critique article review

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY
• Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

• Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
• What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
• Was the sample too small to generalize from?
• Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
• How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
• How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
• Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
• Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
• How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
• What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

• << Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

• 1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
• 2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
• 3 Article Critique Outline
• 4 Article Critique Formatting
• 5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
• 6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
• 7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
• 8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

• A brief summary of the article .
• A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
• A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

• Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
• Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
• Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
• Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
• Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
• Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
• Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

• The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
• The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
• The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

• Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
• Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
• Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

• Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
• Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
• Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
• Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
• The purpose of the study
• The research question or questions
• The methods used
• The outcomes
• The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
• Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

• Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
• Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
• Use evidence from to support your points.
• Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

The Tech Edvocate

• Advertisement
• Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
• Home Page Four
• Home Page Three
• Home Page Two
• Icons [No Sidebar]
• Left Sidbear Page
• Lynch Educational Consulting
• My Speaking Page
• Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
• Newsletter Unsubscription
• Page Example
• Privacy Policy
• Protected Content
• Request a Product Review
• Shortcodes Examples
• Terms and Conditions
• The Edvocate
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• Write For Us
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Assistive Technology
• Child Development Tech
• Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
• EdTech Futures
• EdTech News
• EdTech Policy & Reform
• EdTech Startups & Businesses
• Higher Education EdTech
• Online Learning & eLearning
• Parent & Family Tech
• Personalized Learning
• Product Reviews
• Tech Edvocate Awards
• School Ratings

Product Review of the Reolink Argus Pro 4

Developing phonemic awareness: everything you need to know, school transition tips for learners with autism: everything you need to know, context clues: everything you need to know, best first aid kits: a comprehensive guide, teaching writing in kindergarten: everything you need to know, haiti names new prime minister to try to lead country out of crisis, israel pushes into rafah as displaced palestinians search for safety, gazan officials say a strike killed 21 in al-mawasi, pope apologizes after reports that he used an anti-gay slur, how to write an article review (with sample reviews)  .

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

How to Make a Hotel Bed

4 Ways to Do a Man Bun

How to Tame a Lizard: 7 Steps

6 Ways to Share Your Location from Android to iPhone

How to Properly Cite a Lecture Slide in APA

3 Ways to Make Moonshine

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,112,618 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

Find your Fit

UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

Give Like a Star

Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.

Bragging Rights

UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.

• Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support Bookstore UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness COVID-19 United in Safety Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps UIS Mobile App Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom The Observer Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance

Request Info

How to Review a Journal Article

• Request Info Request info for....     Undergraduate/Graduate     Online     Study Away     Continuing & Professional Education     International Student Services     General Inquiries

For many kinds of assignments, like a  literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your  qualified opinion  and  evaluation  of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple  summary  of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes,  annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

• How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
• How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
• How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
• How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
• How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

• How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
• Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
• How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
• What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
• How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
• How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?

Evaluating Methods

• How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
• How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
• Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?

Evaluating Data

• Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
• Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
• How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
• What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.),  Digital games in language learning and teaching  (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an  annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.

• Linguistics
• Composition Studies

Writing Critical Reviews: A Step-by-Step Guide

• February 2022
• In book: Study Skills for International Postgraduates (Second Edition) (pp.194-207)
• Edition: 2nd
• Chapter: 11
• Publisher: Bloomsbury

• University of Melbourne

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• BUS HIST REV
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Writing Critiques

Writing a critique involves more than pointing out mistakes. It involves conducting a systematic analysis of a scholarly article or book and then writing a fair and reasonable description of its strengths and weaknesses. Several scholarly journals have published guides for critiquing other people’s work in their academic area. Search for a  “manuscript reviewer guide” in your own discipline to guide your analysis of the content. Use this handout as an orientation to the audience and purpose of different types of critiques and to the linguistic strategies appropriate to all of them.

Types of critique

Article or book review assignment in an academic class.

Text: Article or book that has already been published Audience: Professors Purpose:

• to demonstrate your skills for close reading and analysis
• to show that you understand key concepts in your field
• to learn how to review a manuscript for your future professional work

Published book review

Text: Book that has already been published Audience: Disciplinary colleagues Purpose:

• to describe the book’s contents
• to summarize the book’s strengths and weaknesses
• to provide a reliable recommendation to read (or not read) the book

Manuscript review

Text: Manuscript that has been submitted but has not been published yet Audience: Journal editor and manuscript authors Purpose:

• to provide the editor with an evaluation of the manuscript
• to recommend to the editor that the article be published, revised, or rejected
• to provide the authors with constructive feedback and reasonable suggestions for revision

Language strategies for critiquing

For each type of critique, it’s important to state your praise, criticism, and suggestions politely, but with the appropriate level of strength. The following language structures should help you achieve this challenging task.

Offering Praise and Criticism

A strategy called “hedging” will help you express praise or criticism with varying levels of strength. It will also help you express varying levels of certainty in your own assertions. Grammatical structures used for hedging include:

Modal verbs Using modal verbs (could, can, may, might, etc.) allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This text is inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field. This text may be inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field.

Qualifying adjectives and adverbs Using qualifying adjectives and adverbs (possible, likely, possibly, somewhat, etc.) allows you to introduce a level of probability into your comments. Compare:

Readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will probably find the theoretical model somewhat difficult to understand completely.

Note: You can see from the last example that too many qualifiers makes the idea sound undesirably weak.

Tentative verbs Using tentative verbs (seems, indicates, suggests, etc.) also allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This omission shows that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission indicates that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission seems to suggest that the authors are not aware of the current literature.

Offering suggestions

Whether you are critiquing a published or unpublished text, you are expected to point out problems and suggest solutions. If you are critiquing an unpublished manuscript, the author can use your suggestions to revise. Your suggestions have the potential to become real actions. If you are critiquing a published text, the author cannot revise, so your suggestions are purely hypothetical. These two situations require slightly different grammar.

Unpublished manuscripts: “would be X if they did Y” Reviewers commonly point out weakness by pointing toward improvement. For instance, if the problem is “unclear methodology,” reviewers may write that “the methodology would be more clear if …” plus a suggestion. If the author can use the suggestions to revise, the grammar is “X would be better if the authors did Y” (would be + simple past suggestion).

The tables would be clearer if the authors highlighted the key results. The discussion would be more persuasive if the authors accounted for the discrepancies in the data.

Published manuscripts: “would have been X if they had done Y” If the authors cannot revise based on your suggestions, use the past unreal conditional form “X would have been better if the authors had done Y” (would have been + past perfect suggestion).

The tables would have been clearer if the authors had highlighted key results. The discussion would have been more persuasive if the authors had accounted for discrepancies in the data.

Note: For more information on conditional structures, see our Conditionals handout .

Make a Gift

How to Write an Effective Journal Article Review

• First Online: 01 January 2012

Cite this chapter

• Dennis Drotar PhD 2 ,
• Yelena P. Wu PhD 3 &
• Jennifer M. Rohan MA 4  

5679 Accesses

2 Citations

The experience of reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals is an important one in professional development. Reviewing articles gives trainees familiarity with the peer review process in ways that facilitate their writing. For example, reviewing manuscripts can help students and early career psychologists understand what reviewers and editors look for in a peer-reviewed article and ways to critique and enhance a manuscript based on peer review. Experiences in review can facilitate early career faculty with early entry into and experience being a reviewer for a professional journal. The experience of journal reviews also gives students a broader connection to the field of science in areas of their primary professional interest. At the same time reviewing articles for scientific journals poses a number of difficult challenges (see Hyman, 1995; Drotar, 2000a, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2010, 2011; Lovejoy, Revenson, & France, 2011). The purpose of this chapter is to provide an introduction to the review process and give step by step guidance in conducting reviews for scientific journals. Interested readers might wish to read Lovejoy et al.’s (2011) primer for manuscript review, which contains annotated examples of reviews and an editor’s decision letter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association Science Student Council. (2007). A graduate students’ guide to involvement in the peer review process. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.apa.org/research/publishing/

APA Publications and Communications Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology. Why do we need them? What do they need to be? American Psychologist, 63 , 839–851.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2008). Putting research in context: Understanding confidence intervals from one or more studies. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 (9), 903–916.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2000a). Reviewing and editing manuscripts for scientific journals. In D. Drotar (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in clinical child and pediatric psychology (pp. 409–425). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2000b). Training professional psychologists to write and publish. The utility of a writer’s workshop seminar. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31 , 453–457.

Drotar, D. (2009a). Editorial: How to write effective reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 113–117.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2009b). Editorial: Thoughts in improving the quality of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: How to write a convincing introduction. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 1–3.

Drotar, D. (2009c). Editorial: How to report methods in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 227–230.

Drotar, D. (2009d). How to write an effective results and discussion section for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 339–343.

Drotar, D. (2010). Editorial: Guidance for submission and review of multiple publications derived from the same study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35 , 225–230.

Drotar, D. (2011). Editorial: How to write more effective, user friendly reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36 , 1–3.

Durlak, J. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 917–928.

Fiske, D. W., & Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper: Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 40 , 591–598.

Holmbeck, G. N., & Devine, K. A. (2009). Editorial: An author’s checklist for measure development and validation manuscripts. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 (7), 691–696.

Hyman, R. (1995). How to critique a published article. Psychological Bulletin, 118 , 178–182.

Journal of Pediatric Psychology mentoring policy & suggestions for conducting mentored reviews (2009). Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jpepsy/for_authors/msprep_submission.html

Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42 , 1–13.

Palermo, T. M. (2010). Editorial: Exploring ethical issues in peer review for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35 (3), 221–224.

Routh, D. K. (1995). Confessions of an editor, including mistakes I have made. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24 , 236–241.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2006). Reviewing scientific works in psychology . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stinson, J. N., McGrath, P. J., & Yamada, J. T. (2003). Clinical trials in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology : Applying the CONSORT statement. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28 , 159–167.

Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses . Medford, NY: Information Today, Inc.

