Article Review - Structure and Format Guidelines

The purpose of research articles is to present new or refine conceptual ideas, or to present
new evidence for conceptual ideas. A research article review results from critically
examining a research article. You will have to read your article several times to
understand it fully enough to review properly.

Often, comparing your article to others will help you determine its quality.

Also, think about the article and its research ideas in terms of each of the different week's
concepts and frameworks we study in class. Do the ideas in the article fit all the
categories of appropriate class concepts, models and frameworks? This often will help
you see things the authors missed, think about things the authors write in a new light, or
see that the authors indeed covered a topic thoroughly.

1. Full Bibliographic Reference

State the full bibliographic reference for the article you are reviewing (authors, title,
journal name, volume, issue, year, page numbers, etc.) Important: this is not the
bibliography listed at the end of the article, rather the citation of the article itself!

 Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

 Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Originality
Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the
canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research
question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for
the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in?
Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search
using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has
been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.

- Structure

Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements (where relevant) present: abstract,
introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each element in turn:

2. Introduction: Objectives, Article Domain, Audience, Journal and

Conceptual/Empirical Classification

 Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and
clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should
summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors'
findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment,
the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.

1
 It should answer why is the journal appropriate (or inappropriate) for this article?
(Check the mission statement or purpose of the journal itself.
 State whether the article is "conceptual" or "empirical", and why you believe it is
conceptual or empirical. Empirical articles and conceptual articles have a similar
objective: to substantiate an argument proposed by the author. While a conceptual
article supports such an argument based on logical and persuasive reasoning, an
empirical article offers empirical evidence to support the argument. Empirical articles
offer substantial, detailed evidence which the authors analyze using statistical
methods. Empirical articles must include hypotheses (or propositions), detailed
research results, and (statistical) analyses of this empirical evidence. Empirical
research includes experiments, surveys, questionnaires, field studies, etc, and to
limited degree, case studies. Conceptual articles may refer to such empirical evidence,
but do not provide the detailed analysis of that evidence.

3. Very Brief Summary

For our article reviews, we do not want you to spend much space summarizing the article.
Instead, we are more interested in your analysis of the article.

It should incorporate;

 The problem or opportunity being addressed

 Solution which is proposed (the solution could be a new model or a theory that
explains the problem)
 Evidence put forth that this solution is appropriate (If this is an empirical article,
be sure to briefly describe what kind of empirical study was done as part of the
evidence).

4. Method
Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for
answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate
the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a
meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling
appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the
article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in
describing measurements?

5. Discussion and Results/ Conclusion

Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the
authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the
article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the
research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

2
6. Contributions

An article makes a "contribution" by adding to the knowledge of researchers in a research

field in many ways. Does it provide a new way to look at a problem? Does it bring
together or "synthesize" several concepts (or frameworks, models, etc.) together in an
insightful way that has not been done before? Does it provide new solutions? Does it
provide new results? Does it identify new issues? Does it provide a comprehensive
survey or review of a domain? Does it provide new insights?

Also, is it salient (relevant and current) to a particular scientific issue or managerial

problem? Are the issues addressed introduced in a way that their relevance to practice is
evident? Would answers to the questions raised in the article likely to be useful to
researchers and managers?

Note: Do not discuss the contributions of the technologies the article describes, but rather
the contributions of the article itself!

The article's contributions should be original. To the best of your knowledge, are they?
Are the article's take-home messages new?

Alternatively, if you believe the article does not contribute, explain why clearly.

7. Foundation

Good research often is built upon theories and frameworks that other researchers have
developed. Sometimes articles will be substantially based upon this prior work, and refer
back to it in some detail. (Not all research articles will do this.)

Which theoretical foundations does this article and research build on, if any? In what
ways? Include references/citations of the foundation work. (You can determine this in
part from the works the article cites.)

Note, however, that most works cited are not core foundational work, but rather just
support certain aspects of the article. Similarly, do not confuse a general discussion of
related topics as foundational work.

If the article does not build upon key pieces of prior research, then write in your review
"This article does not build upon any foundation research.

8. General Critique

In this section, you should state your opinions of how well (or poorly) the authors did
their research and presented the research results in the article. Your critique can contain
both positive and negative comments.

3
The following are suggestions only:

 Are its ideas really new, or do the authors simply repackage old ideas and perhaps
give them a new name?
 Did the authors choose the correct approach, and then execute it properly?
 Does it build upon the appropriate foundation (i.e., upon appropriate prior research)?
 How confident are you in the article's results, and why?
 Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the article's introduction and
outline?
 In what way should the article have made a contribution, but then did not?
 Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases or occurrences?
 Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations?
 How complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Do the authors include an
adequate discussion, analysis and conclusions? Did they justify everything
adequately? Did they provide enough background information for the intended
audience to understand it?
 What are the article's shortcomings (faults) and limitations (boundaries)? Did it
discuss all of the important aspects and issues in its domain (topic area)?

9. Questions and further area of research

What open questions or issues has the author stated remain unresolved?

 Suggestions for resolving it - if you give your own suggestions (instead of or in

addition to the authors', then precede each with "I would propose ..." If it has been
resolved since the article was written, then state how it was resolved.
 For example, what possible future research questions could arise from this article?

List insightful questions of your own, arising from this article. Do not ask definitions, but
rather questions that really make one think.

10.   Ethical Issues

 Plagiarism and fraud should be critically examined.

 Other ethical concerns: For medical research, has confidentiality been

maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical
treatment of animal or human subjects?

Note that;

1. Article reviews is the best means of learning and try to read, comment & critically
evaluate articles written on business arena.
2. The contents of Articles might vary due to variation of publication house
requirements
3. Different instructors may use their own guideline for such type of review.

4
Typing considerations

1. The type must be 1.5 lines spaced and printed in high quality normally readable
font size (preferably 12 fonts, in Times New Roman, Arial or Garamond).

2. Titles and sub titles should be in bold with a consistent font throughout the main
text.

3. The paper/report must be printed on A4 size paper, preferably bind, with typing
on one side of the page only.

4. Pages must be numbered consecutively and should appear just below the center of
the lower margin.

5. The paper should be limited to 6-8 pages.

6. Students are advised to incorporate references & supportive evidences for any
assignment papers.

7. References- References must be properly acknowledged & cited via APA style

Prepared by: Wassie Getahun