Research paper critique.
1. Summarize, in your own words (not theirs), what the article is about. This descriiption should be detailed enough to understand the basic theory and hypothesis of the research, the methods the researchers used to investigate (but do not include every single detail of the experiment – this is not a laboratory report), and the main results and conclusions. Gear this toward a scientific audience (i.e. you may use scientific jargon if necessary).
2. Critically evaluate each section of the scientific research paper (abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results [incl. tables/figures], discussion, literature cited). Discuss potential flaws as well as things the author(s) included that you really liked. Was the introduction sufficient to provide enough background to allow you to fully understand what and why this study was conducted? Discuss the experimental methods and statistical analysis in terms of accuracy and appropriateness. Would you be able to replicate the experiment based on their descriiption? Are the results clear? Are the tables/figures appropriate and add clarity (and properly formatted)? Is the discussion complete and accurate based on prior research and the results obtained? What would you add/change? I expect you to be very thorough in your analysis.
3. Discuss the implications of how this science is reported, including why the topic of this article is important. Also, discuss how the research could have been better reported using specific examples.
I have attached the research paper to be critiqued. There are some notes in blue that should be added to the paper critique. I have also attached a good example of a paper critique and the instructions and grading rubric. There also needs to be no less than 3 references.