Wu, Y. P., Nassau, J. H., & Drotar, D. (2011). Mentoring reviewers: The Journal of Pediatric Psychology experience. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36 , 258–264.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, MLC 7039, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Dennis Drotar PhD

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Yelena P. Wu PhD

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Jennifer M. Rohan MA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Drotar PhD .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel H, Davie Hall, Campus Box 3270, Chapel Hill, 27599-3270, North Carolina, USA

Mitchell J. Prinstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Drotar, D., Wu, Y.P., Rohan, J.M. (2013). How to Write an Effective Journal Article Review. In: Prinstein, M. (eds) The Portable Mentor. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_11

Published : 25 July 2012

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3993-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3994-3

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can Med Educ J
• v.12(3); 2021 Jun

Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

Écrire, lire et revue critique, douglas archibald.

1 University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;

Maria Athina Martimianakis

2 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Why reviews matter

What do all authors of the CMEJ have in common? For that matter what do all health professions education scholars have in common? We all engage with literature. When you have an idea or question the first thing you do is find out what has been published on the topic of interest. Literature reviews are foundational to any study. They describe what is known about given topic and lead us to identify a knowledge gap to study. All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1 , 2 In fact, for this editorial we have had to review the literature on reviews . Knowledge and evidence are expanding in our field of health professions education at an ever increasing rate and so to help keep pace, well written reviews are essential. Though reviews may be difficult to write, they will always be read. In this editorial we survey the various forms review articles can take. As well we want to provide authors and reviewers at CMEJ with some guidance and resources to be able write and/or review a review article.

What are the types of reviews conducted in Health Professions Education?

Health professions education attracts scholars from across disciplines and professions. For this reason, there are numerous ways to conduct reviews and it is important to familiarize oneself with these different forms to be able to effectively situate your work and write a compelling rationale for choosing your review methodology. 1 , 2 To do this, authors must contend with an ever-increasing lexicon of review type articles. In 2009 Grant and colleagues conducted a typology of reviews to aid readers makes sense of the different review types, listing fourteen different ways of conducting reviews, not all of which are mutually exclusive. 3 Interestingly, in their typology they did not include narrative reviews which are often used by authors in health professions education. In Table 1 , we offer a short description of three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ.

Three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ

More recently, authors such as Greenhalgh 4 have drawn attention to the perceived hierarchy of systematic reviews over scoping and narrative reviews. Like Greenhalgh, 4 we argue that systematic reviews are not to be seen as the gold standard of all reviews. Instead, it is important to align the method of review to what the authors hope to achieve, and pursue the review rigorously, according to the tenets of the chosen review type. Sometimes it is helpful to read part of the literature on your topic before deciding on a methodology for organizing and assessing its usefulness. Importantly, whether you are conducting a review or reading reviews, appreciating the differences between different types of reviews can also help you weigh the author’s interpretation of their findings.

In the next section we summarize some general tips for conducting successful reviews.

How to write and review a review article

In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are conducting. Systematic reviews tend to address very focused questions often summarizing the evidence of your topic. Other types of reviews tend to have broader questions and are more exploratory in nature.

Following your question, choose an approach and plan your methods to match your question…just like you would for a research study. Fortunately, there are guidelines for many types of reviews. As Cook points out the most important consideration is to be sure that the methods you follow lead to a defensible answer to your review question. To help you prepare for a defensible answer there are many guides available. For systematic reviews consult PRISMA guidelines ; 13 for scoping reviews PRISMA-ScR ; 14 and SANRA 15 for narrative reviews. It is also important to explain to readers why you have chosen to conduct a review. You may be introducing a new way for addressing an old problem, drawing links across literatures, filling in gaps in our knowledge about a phenomenon or educational practice. Cook refers to this as setting the stage. Linking back to the literature is important. In systematic reviews for example, you must be clear in explaining how your review builds on existing literature and previous reviews. This is your opportunity to be critical. What are the gaps and limitations of previous reviews? So, how will your systematic review resolve the shortcomings of previous work? In other types of reviews, such as narrative reviews, its less about filling a specific knowledge gap, and more about generating new research topic areas, exposing blind spots in our thinking, or making creative new links across issues. Whatever, type of review paper you are working on, the next steps are ones that can be applied to any scholarly writing. Be clear and offer insight. What is your main message? A review is more than just listing studies or referencing literature on your topic. Lead your readers to a convincing message. Provide commentary and interpretation for the studies in your review that will help you to inform your conclusions. For systematic reviews, Cook’s final tip is most likely the most important– report completely. You need to explain all your methods and report enough detail that readers can verify the main findings of each study you review. The most common reasons CMEJ reviewers recommend to decline a review article is because authors do not follow these last tips. In these instances authors do not provide the readers with enough detail to substantiate their interpretations or the message is not clear. Our recommendation for writing a great review is to ensure you have followed the previous tips and to have colleagues read over your paper to ensure you have provided a clear, detailed description and interpretation.

Finally, we leave you with some resources to guide your review writing. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 We look forward to seeing your future work. One thing is certain, a better appreciation of what different reviews provide to the field will contribute to more purposeful exploration of the literature and better manuscript writing in general.

In this issue we present many interesting and worthwhile papers, two of which are, in fact, reviews.

Major Contributions

A chance for reform: the environmental impact of travel for general surgery residency interviews by Fung et al. 18 estimated the CO 2 emissions associated with traveling for residency position interviews. Due to the high emissions levels (mean 1.82 tonnes per applicant), they called for the consideration of alternative options such as videoconference interviews.

Understanding community family medicine preceptors’ involvement in educational scholarship: perceptions, influencing factors and promising areas for action by Ward and team 19 identified barriers, enablers, and opportunities to grow educational scholarship at community-based teaching sites. They discovered a growing interest in educational scholarship among community-based family medicine preceptors and hope the identification of successful processes will be beneficial for other community-based Family Medicine preceptors.

Exploring the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: an international cross-sectional study of medical learners by Allison Brown and team 20 studied the impact of COVID-19 on medical learners around the world. There were different concerns depending on the levels of training, such as residents’ concerns with career timeline compared to trainees’ concerns with the quality of learning. Overall, the learners negatively perceived the disruption at all levels and geographic regions.

The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment? by Susan Humphrey-Murto and co-authors 21 considered factors that lead to the publication of studies supported by local medical education grants. They identified several factors associated with publication success, including previous oral or poster presentations. They hope their results will be valuable for Canadian centres with local grant programs.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical learner wellness: a needs assessment for the development of learner wellness interventions by Stephana Cherak and team 22 studied learner-wellness in various training environments disrupted by the pandemic. They reported a negative impact on learner wellness at all stages of training. Their results can benefit the development of future wellness interventions.

Program directors’ reflections on national policy change in medical education: insights on decision-making, accreditation, and the CanMEDS framework by Dore, Bogie, et al. 23 invited program directors to reflect on the introduction of the CanMEDS framework into Canadian postgraduate medical education programs. Their survey revealed that while program directors (PDs) recognized the necessity of the accreditation process, they did not feel they had a voice when the change occurred. The authors concluded that collaborations with PDs would lead to more successful outcomes.

Experiential learning, collaboration and reflection: key ingredients in longitudinal faculty development by Laura Farrell and team 24 stressed several elements for effective longitudinal faculty development (LFD) initiatives. They found that participants benefited from a supportive and collaborative environment while trying to learn a new skill or concept.

Brief Reports

The effect of COVID-19 on medical students’ education and wellbeing: a cross-sectional survey by Stephanie Thibaudeau and team 25 assessed the impact of COVID-19 on medical students. They reported an overall perceived negative impact, including increased depressive symptoms, increased anxiety, and reduced quality of education.

In Do PGY-1 residents in Emergency Medicine have enough experiences in resuscitations and other clinical procedures to meet the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum? Meshkat and co-authors 26 recorded the number of adult medical resuscitations and clinical procedures completed by PGY1 Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Emergency Medicine residents to compare them to the Competence by Design requirements. Their study underscored the importance of monitoring collection against pre-set targets. They concluded that residency program curricula should be regularly reviewed to allow for adequate clinical experiences.

Rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults by Anita Cheng and team 27 studied whether rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults helped residents prepare for difficult conversations with parents expecting complications with their baby before birth. They found that while rehearsal simulation improved residents’ confidence and communication techniques, it did not prepare them for unexpected parent responses.

Review Papers and Meta-Analyses

Peer support programs in the fields of medicine and nursing: a systematic search and narrative review by Haykal and co-authors 28 described and evaluated peer support programs in the medical field published in the literature. They found numerous diverse programs and concluded that including a variety of delivery methods to meet the needs of all participants is a key aspect for future peer-support initiatives.

Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review by Bahji et al. 6 identified addiction interventions to build competency for psychiatry residents and fellows. They found that current psychiatry entrustable professional activities need to be better identified and evaluated to ensure sustained competence in addictions.

Six ways to get a grip on leveraging the expertise of Instructional Design and Technology professionals by Chen and Kleinheksel 29 provided ways to improve technology implementation by clarifying the role that Instructional Design and Technology professionals can play in technology initiatives and technology-enhanced learning. They concluded that a strong collaboration is to the benefit of both the learners and their future patients.

In his article, Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process, 30 Simon Field provided guidelines for maximizing opportunities for successful promotion experiences. His seven tips included creating a rubric for both self-assessment of likeliness of success and adjudication by the committee.

Six ways to get a grip on your first health education leadership role by Stasiuk and Scott 31 provided tips for considering a health education leadership position. They advised readers to be intentional and methodical in accepting or rejecting positions.

Re-examining the value proposition for Competency-Based Medical Education by Dagnone and team 32 described the excitement and controversy surrounding the implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) by Canadian postgraduate training programs. They proposed observing which elements of CBME had a positive impact on various outcomes.

You Should Try This

In their work, Interprofessional culinary education workshops at the University of Saskatchewan, Lieffers et al. 33 described the implementation of interprofessional culinary education workshops that were designed to provide health professions students with an experiential and cooperative learning experience while learning about important topics in nutrition. They reported an enthusiastic response and cooperation among students from different health professional programs.

