research article
Gill Marshall)
Division of Medical Imaging Sciences, St. Martin’s College, Lancaster LA1 3JD, UK
Accepted 16 September 2004 Available online 1 December 2004
KEYWORDS
Critical reading; Peer review; Literature; Journal review
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 article, the focus is on presenting a systematic and comprehensive way of critiquing research papers. The information provided should be of use to the many radiographers, associated health professionals and undergraduate and postgraduate students embarking on research projects. ª 2004 The College of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Why critique peer reviewed research articles?
The peer review process is integral to the functioning of all scientific journals and plays a pivotal role in the publication of new scientific material.1 The ‘‘invisible hand’’ of peer review is what is claimed to maintain the quality of refereed i.e. peer reviewed, journal literature.2 The publication of a research article in a peer reviewed journal may thus appear to be a measure of its worth.3 However, the process of peer review has attracted its share of criticisms from academics over the years4 with one author going as far as to say ‘‘those that review essays for inclusion in scholarly journals know what they are supposed to do. Their
) Tel.: C44 1524 384639; fax: C44 1524 384591. E-mail address: g.marshall@ucsm.ac.uk
function is to take innovative and challenging work by young scholars and find reasons to reject it’’.5 Furthermore reviewers need not necessarily have expert knowledge of the subject matter they
REVIEW ARTICLE
Critiquing a research article
Gill Marshall)
Division of Medical Imaging Sciences, St. Martin’s College, Lancaster LA1 3JD, UK
Accepted 16 September 2004 Available online 1 December 2004
KEYWORDS
Critical reading; Peer review; Literature; Journal review
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 article, the focus is on presenting a systematic and comprehensive way of critiquing research papers. The information provided should be of use to the many radiographers, associated health professionals and undergraduate and postgraduate students embarking on research projects. ª 2004 The College of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Why critique peer reviewed research articles?
The peer review process is integral to the functioning of all scientific journals and plays a pivotal role in the publication of new scientific material.1 The ‘‘invisible hand’’ of peer review is what is claimed to maintain the quality of refereed i.e. peer reviewed, journal literature.2 The publication of a research article in a peer reviewed journal may thus appear to be a measure of its worth.3 However, the process of peer review has attracted its share of criticisms from academics over the years4 with one author going as far as to say ‘‘those that review essays for inclusion in scholarly journals know what they are supposed to do. Their
) Tel.: C44 1524 384639; fax: C44 1524 384591. E-mail address: g.marshall@ucsm.ac.uk
function is to take innovative and challenging work by young scholars and find reasons to reject it’’.5 Furthermore reviewers need not necessarily have expert knowledge of the subject matter they
References: 1. Levine AM, Heckman JD, Hensinger RN. The art and science of reviewing manuscripts for orthopaedic journals: part 1 defining the review. Instr Course Lect 2004;53:679e88.