In their article, Physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal education: an innovative approach to teach medical students musculoskeletal assessment techniques, Boulila and team 34 described the implementation of physiotherapist-led workshops, whether the workshops increased medical students’ musculoskeletal knowledge, and if they increased confidence in assessment techniques.

Instagram as a virtual art display for medical students by Karly Pippitt and team 35 used social media as a platform for showcasing artwork done by first-year medical students. They described this shift to online learning due to COVID-19. Using Instagram was cost-saving and widely accessible. They intend to continue with both online and in-person displays in the future.

Adapting clinical skills volunteer patient recruitment and retention during COVID-19 by Nazerali-Maitland et al. 36 proposed a SLIM-COVID framework as a solution to the problem of dwindling volunteer patients due to COVID-19. Their framework is intended to provide actionable solutions to recruit and engage volunteers in a challenging environment.

In Quick Response codes for virtual learner evaluation of teaching and attendance monitoring, Roxana Mo and co-authors 37 used Quick Response (QR) codes to monitor attendance and obtain evaluations for virtual teaching sessions. They found QR codes valuable for quick and simple feedback that could be used for many educational applications.

In Creation and implementation of the Ottawa Handbook of Emergency Medicine Kaitlin Endres and team 38 described the creation of a handbook they made as an academic resource for medical students as they shift to clerkship. It includes relevant content encountered in Emergency Medicine. While they intended it for medical students, they also see its value for nurses, paramedics, and other medical professionals.

Commentary and Opinions

The alarming situation of medical student mental health by D’Eon and team 39 appealed to medical education leaders to respond to the high numbers of mental health concerns among medical students. They urged leaders to address the underlying problems, such as the excessive demands of the curriculum.

In the shadows: medical student clinical observerships and career exploration in the face of COVID-19 by Law and co-authors 40 offered potential solutions to replace in-person shadowing that has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They hope the alternatives such as virtual shadowing will close the gap in learning caused by the pandemic.

Letters to the Editor

Canadian Federation of Medical Students' response to “ The alarming situation of medical student mental health” King et al. 41 on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (CFMS) responded to the commentary by D’Eon and team 39 on medical students' mental health. King called upon the medical education community to join the CFMS in its commitment to improving medical student wellbeing.

Re: “Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology” 42 was written by Kirubarajan in response to the article by Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology by Black and team. 43 Kirubarajan applauded the development of the podcast to meet a need in medical education, and suggested potential future topics such as interventions to prevent learner burnout.

Response to “First year medical student experiences with a clinical skills seminar emphasizing sexual and gender minority population complexity” by Kumar and Hassan 44 acknowledged the previously published article by Biro et al. 45 that explored limitations in medical training for the LGBTQ2S community. However, Kumar and Hassen advocated for further progress and reform for medical training to address the health requirements for sexual and gender minorities.

In her letter, Journey to the unknown: road closed!, 46 Rosemary Pawliuk responded to the article, Journey into the unknown: considering the international medical graduate perspective on the road to Canadian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic, by Gutman et al. 47 Pawliuk agreed that international medical students (IMGs) do not have adequate formal representation when it comes to residency training decisions. Therefore, Pawliuk challenged health organizations to make changes to give a voice in decision-making to the organizations representing IMGs.

In Connections, 48 Sara Guzman created a digital painting to portray her approach to learning. Her image of a hand touching a neuron showed her desire to physically see and touch an active neuron in order to further understand the brain and its connections.

How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

Did you know that article reviews are not just academic exercises but also a valuable skill in today's information age? In a world inundated with content, being able to dissect and evaluate articles critically can help you separate the wheat from the chaff. Whether you're a student aiming to excel in your coursework or a professional looking to stay well-informed, mastering the art of writing article reviews is an invaluable skill.

Short Description

In this article, our research paper writing service experts will start by unraveling the concept of article reviews and discussing the various types. You'll also gain insights into the art of formatting your review effectively. To ensure you're well-prepared, we'll take you through the pre-writing process, offering tips on setting the stage for your review. But it doesn't stop there. You'll find a practical example of an article review to help you grasp the concepts in action. To complete your journey, we'll guide you through the post-writing process, equipping you with essential proofreading techniques to ensure your work shines with clarity and precision!

What Is an Article Review: Grasping the Concept 

A review article is a type of professional paper writing that demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.

If you write a scientific review, you have to use database searches to portray the research. Your primary goal is to summarize everything and present a clear understanding of the topic you've been working on.

Writing Involves:

• Summarization, classification, analysis, critiques, and comparison.
• The analysis, evaluation, and comparison require the use of theories, ideas, and research relevant to the subject area of the article.
• It is also worth nothing if a review does not introduce new information, but instead presents a response to another writer's work.
• Check out other samples to gain a better understanding of how to review the article.

Types of Review

When it comes to article reviews, there's more than one way to approach the task. Understanding the various types of reviews is like having a versatile toolkit at your disposal. In this section, we'll walk you through the different dimensions of review types, each offering a unique perspective and purpose. Whether you're dissecting a scholarly article, critiquing a piece of literature, or evaluating a product, you'll discover the diverse landscape of article reviews and how to navigate it effectively.

Journal Article Review

Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.

Research Article Review

Distinguished by its focus on research methodologies, a research article review scrutinizes the techniques used in a study and evaluates them in light of the subsequent analysis and critique. For instance, when reviewing a research article on the effects of a new drug, the reviewer would delve into the methods employed to gather data and assess their reliability.

Science Article Review

In the realm of scientific literature, a science article review encompasses a wide array of subjects. Scientific publications often provide extensive background information, which can be instrumental in conducting a comprehensive analysis. For example, when reviewing an article about the latest breakthroughs in genetics, the reviewer may draw upon the background knowledge provided to facilitate a more in-depth evaluation of the publication.

Need a Hand From Professionals?

Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!

Formatting an Article Review

The format of the article should always adhere to the citation style required by your professor. If you're not sure, seek clarification on the preferred format and ask him to clarify several other pointers to complete the formatting of an article review adequately.

How Many Publications Should You Review?

• In what format should you cite your articles (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)?
• What length should your review be?
• Should you include a summary, critique, or personal opinion in your assignment?
• Do you need to call attention to a theme or central idea within the articles?
• Does your instructor require background information?

When you know the answers to these questions, you may start writing your assignment. Below are examples of MLA and APA formats, as those are the two most common citation styles.

Using the APA Format

Articles appear most commonly in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. If you write an article review in the APA format, you will need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use:

• Web : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
• Journal : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
• Newspaper : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

Using MLA Format

• Web : Last, First Middle Initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
• Newspaper : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print.
• Journal : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.

Enhance your writing effortlessly with EssayPro.com , where you can order an article review or any other writing task. Our team of expert writers specializes in various fields, ensuring your work is not just summarized, but deeply analyzed and professionally presented. Ideal for students and professionals alike, EssayPro offers top-notch writing assistance tailored to your needs. Elevate your writing today with our skilled team at your article review writing service !

The Pre-Writing Process

Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you unsure of where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages from our dissertation services to get you started:

Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow:

• Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
• Define the positive points — identify the strong aspects, ideas, and insightful observations the author has made.
• Find the gaps —- determine whether or not the author has any contradictions, gaps, or inconsistencies in the article and evaluate whether or not he or she used a sufficient amount of arguments and information to support his or her ideas.
• Identify unanswered questions — finally, identify if there are any questions left unanswered after reading the piece.

Step 2: Move on and review the article. Here is a small and simple guide to help you do it right:

• Start off by looking at and assessing the title of the piece, its abstract, introductory part, headings and subheadings, opening sentences in its paragraphs, and its conclusion.
• First, read only the beginning and the ending of the piece (introduction and conclusion). These are the parts where authors include all of their key arguments and points. Therefore, if you start with reading these parts, it will give you a good sense of the author's main points.
• Finally, read the article fully.

These three steps make up most of the prewriting process. After you are done with them, you can move on to writing your own review—and we are going to guide you through the writing process as well.

Outline and Template

As you progress with reading your article, organize your thoughts into coherent sections in an outline. As you read, jot down important facts, contributions, or contradictions. Identify the shortcomings and strengths of your publication. Begin to map your outline accordingly.

If your professor does not want a summary section or a personal critique section, then you must alleviate those parts from your writing. Much like other assignments, an article review must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Thus, you might consider dividing your outline according to these sections as well as subheadings within the body. If you find yourself troubled with the pre-writing and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.

Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:

• Pre-Title Page - Before diving into your review, start with essential details: article type, publication title, and author names with affiliations (position, department, institution, location, and email). Include corresponding author info if needed.
• Running Head - In APA format, use a concise title (under 40 characters) to ensure consistent formatting.
• Summary Page - Optional but useful. Summarize the article in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology, avoiding verbatim text or references.
• Title Page - Include the full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
• Introduction - Set the stage with an engaging overview of the article.
• Body - Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
• Works Cited/References - Properly cite all sources used in your review.
• Optional Suggested Reading Page - If permitted, suggest further readings for in-depth exploration.
• Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor) - Include visuals when requested by your professor for clarity.

Example of an Article Review

You might wonder why we've dedicated a section of this article to discuss an article review sample. Not everyone may realize it, but examining multiple well-constructed examples of review articles is a crucial step in the writing process. In the following section, our essay writing service experts will explain why.

Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:

• To get you introduced to the key works of experts in your field.
• To help you identify the key people engaged in a particular field of science.
• To help you define what significant discoveries and advances were made in your field.
• To help you unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of your field—which contributes to finding fresh solutions.
• To help you find solid references and arguments for your own review.
• To help you generate some ideas about any further field of research.
• To help you gain a better understanding of the area and become an expert in this specific field.
• To get a clear idea of how to write a good review.

View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!

Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?

Steps for Writing an Article Review

Here is a guide with critique paper format on how to write a review paper:

Step 1: Write the Title

First of all, you need to write a title that reflects the main focus of your work. Respectively, the title can be either interrogative, descriptive, or declarative.

Step 2: Cite the Article

Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper. For example, an article citation in the MLA style should look as follows:

Author's last and first name. "The title of the article." Journal's title and issue(publication date): page(s). Print

Abraham John. "The World of Dreams." Virginia Quarterly 60.2(1991): 125-67. Print.

Step 3: Article Identification

After your citation, you need to include the identification of your reviewed article:

• Title of the article
• Title of the journal
• Year of publication

All of this information should be included in the first paragraph of your paper.

The report "Poverty increases school drop-outs" was written by Brian Faith – a Health officer – in 2000.

Step 4: Introduction

Your organization in an assignment like this is of the utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you should outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts coherently.

• If you are wondering how to start an article review, begin with an introduction that mentions the article and your thesis for the review.
• Follow up with a summary of the main points of the article.
• Highlight the positive aspects and facts presented in the publication.
• Critique the publication by identifying gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions.

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Make a summary of the article by revisiting what the author has written about. Note any relevant facts and findings from the article. Include the author's conclusions in this section.

Step 6: Critique It

Present the strengths and weaknesses you have found in the publication. Highlight the knowledge that the author has contributed to the field. Also, write about any gaps and/or contradictions you have found in the article. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge. Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article.

Step 7: Craft a Conclusion

In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study. Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:

• As you read the article, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they used to support that argument.
• While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point. This is best done using direct quotations.
• Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly. Take time to analyze the article adequately.
• Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation, use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article.
• Re-read your piece a day after you finish writing it. This will help you to spot grammar mistakes and to notice any flaws in your organization.
• Use a spell-checker and get a second opinion on your paper.

The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work

Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.

To proofread your paper properly, start by reading it fully and checking the following points:

• Punctuation
• Other mistakes

Afterward, take a moment to check for any unnecessary information in your paper and, if found, consider removing it to streamline your content. Finally, double-check that you've covered at least 3-4 key points in your discussion.

And remember, if you ever need help with proofreading, rewriting your essay, or even want to buy essay , our friendly team is always here to assist you.

Need an Article REVIEW WRITTEN?

Just send us the requirements to your paper and watch one of our writers crafting an original paper for you.

What Is A Review Article?

How to write an article review, how to write an article review in apa format.

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

Related Articles

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Published: 01 October 2023

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

• Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
• Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
• Hypothesis or aims of the study
• Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

• What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
• What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
• Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
• Were there any obvious biases?
• If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

• There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
• Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
• The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

• Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Sarah Vogel View profile

Help and feedback, publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

How to Write an Effective Article Review – Updated 2024 Guide

Purpose of an Article Review

Importance of writing an effective review, read the article thoroughly, identify the main arguments, take notes on key points.

• Evaluate the Author's Credibility
• Assess the Article's Structure and Organization

Examine the Use of Evidence and Examples

Write a concise summary of the article.

• Include the Article's Main Points

Avoid Personal Opinions in the Summary

Identify strengths and weaknesses.

• Evaluate the Article's Logic and Reasoning
• Discuss the Article's Impact and Relevance

Start with an Engaging Introduction

Provide a brief overview of the article.

• Critique the Article's Strengths and Weaknesses

Offer Suggestions for Improvement

Conclude with a summary and recommendation, check for grammar and spelling errors, ensure clarity and coherence of writing, revise for proper formatting and citations, review the overall structure and flow, make final edits and revisions, submit the article review.

Writing an article review can be a challenging task, but it is an essential skill for academics, researchers, and anyone who needs to critically evaluate published work. An article review is a written piece that provides a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of a scholarly article, book, or other published material. It goes beyond a simple summary by offering a critical assessment of the work’s strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution to the field. In this blog post, we will explore the steps involved in writing an effective article review.

        I.            Introduction

The primary purpose of an article review is to provide a critical evaluation of a published work. It serves as a means of engaging with the ideas and arguments presented by the author(s) and assessing their validity, significance, and potential impact on the field. An article review allows the reviewer to analyze the work’s merits, identify its limitations, and offer constructive feedback or suggestions for further research or discussion.

Writing an effective article review is crucial for several reasons. First, it demonstrates the reviewer’s ability to critically analyze and synthesize complex information. This skill is highly valued in academic and professional settings, where critical thinking and analytical skills are essential . Second, article reviews contribute to the ongoing scholarly discourse by providing informed perspectives and critiques that can shape future research and discussions. Finally, well-written article reviews can help readers determine whether a particular work is worth reading or exploring further, making them valuable resources for researchers and scholars in the field.

     II.            Understanding the Article

The first step in writing an article review is to read the article carefully and thoroughly. This may seem obvious, but it is crucial to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the work before attempting to critique it. During the initial reading, focus on grasping the main arguments, key points, and the overall structure of the article. Take note of any unfamiliar concepts, terminology, or references that may require further research or clarification.

As you read the article, pay close attention to the author’s central arguments or thesis statements. Identify the main claims, hypotheses, or research questions that the article attempts to address. Understanding the core arguments is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of the author’s reasoning and the validity of their conclusions.

While reading the article, it is helpful to take notes on the key points, supporting evidence, and any critical or thought-provoking ideas presented by the author(s). These notes will serve as a reference when you begin writing the review and will help you organize your thoughts and critique more effectively.

  III.            Analyzing the Article

Evaluate the author’s credibility.

When analyzing an article, it is essential to consider the author’s credibility and expertise in the field. Research the author’s background, qualifications, and previous publications to assess their authority on the subject matter. This information can provide valuable context and help you determine the weight and reliability of the arguments presented in the article.

Assess the Article’s Structure and Organization

Evaluate the overall structure and organization of the article. Is the information presented in a logical and coherent manner? Does the article follow a clear progression from introduction to conclusion? Assessing the structure can help you determine whether the author has effectively communicated their ideas and arguments.

Critically examine the evidence and examples used by the author(s) to support their arguments. Are the sources credible and up-to-date? Are the examples relevant and well-chosen? Evaluating the quality and appropriateness of the evidence can help you assess the strength and validity of the author’s claims.

  IV.            Summarizing the Article

Before delving into your critique, it is essential to provide a concise summary of the article . This summary should briefly outline the article’s main arguments, key points, and conclusions. The goal is to give the reader a clear understanding of the article’s content without adding any personal opinions or critiques at this stage.

Include the Article’s Main Points

In your summary, be sure to include the article’s main points and the evidence or examples used to support them. This will help the reader understand the context and the basis for the author’s arguments, which is crucial for your subsequent critique.

When summarizing the article, it is important to remain objective and avoid injecting personal opinions or critiques. The summary should be a neutral representation of the article’s content, leaving the analysis and evaluation for the critique section.

    V.            Critiquing the Article

After providing a summary, it is time to analyze and critique the article. Begin by identifying the article’s strengths and weaknesses . Strengths may include well-reasoned arguments, thorough research, innovative ideas, or significant contributions to the field. Weaknesses could include flawed logic, lack of evidence, oversimplification of complex issues, or failure to address counterarguments.

Evaluate the Article’s Logic and Reasoning

Carefully evaluate the author’s logic and reasoning throughout the article. Are the arguments well-supported and logically consistent? Do the conclusions follow naturally from the evidence presented? Identify any logical fallacies, contradictions, or gaps in reasoning that may undermine the author’s arguments.

Discuss the Article’s Impact and Relevance

Consider the article’s potential impact and relevance within the broader context of the field. How does it contribute to existing knowledge or challenge prevailing theories? Does it open up new avenues for research or discussion? Discussing the article’s impact and relevance can help readers understand its significance and importance.

  VI.            Writing the Article Review

Begin your article review with an engaging introduction that captures the reader’s attention and provides context for the review. Briefly introduce the article, its author(s), and the main topic or research area. You can also include a concise thesis statement that summarizes your overall evaluation or critique of the article.

After the introduction, provide a brief overview or summary of the article. This should be a condensed version of the summary you wrote earlier, highlighting the article’s main arguments, key points, and conclusions. Keep this section concise and focused, as the main critique will follow.

Critique the Article’s Strengths and Weaknesses

In the critique section, present your analysis of the article’s strengths and weaknesses. Discuss the author’s use of evidence, the validity of their arguments, and the overall quality of their reasoning. Support your critique with specific examples and references from the article. Be sure to provide balanced criticism, acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects of the work.

In addition to critiquing the article , consider offering constructive suggestions for improvement. These suggestions could address areas where the author’s arguments were weak or where additional research or discussion is needed. Your suggestions should be specific and actionable, aimed at enhancing the quality and impact of the work.

Conclude your article review by summarizing your main points and providing an overall recommendation or final assessment of the article. This recommendation could be to read or not read the article, to use it as a reference in a specific context, or to consider it as a starting point for further research or discussion.

VII.            Editing and Proofreading

After you have completed your initial draft, it is essential to carefully proofread and edit your work. Check for any grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, or typos that may have been overlooked during the writing process. These small errors can detract from the overall quality and professionalism of your review.

In addition to checking for mechanical errors , ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and coherent. Review your sentences and paragraphs for clarity, and make sure that your ideas flow logically from one point to the next. Avoid ambiguous or confusing language that could make your critique difficult to understand.

Depending on the specific requirements or guidelines for your article review, you may need to revise your work to ensure proper formatting and citation styles. Check that you have correctly cited any references or quotes from the article you are reviewing, and that your formatting (e.g., headings, spacing, font) adheres to the specified guidelines.

VIII.            Finalizing the Review

Before finalizing your article review , take a step back and review the overall structure and flow of your writing. Ensure that your introduction effectively sets the stage for your critique, and that your body paragraphs logically build upon one another, leading to a well-supported conclusion.

During this final review, consider whether your critique is balanced and objective, presenting both the strengths and weaknesses of the article in a fair and impartial manner. Also, check that you have provided sufficient evidence and examples to support your analysis and that your arguments are clearly articulated.

After reviewing the overall structure and flow, make any necessary final edits and revisions to your article review. This might involve reorganizing or reworking certain sections for better clarity, strengthening your arguments with additional evidence, or refining your writing style for greater impact.

Pay close attention to your choice of words and tone, ensuring that your critique remains respectful and professional, even when addressing the article’s shortcomings. Remember, the goal is to provide a constructive and well-reasoned analysis, not to disparage or attack the author’s work.

Once you are satisfied with your article review, it is time to submit it according to the appropriate guidelines or requirements . This might involve formatting your work in a specific style, adhering to word count or page limits, or following specific submission procedures.

If your article review is intended for publication, be sure to follow the guidelines provided by the journal or publication outlet. This may include submitting your work through an online portal, adhering to specific formatting requirements, or including additional materials such as an abstract or author biography.

Congratulations! By following these steps, you have successfully written a comprehensive and effective article review. Remember, the process of critically evaluating published work is an essential skill that not only demonstrates your ability to analyze and synthesize complex information but also contributes to the ongoing scholarly discourse within your field.

Writing an article review can be a challenging task, but it is a valuable exercise that sharpens your critical thinking, analytical, and communication skills. By carefully reading and understanding the article, assessing its strengths and weaknesses, and providing a well-reasoned critique, you contribute to the advancement of knowledge and foster a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

So, embrace the opportunity to write article reviews, and use each one as a platform to engage with the ideas and arguments presented by scholars and researchers. Your thoughtful and insightful critiques can shape future research, inspire new perspectives, and ultimately drive progress within your field of study.

• RESEARCH PAPER FOR SALE
• RESEARCH PAPER WRITER
• RESEARCH PROPOSAL WRITING SERVICES
• SCHOLARSHIP ESSAY HELP
• SPEECH HELP
• STATISTICS HOMEWORK HELP
• TERM PAPER WRITING HELP
• THESIS EDITING SERVICES
• THESIS PROPOSAL WRITING SERVICE
• TRIGONOMETRY HOMEWORK HELP
• ADMISSION ESSAY WRITING HELP
• BIOLOGY PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• BOOK REPORT WRITING HELP
• BUY BOOK REVIEW
• BUY COURSEWORKS
• BUY DISCUSSION POST
• BUY TERM PAPER
• CAPSTONE PROJECT WRITING SERVICE
• COURSEWORK WRITING SERVICE
• CRITIQUE MY ESSAY
• CUSTOM RESEARCH PAPER
• CUSTOMER CONDUCT
• DISSERTATION EDITING SERVICE
• DISSERTATION WRITERS
• DO MY DISSERTATION FOR ME
• DO MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
• EDIT MY PAPER
• English Research Paper Writing Service
• ENGLISH RESEARCH PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• ESSAY WRITING HELP
• ESSAYS FOR SALE
• GRADUATE PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• LAW ASSIGNMENT WRITING HELP
• MARKETING ASSIGNMENT WRITING HELP
• NON-PLAGIARIZED ESSAYS
• NURSING ASSIGNMENT HELP
• PAY FOR COURSEWORK
• PAY FOR ESSAYS
• PAY FOR LITERATURE REVIEW
• PAY FOR PAPERS
• PAY FOR RESEARCH PAPERS
• PERSONAL STATEMENT EDITING SERVICE
• PERSONAL STATEMENT WRITER
• PERSUASIVE ESSAY WRITING HELP
• PERSUASIVE ESSAY WRITING SERVICES
• PHD THESIS WRITING SERVICE
• PROOFREAD MY PAPER
• PSYCHOLOGY ESSAY WRITING SERVICES
• THESIS STATEMENT HELP
• WRITE MY ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR ME
• WRITE MY CASE STUDY
• WRITE MY DISCUSSION BOARD POST
• WRITE MY LAB REPORT

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Find top study documents

How to Critique an Article Right and Easy

Updated 15 Feb 2024

When an average person thinks about how to critique an article, they usually believe that the purpose is to find all the wrong points and be as critical as possible. Our guide helps to demystify the majority of questions related to the article critique. These basic rules, explanations, and an example can help you learn along. Even if you receive cryptic instructions from your college professor, our article critique guide will make things clearer as you continue!

What is an Article Critique?

In simple terms, an article critique is a type of essay writing where an author should provide sufficient, unbiased, critical evaluation of the article in question. Of course, it will involve at least a brief summary of the contents and information about the author's background (if it is necessary). Yet, it does not have to turn into a listing of the contents! Knowing how to summarize and critique an article means helping your audience see all the key points of the article along with the author's ideas, objectives, or major intentions. The main purpose of every article critique is to reveal the strengths and the weaknesses of the article by keeping the tone neutral in terms of personal considerations. Since it has to be written in formal language with a precise structure, one should follow the general academic pattern where analysis has the beginning or introduction, the body parts, and a strong conclusion that sums things up.

The trick is to read it more than once and describe how it makes you feel through the lens of academic objectives and the general academic value. Speaking of the purpose, composing an article critique, you have to describe the main ideas of the author. Provide a brief description of why it is important in your specific context. Next, remember to mention all the interesting aspects that help to reveal the value of the article. Finally, talk about the author's intention and vision regarding the subject. The final part of the article critique must offer a summary of the main purpose. Learning how to write a critique of an article, remember that your conclusion is the important part where you can let the audience know whether you agree or disagree with the author. It is the place to provide supporting thoughts and references either from the article or another academic source. Need a dissertation service ? Try us.

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step?

The writing process of the article critique is simpler than it seems. It is only necessary to know where to start and how to align your critique when you are dealing with complex academic writing. Therefore, follow these simple four steps as you learn how to do an article critique:

• Take Enough Time to Read The Article.  Such an approach is necessary to understand every idea described in your reading material. It may be challenging at times to understand it. Check it again or read it aloud to see if it makes more sense. When in doubt, you can consult similar sources or articles that further explain the subject. Consider the readability and clarity of the article as you criticize it.
• Take Notes.  When the article feels clear to you and you understand (more or less!) what it is about, it is high time to read it again in a bit different way and take notes to help yourself move along. For example, if you encounter something interesting or an argument that moves you, you should consider it as something that is worth being discussed. You can either quote the part or use it as argumentation to prove your point.
• Turn Your Notes Into Outline.  Your notes are there for a reason. You can implement them into your structure and use your points as the topic sentences as you discuss the important parts. As you let your article critique evolve, provide opinions or leave comments to help your audience understand things clearer.
• Your Opinion Comes Here.  This is where you should summarize your thoughts and explain whether you like the article or if it has too many weak and unclear parts. Of course, your ideas should be supported with a piece of clear evidence.

Remember that if you have used any other reference or consulted external information beyond the article in question, always mention it on your Bibliography / References page. Every part of your article critique should be written in a proper way and sometimes qualified dissertation help online is just what you need to keep all your worries aside.

Save your time! We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Learn About Article Critique Format & Structure

Unless it is specified otherwise, your article critique should follow this template:

• Outline.  This is what your introduction should look like since you have to provide background information about the article and explain the author's main points without turning it into a summary. Approach things from the critical point of view.
• Thesis Statement.  Your thesis statement should explain the value of the article or methodology if you are dealing with a research article critique.
• Article's Purpose.  This part is your body paragraphs part where you have to brainstorm the author's ideas and crash-test them against the common knowledge. See what is good, what is insufficient, and what parts are the most important for achieving a certain purpose set by the author.
• Additional References.  If you are dealing with a research article, it may be necessary to consult relevant external research papers to prove the importance and methodology of the article before you explain your opinion.
• Conclusion/Summary With Your Opinion.  The conclusion part of the article critique is usually the most challenging. It is where you have to explain your opinion. The trick is just saying how the article has made you feel, how it has helped you, or what flaws you have found,  always providing relevant evidence.

Without a doubt, you may have to provide a different structure, yet following the structure above is the perfect balance where you express both your findings, opinion, and the general variables. Remember that your article critique must cover not only the negative points that you encounter but the positive discoveries as well.

How to Write an Article Critique: Journal vs Research Article

The major difference between writing a research article critique and dealing with the general journal article is the approach that you have to take. As a rule, research articles represent empirical or primary sources. It means your critique style must consider the introduction provided by the author, the methods that have been used, the samples and surveys, the results of the certain research, and the discussion of the outcomes that have been achieved.

Now dealing with the general review articles that mostly represent secondary sources with an already included synthesis of certain information, you should work with the topic and its importance for the general audience. In other words, the purpose is always different. You should provide more of a summary than the analytical research work. Coming back to the research article critique,try to study the problem and see if the author makes some statement. Then, focus on review of the relevant literature, and hypothesis or research questions set by the author.

Remember to review the Bibliographical information if it is provided and explain whether it poses importance for the review and if all the information mentioned in the article has been properly referenced. Remember you should also provide references for your quotes and references in your article critique in relevant writing style (APA, MLA, or Chicago) to avoid possible plagiarism issues.

The Article Critique Example

As an example of the article, let us take " Contribution of Psychoacoustics and Neuroaudiology in Revealing Correlation of Mental Disorders With Central Auditory Processing Disorders " that has been presented in 2003 by V. Iliadou and S. Lakovides. Below is the short passage, an article critique sample that will help you get an idea of how it’s done:

The article represents interesting and innovative research in the field of Psychoacoustics by focusing not only on the aspects of Neuroaudiology but also dealing with the electrical activity of the auditory pathways. The authors have dealt with the challenges of Central Auditory Processing Disorders, meaning that the article relates to the field of Psychiatry. This particular MEDLINE research has been conducted by turning to over 564 papers to establish the methodology and sufficient samples to maintain the importance of psychoacoustic elements through the lens of neurological or mental disorders. What makes this research special is the use of various tests and experiments that have been done with the help of auditory simulation methods. All the sources provided are properly referenced and offer sufficient background regarding the reasons why particular scientific aspects have been highlighted. The authors provide a unique balance between psychoacoustic and electrophysiologic tests based on the type of lesion chosen. It must be noted that the various types of mental disorders have been taken into consideration to provide well-weighted research. The article meets its purpose of providing varied research based on the works of skilled experts in Psychiatry, Neurology, Neuropsychology, and Pediatric Psychology among other sciences. The value of the article also lies in the importance of addressing numerous learning challenges like dyslexia, ADHD, and autism differently because the auditory aspect is explored at greater depth. Although the educational factor is mentioned briefly as the article is more evidence-based, it leaves enough space for relevant scientific research.

As you can see, the purpose is to explain and show why the article is important and what exactly makes it special. Try offering related evidence from the critique article either with the quotes or by paraphrasing. 

Affordable & Reliable Writing an Article Critique Help

If the concept of article critique still seems too confusing to you or you would like to get your critique assignment checked in terms of clarity, style, or plagiarism, the help is out there. Regardless if you need to learn how to write an article review or struggle with critique writing, we know how to make things easier. Turn to our writers who are ready to help you 24/7. Keep your challenges resolved, meet the deadlines and avoid plagiarism. Just place your order with EduBirdie and let our professionals deal with even the most complex article critique or any other college task.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback, related blog posts, how to write a movie review for college.

If you wish to know how to write a movie review, then you are on the right page. A movie review forms part of essays college students writes. While...

How to Write an Article Review: Guide with Examples

When majority of students in the United States are faced with an assignment to write a review of an article, there are several reasons why it insta...

How to Write a College Paper Successfully

Writing a college paper is an undeniably challenging task. It is one of those chances you are expected to show your professors the kind of student ...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

How to Critique a Journal Article

Most scholars and practitioners are passionate about learning how to critique a journal article. Journal article critique is a formal evaluation of a journal article or any type of literary or scientific content. As a careful, complete examination of a study, journal article critique judges the strengths, weaknesses, logical links, meanings and significance of the content presented in an article. The core aim of performing a journal article critique is to show whether or not the arguments and facts that the author provided are reasonable to support their main points. A writer of a journal article critique is expected to identify a scientific article and subject it to a critical discussion based on their point of view, but following a set of conventional guidelines.

Features of a Good Article Critique

When doing a journal article, you are expected to do the following for each section of a research article :

• Explain what was done right with evidence from the journal article being critiqued.
• Explain what was not done right, possible reasons, and what ought to have been done.
• Explain what you think could have been done or what you could do to make it better.
• Given a brief recommendation for future researchers.

What this means is that you must first of all know exactly the nature of structure and content that you expect from a journal article. Without this knowledge, it will be difficult to critique a journal article and write a quality piece of writing from it. Having done these, your journal article critique will reflect the following characteristics.

i). It should have a unique opinion discussion

Article critique does not represent a simple summary of an article. Most students make a mistake of writing a mere summary of the research article after they read it. It is worth noting that journal articles already have summaries and that is not what readers actually want, but a unique opinion and discussion is what counts as a quality journal article critique.  

ii). Evidence

As a writer, you are not expected to provide just your impressions of the article, but also evidence that sets expressions as well. Of course you are not asked to write a new content, but as you write your viewpoint of it, it is critical to support them with evidence.

iii). Identification of the Main Idea

Ensure that you identify the main idea of the article. Each journal article is published to transmit a specific idea that gives it a purpose. Furthermore, remember to clarify the background and significance.

iv). Dual Direction

Do not focus only on the issues that a given article has raised, but also give attention to the important issues that it has left out. There could some content or explanations that you could expect a journal article to present, but that was left out. Explain it and tell the difference it could have caused.

Areas of Journal Article Critique

Article critique fundamentally focuses on evaluating all the sections of a an article to determine its consistency with the scientific research and writing standards. Thus, each section of an article is subjected to critique as follows:

Introduction

• Check the extent to which the title of the article interest and allow you to have an immediate idea of the content of the research.
• Identify the authors of the research article and/or parties that conducted the research is published.
• Identify and apprise the journal in which the article the article is published.
• Evaluate the introduction in terms of how it describes the purpose and background of the study.
• Explain if the research question is consistent with the purpose of the study.
• Recognize the potential effect of the research article to your current practice.

Literature Review

• Find out if the sources of literature review in the article are current (i.e published within the last 5-10 years).
• Evaluate the theories used in relation to relevance to the independent and dependent variables. Ask yourself if the theories explain the phenomenon under investigation.
• Check whether if the literature reviewed is relevant to the research (some content of the literature may be pulled randomly and may not reflect the variables of the study.  

Methodology

• Identify and explain the research design that enabled the creation of a journal article being critiqued.
• Check the research method that was adopted and evaluate its appropriateness to the research question and context. For example, questionnaires may not be appropriate among illiterate populations.
• Evaluate the method of sampling and explain if it is appropriate to the topic and population characteristics.
• Check the possibility of biases in the sample. If biased, explain the reason and what could be done to prevent biases from occurring.
• Appraise the size of the sample in relation to the population and desired significance levels.
• Identify and critique the tools that were used to collect data, procedures through which data was collected, and their validity, reliability and accuracy.
• Find out if the researchers got ethical approval to conduct the study and if not, why.
• Overall, explain if the methods of research have been explained adequately.

Results and Findings

• Check how data was analyzed.
• Briefly explain the main findings of the research.
• Evaluate the way in which results are displayed (Is it done in a clear and understandable manner?)
• Check if the authors have discussed the results in relation to the original problem they identified in the introduction section.
• Find out if the findings have been related to the literature review and consistencies/inconsistencies identified and explained. (Have the authors cited only the pertinent literature?)
• Check if the conclusion captures all aspects of the study from introduction to the end.
• Analyze the nature of conclusions presented and if they answer the research question.
• Analyze and explain the main strengths and weaknesses of the study.
• Identify what you think is the main limitations of the study and if they were identified by the authors.
• Check if the author(s) provided suggestions for future research.
• Go through the references and check if they consistently adhere to a given referencing style.

From the above discussion, it is evident that journal article critique is an involving activity that require active reading, developing an outline, questioning authors’ main points, identifying contradictions, writing down the content of the critique, and revising it to make it perfect. You can now practice by downloading a few articles and trying to critique them.  This will give you a good opportunity to learn from experience and perfect your article critique skills.

stratford-blog

Journal article publishing: typology of mixed methods types of legitimation, research paper publication in the information era, 10 comments.

Cancel reply

Your comment ...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Author Desk

• Author Guidelines
• Publication Charges
• Modes of Payment
• Review Process
• Ethics and Malpractice
• Online Submissions
• Procedure of Publication Process
• Copyright Agreement

DOI NO. 10.53819

Journal Indexing

Download Files

• Manuscript Template
• Journals Articles

Author’s Copyright

The author retains the copyright of the published manuscript.

2023 – 2024 IMPACT FACTOR

Availability of the published manuscript.

The published manuscript is available in both Online and in Print. Authors requiring hard-copy print of the issue in which their paper appears can make orders and this will be processed on demand.

• Peer review guide
• Submission guide
• Online Submission
• Journal Publication process
• Book Publication Process
• Business & Management
• Journal of Procurement & Supply Chain
• Journal of Finance and Accounting
• Journal of Strategic Management
• Journal of Entrepreneurship & Project Management
• Journal of Marketing and Communication
• Journal of Economics
• Social Sciences
• Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management
• Journal of Human Resource & Leadership
• Journal of Sociology, Psychology & Religious Studies
• Journal of Public Policy & Governance
• Journal of Education
• Information Technology
• Journal of Information and Technology
• Agriculture
• Journal of Agriculture
• Medicine & Healthcare
• Journal of Medicine, Nursing & Public Health
• Journal of pharmacy & Biochemistry
• Life Sciences
• Journal of Biological Sciences
• Editorial board
• Journal System
• Journals Store
• Books store
• Submission: [email protected]

You cannot copy or paste content on this page.

Article Critique Maker: Create Your Perfect Paper + Guide & Examples

Writing a great article critique is an assignment requiring well-developed critical thinking skills and structured analysis. Our team has developed a proprietary research article critique generator to simplify this task. This tool can make your study life easier, as it will streamline the article evaluation and paper writing process.

Without further ado, let’s find out more about the tool and critique writing in general!

• 👨‍💻 Intro to Our AI Tool
• ✨ Benefits of Critique Maker

🧐 What Is an Article Critique?

• 📚 How to Write an Article Critique
• 📑 Format & Structure
• ⚡ 9 Helpful Tips

🔗 References

👨‍💻 intro to our free ai article critique tool.

Critique writing refers to the process of forming and expressing your opinion about something. You can indicate what is good, what can be improved and why, and what is a failure in a specific academic paper. This intellectual exercise is similar to sharing your review of a movie you’ve just watched but in a very detailed and structured manner. Article critique should go far beyond the superficial content summary to be successful.

Further, we’d like to share how you can use our article critique maker and explain its benefits. You’ll also learn the fundamentals of article critique composition and the structure of this academic assignment.

✨ Benefits of Article Critique Maker

The research article critique generator has a lot of benefits, and it can become an indispensable assistant. You can use AI-generated content for your paper critique paper. Here are some of the pros:

Research Article Critique Generator: How It Works

Using our AI-powered article critique generator is pretty straightforward, even for newbies. Check out a couple of steps you should take to get the sample article critique product.

• Add article title . Mention the name of the article you need to analyze and criticize.
• Indicate the article’s author . Inform the tool about who wrote the article; it will use this information in the critique.
• Paste the text you want to analyze . Copy the full text of your article and insert it in the corresponding tab on the website. Mind the character limit it has for one-time critique generation.
• Generate the critique . Press the button “Analyze” and evaluate the results.

In a nutshell, an article critique is an academic task requiring the student to produce an in-depth critical analysis of the assigned article’s quality. You need to study the article inside out and perform its structured assessment according to a predetermined checklist.

As a rule, you need to start with whether the author could set a research goal and achieve it. Determine whether the article is qualitative or quantitative . Pay attention to how well-developed the methodology is and whether the author supports their statements with reliable and authoritative literature sources.

What Are the Two Types of Critique?

Article critique may be assigned in two forms – reviews of published works and academic critique . The difference between them is as follows. Academic critique is a task given within a course, inviting students to comment on the course curriculum or a peer’s essay writing product. Reviews of published works relate to critiquing the published literature, such as academic articles.

📚 How to Write a Good Article Critique Step by Step

This section will help you get ready for the article critique task. Using these simple steps, you can approach any article’s evaluation comprehensively and competently.

• Read the article . Thorough studies of the critiqued content are a mandatory initial step of the critique process. You need to know the material you will eventually judge, so a quick study of the abstract won’t do. You should prepare for the task by reading the article several times to understand every section and capture its content entirely.
• Evaluate and take notes . It’s not enough to read the article for basic comprehension; you also need to evaluate the quality of its content, the author’s logic, and the degree of success in their academic objectives. That’s why, after the first reading, you should study the article more critically and take notes of all the essential content parts you want to critique.
• Create an outline . Now that you have a list of notes for critiquing the source, you can structure your discovered material. Make an outline of the main critique aspects you plan to review and check for coherence and logic. Once you have covered all the main points, it’s time to start writing the paper.
• Express your opinion . Saying that the article is good or bad is a superficial critique. Try to add an individual dimension to the analysis. State why you found the article’s arguments solid or weak. Consider what the work might be missing and what you would add to increase the article's value in the professional field.

📑 Critique Writing: Format & Structure

In this section, we’re sharing the rules of formatting an article critique project. The proper structure of this work will aid you in logical and coherent written expression. Any critique paper example should contain the following components:

What Are the 5 Steps in Writing a Critique?

If you’re looking for a template for the critique writing process, here are the main steps:

• Preparation . Read the article twice to find out its general content and make notes.
• Outlining . Make an outline of your critique to use in further writing.
• Writing . Draft the article critique by following your outline and adding transitions .
• Proofreading . Check the paper before submission.

⚡ 9 Helpful Tips for Article Critique Writing

To become a critique writing pro, try these expert tips:

• Make your critique objective . It’s not professional to say that the article is a failure because you didn’t like it or, even worse, didn’t understand it. You should offer grounded claims for every aspect of the critique you’re making.
• Add a critical dimension . Summarizing is not a critique; you should be evaluative in the analysis to produce a well-written paper.
• Keep the critique informative . Assessments without substantiation will sound like empty talk. You should support every claim and every judgment with the article’s content.
• Make an informed critique of methods . The methodology is usually the most vulnerable spot of a study. So, if you offer a comprehensive critique of the research design and approach, your critique will look much better.
• Mention the project’s significance . You can earn a couple of extra points by going beyond mere evaluations and assessing the broader significance and implications of the assigned reading.
• Point to the strong and weak sides . Even if the article is flawed, you should point to its positives; it will prove that you have read the material in detail and managed to assess it comprehensively.
• Consider the author’s credentials . It also makes sense to add details about the author’s competence and professionalism in their discussion area.
• Check the author’s sources . The materials used in your studied article also define its quality, so go to the reference list to see what evidence the author used.
• Assess research novelty . Any critique should evaluate the study’s original contribution to the academic area.

What Are Examples of Critique?

Learning by example is always easier than studying theoretical guidance. If you’re determined to learn to write excellent critique papers, here are a couple of helpful samples:

• “The Future of Women and Work”
• “Women Status and the Health of Women and Men”
• “Refugee Trauma”
• “The Evolving Strategy of Policing”
• “Communication Styles in Websites”

Now, you’re more informed about how to compose an article critique. If you know somebody for whom this material would be helpful, feel free to share this article. Also, you may try our free AI essay generator . It may come in handy with your college assignments.

Updated: Jan 26th, 2024

• A Guide for Critique of Research Articles. – California State Iniversity Long Beach
• Critique/Review of Research Article. – University of Calgary
• Writing an Article Critique. – UAGC
• Critiquing Literature. – Flinders University
• Writing an Article/Journal Critique? Comprehensive Analysis Guide. – Sable Mc’Oneal, Medium
• How to Write a Critique (with Types and an Example). – Jennifer Herrity, Indeed
• Writing Critiques. – The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Helpful Hints for Writing a Critique. – James Madison University
• How to Write Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques. – Randolph Community College
• Free Essays
• Writing Tools
• Lit. Guides
• Donate a Paper
• Referencing Guides
• Free Textbooks
• Tongue Twisters
• Job Openings
• Expert Application
• Video Contest
• Writing Scholarship
• Discount Codes
• IvyPanda Shop
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Copyright Principles
• DMCA Request
• Service Notice

On this page, you will discover the article critique maker that will assist you in the world of scholarly analysis. This tool simplifies the process of critiquing research articles with a user-friendly touch. It will help you evaluate and unravel all nuances, strengths, and weaknesses to create an excellent paper.

Critique vs. Review

What's the difference.

Critique and review are two distinct forms of evaluation, often used in the context of analyzing a piece of work or providing feedback. While both involve assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a subject, they differ in their approach and purpose. A critique typically delves deeper into the analysis, focusing on the underlying concepts, theories, and methodologies employed in the work. It aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation, highlighting both the positive aspects and areas for improvement. On the other hand, a review tends to be more concise and opinion-based, summarizing the main points and offering a subjective judgment of the work's quality. Reviews often cater to a broader audience, providing a general overview and recommendation.

Further Detail

Introduction.

When it comes to evaluating various forms of art, literature, or any creative work, two commonly used methods are critique and review. While both critique and review involve analyzing and providing feedback on a particular piece, they differ in their approach, purpose, and level of depth. In this article, we will explore the attributes of critique and review, highlighting their similarities and differences, and understanding how they contribute to the overall understanding and improvement of creative works.

Definition and Purpose

Critique and review are both forms of evaluation, but they serve different purposes. A critique is an in-depth analysis of a creative work, focusing on its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. It aims to provide constructive feedback to the creator, helping them understand the underlying elements and potential areas for improvement. On the other hand, a review is a more general assessment of a work, often intended for a wider audience. It aims to inform and guide potential consumers or audience members, giving them an overview of the work's quality, content, and relevance.

Approach and Perspective

When it comes to the approach and perspective, critique and review also differ. A critique typically takes a more objective and analytical stance, delving into the technical aspects, thematic elements, and artistic choices of the work. It often involves a deeper understanding of the medium and its conventions, allowing the critic to provide a comprehensive analysis. On the other hand, a review tends to be more subjective, focusing on the reviewer's personal opinion and experience with the work. While it may touch upon technical aspects, it primarily aims to convey the reviewer's overall impression and whether they would recommend it to others.

Depth and Detail

One of the key distinctions between critique and review lies in the depth and detail of the analysis. A critique goes beyond surface-level observations, diving into the nuances and intricacies of the work. It explores the underlying themes, symbolism, character development, and narrative structure, among other elements. A critique often requires a deeper engagement with the work, multiple readings or viewings, and a comprehensive understanding of the creator's intentions. On the other hand, a review provides a more concise and condensed overview, focusing on the overall impression and key aspects that may interest the target audience. It may touch upon the plot, characters, writing style, or visual aesthetics, but it does not delve into the same level of detail as a critique.

Target Audience

Another aspect that sets critique and review apart is their target audience. A critique is primarily aimed at the creator or artist, providing them with valuable insights and suggestions for improvement. It assumes a certain level of knowledge and understanding of the creative process, allowing the critic to offer a more specialized analysis. On the other hand, a review is intended for a broader audience, including potential consumers, readers, or viewers. It aims to guide their decision-making process, helping them determine whether the work aligns with their preferences and interests.

Publication and Format

The publication and format of critique and review also differ. Critiques are often found in academic journals, specialized publications, or dedicated platforms that focus on critical analysis. They tend to be longer, more detailed, and written by experts or individuals with a deep understanding of the subject matter. Reviews, on the other hand, are commonly found in newspapers, magazines, online platforms, or even personal blogs. They are generally shorter, more accessible, and written by individuals who may or may not have expertise in the field but can provide an opinion that resonates with a wider audience.

Impact and Influence

Both critique and review have the potential to impact the creator and the audience, albeit in different ways. A well-executed critique can provide valuable insights and suggestions for improvement, helping the creator refine their work and grow as an artist. It can challenge their assumptions, highlight blind spots, and encourage experimentation. On the other hand, a review can influence the audience's perception and decision-making process. A positive review may attract more consumers or audience members, while a negative review can deter potential consumers or lead to a reevaluation of the work's quality.

In conclusion, while critique and review share the common goal of evaluating creative works, they differ in their approach, purpose, depth, and target audience. Critique provides an in-depth analysis, focusing on the creator's growth and improvement, while review offers a more general assessment, guiding the audience's decision-making process. Both forms of evaluation play a crucial role in the creative ecosystem, contributing to the understanding, development, and appreciation of various art forms.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

‘The Watchers’ Review: Ishana Night Shyamalan Directs a Glossy Woodland Horror Thriller. The Twist? The Film Is More Promising Than Good

Dakota Fanning is a lost soul trapped in a house in the woods in a thriller that's well-made (for a while), with a mythology that grows top-heavy.

By Owen Gleiberman

Owen Gleiberman

Chief Film Critic

• ‘McVeigh’ Review: A Drama About the Oklahoma City Bomber Has Low-Key Sociopathic Atmosphere to Spare 21 hours ago
• In 1999, ‘Run Lola Run’ Saw the Future. Rereleased 25 Years Later, the Film Is More Exhilarating Than Ever 3 days ago
• ‘The Watchers’ Review: Ishana Night Shyamalan Directs a Glossy Woodland Horror Thriller. The Twist? The Film Is More Promising Than Good 4 days ago

“ The Watchers ” is the first film directed by Ishana Night Shyamalan , the 24-year-old daughter of M. Night Shyamalan. Its title refers to a race of spindly ash-gray monsters who haunt an Irish woods, gathering at night around a concrete fortress where the film’s four characters have holed up in a state of semi-permanent refuge. The building has just one room, an entire wall of which is a two-way mirror through which the Watchers peer, all because..they like to watch.

Related Stories

What media & entertainment execs are saying about using gen ai: the vip+/harrisx spring 2024 survey, jojo siwa drinks from vodka bottle at l.a. pride and drags online troll who called her a man: 'i f---ed more girls than him', popular on variety.

Mina ( Dakota Fanning ), who vapes her way through her job at a pet store in Galway, is asked to deliver a talking orange parrot to a client in Belfast. During the trip, she drives through a sinister forest full of trees with tall straight thin trunks, only to get out and discover that her car has vanished, and that she’s now trapped. In the prelude sequence, we’ve already seen someone get sucked into a hole in the ground of this woods; we also saw a sign that says “Point of no return” coupled with a mysterious numeral (108).

Madeleine, a former professor of folklore, lays down the law, and there are plenty of them. At night, the characters must stand in a line in front of the mirror, so that the Watchers can gawk at them. During the day, they’re allowed to go outside, but can’t go past those “Point of no return” signs. They can’t go into the holes (though Mina, at one point, does, emerging with an old bicycle and several other artifacts). Yet even as I was trying to get the hang of the situation, I kept thinking of other, more basic questions, like: Where do the characters sleep? (The only furniture in the room is a red leather armchair and a lamp.) What do they eat? (There’s a reference to hunting, and we see a crow being killed, but the movie doesn’t get more specific than that.) And how do they pass the time without Wi-Fi?

Because, you see, they have been stuck in this house, known as the Coop, for a while. The brash Daniel (Oliver Finnegan) has been there for eight months, the more circumspect Ciara (Georgina Campbell) has been there for five months (it turns out her that her husband, John, disappeared — he was the victim in the opening scene), and Madeleine seems like she’s been there forever. She runs the place with an iron hand, so we know there’s more to her than meets the eye. Are these woodland survivors a cult that she’s the secret leader of?

Mina has a backstory of trauma, involving the death of her mother 15 years ago. It seems that she was not a well-behaved girl, and that she was acting up in the back seat of the car when her mother, trying to deal with her, smashed into another vehicle. So young Mina was responsible for her mother’s death. The reason this is relevant is that it connects with the backstory of the Watchers. They’re a race of fallen elves (or something), who covet humanity, but the more we learn about them the less interesting they become. That’s in part because they’re envisioned as tall, scaly-skinned beasts who scuttle around with that amplified liquid percussive sound that makes you go, “Oh, it’s Predator!” Not a lot of mystery there.

Reviewed at Dolby 88, New York, June 5, 2024. MPA Rating: PG-13. Running time: 102 MIN.

• Production: A Warner Bros. Pictures release of a New Line Cinema, Blinding Edge Pictures, Inimitable Pictures production. Producers: M. Night Shyamalan, Ashwin Rajan, Nomitt Mankad. Executive producers: Jo Homewood, Stephen Dembitzer.
• Crew: Director, screenplay: Ishana Night Shyamalan. Camera: Eli Arenson. Editor: Job ter Burg. Music: Abel Korzeniowski.
• With: Dakota Fanning, Georgina Campbell, Oliver Finnegan, Olwen Fouéré.

More from Variety

Youtube series ‘hot ones’ enters emmys talk series category, ‘chicken shop date’ and ‘good mythical morning’ on short form ballots (exclusive), 2024 streaming hits point way to post-peak tv ip strategy, youtube upfront: ceo says it’s ‘redefining’ tv, platform launches ad takeovers for top 1% of creators, the ad market is not ready for the imminent streaming sports boom, more from our brands, david gilmour sets first u.s. tour dates in eight years, the first vector v8 supercar ever built is up for grabs, nba raised $108m for two teams last week as debt declines to $6b, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, the acolyte premiere delivers 11.1 million views in first 5 days, biggest disney+ launch of 2024, verify it's you, please log in.

Advertisement

Supported by

Critic’s Pick

‘Appropriate’ Review: When Daddy Dies, a Disturbing Inheritance

Making a blistering Broadway debut, Branden Jacobs-Jenkins’s 2014 play about the legacies of hatred feels like a new work entirely.

• Share full article

By Jesse Green

This is the original review of the Broadway production of “Appropriate,” which concluded its run at the Helen Hayes Theater on March 3. The show has now transferred to the Belasco Theater , where it is scheduled to run through June 23. The cast is unchanged except that Ella Beatty has replaced Elle Fanning in the role of River.

Think of the worst person you know: the kind who blabs people’s secrets, mocks their diction, dismisses their pain while making festivals of her own. Throw in a tendency toward casual antisemitic slurs, for which she thinks she has a free pass, and a “What’s the big deal?” approach to racism.

Now add a deep wound and a wicked tongue and you’re almost partway to Antoinette Lafayette, the monster played by Sarah Paulson in the blistering revival of “ Appropriate ” that opened on Broadway on Monday. Recalling yet somehow outstripping the thrilling vileness of theatrical viragos like Martha in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” and Violet in “August: Osage County,” she is the burned-out core of a nuclear family reactor, taking no prisoners and taking no blame.

But even in Paulson’s eye-opening, sinus-clearing performance, Toni, as she’s called, doesn’t sum up the outrageousness of Branden Jacobs-Jenkins’s play, which has a deep wound and wicked tongue of its own . To get all the way to its sweet spot — and Lila Neugebauer’s production for Second Stage definitely gets there — you must further multiply Toni by her brothers, each awful in his own way.

Bo (Corey Stoll) is passive and entitled, content to let others fail as long as he can’t be faulted. Frank (Michael Esper) is a serial screw-up, the rare person for whom statutory rape is not the worst thing on his résumé. At the heart of their grievances is greed — Bo’s for money, Frank’s for forgiveness and Toni’s for revenge.

So when the three, accompanied by their assorted spouses, children, enablers and ghosts, gather in the grand dramatic tradition to dispose of their late father’s estate, you know things are going to explode. Indeed, as the curtain rises at the Helen Hayes Theater, it appears they already have. The Arkansas plantation house in which generations of the family have lived, in eyeshot of the cemetery where generations of their slaves are buried, is now a hellhole in spirit and fact. The once grand building is collapsing under the weight of centuries of evil and, more recently, decades of hoarding.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Services & Software

Article updated on February 26, 2024 at 8:45 AM PST

ExpressVPN Review 2024: Despite Setbacks, ExpressVPN Remains the Best VPN

We uncovered DNS leaks in ExpressVPN’s Windows app, but the company’s response showed why it’s a top pick.

Our Experts

We intensively test each VPN, making sure it meets our standards for privacy, speed and usability.

• Strong commitment to privacy and transparency
• Forward-thinking security enhancements
• Excellent for streaming
• Streamlined, easy-to-use app across platforms
• Privacy-friendly jurisdiction (British Virgin Islands)
• DNS leaks detected (but immediately addressed)
• Only eight simultaneous connections
• Apple TV app needs work

There are several big players in the virtual private network market jostling for the top spot on CNET’s list of the best VPNs available. It’s a close race, but ExpressVPN has proven itself worthy of maintaining the No. 1 position -- if only by a razor-thin margin ahead of Surfshark and NordVPN . Practically speaking, our top three VPNs are so close that the best choice for you would really depend on what you value most: speed, cost or privacy and transparency. 

If you’re looking for the best in terms of usability, along with a strong commitment to transparency and privacy -- or if you just want to discover a world of streaming content with a VPN that’s a breeze to use across all platforms -- then ExpressVPN should be your go-to service, scoring an industry-leading 8.8 in CNET’s evaluation. The catch is that you’ll have to pony up quite a bit more than you would for its more budget-friendly competitors , including Surfshark and PIA . But if the steeper price isn’t a deterrent, you’ll experience how ExpressVPN is one of the best and most powerful VPNs on the planet.

We ran an extensive battery of tests on ExpressVPN to see how it performs in terms of factors like speeds, privacy, usability, streaming and overall value. We ran more than 250 individual speed tests on multiple servers through various protocols and operating systems. We thoroughly tested ExpressVPN’s features on all platforms and operating systems we had at our disposal. We examined ExpressVPN’s privacy policy and looked at the provider’s audit history to assess its transparency efforts, and we tested its streaming capabilities on various platforms, server locations and streaming services. See here for more detail on how we test and rate VPNs at CNET .

There were a few bumps in the road with speeds and streaming on Apple TV, along with a much higher-stakes issue with DNS leaks in a certain edge case. We were happy with how quickly ExpressVPN engineers sprang into action to patch the DNS issue, but we’d like to see the VPN address the streaming and speed issues soon as well. 

Overall, ExpressVPN topped its competitors when evaluated for usability and received strong scores in privacy and transparency. While it scored lower on cost and speed (some competitors are cheaper or faster), what we’re left with is a VPN that’s sufficiently fast, easy to use, excellent for streaming, trustworthy and a leader in privacy and security, placing it first on CNET’s list of the best VPNs .

Speed: Windows OpenVPN speeds drag, but Lightway is lightning fast

• 24.8% speed loss in 2024 tests
• Number of servers: 3,000-plus
• Number of server locations: 105 countries

ExpressVPN’s overall speeds took a bit of a tumble in our latest tests. When connecting through a VPN, you have a choice of protocols, which are the set of instructions for your encrypted connection. ExpressVPN offers the OpenVPN protocol, which is highly secure and more proven, alongside its own open-source Lightway protocol that’s newer but generally offers faster speeds. 

Our Labs team in Louisville, Kentucky, tested ExpressVPN’s speeds through both OpenVPN and Lightway on MacOS as well as Windows. From the results of those tests, we calculated an average speed loss of 24.8% -- which is notably slower than the 18% speed loss we calculated last year. 

For comparison, other top providers logged average speed losses of 11% ( NordVPN ), 17% ( Surfshark ) and 36% ( Proton VPN ).

Unusually slow OpenVPN speeds on Windows were primarily to blame for the speed dip with ExpressVPN. We lost 48% of our base internet speeds when connecting through the OpenVPN protocol using the ExpressVPN app on Windows 11. Our experience was similar -- if not nearly as dramatic -- with Surfshark and NordVPN in recent speed tests, both of which also struggled to deliver speedy connections through OpenVPN on Windows. Both NordVPN and Surfshark were cutting our speeds by more than 75% when we connected through OpenVPN on Windows. NordVPN representatives told us that the issue stems from a recent Windows 11 update and affects all VPN providers that offer OpenVPN or L2TP protocols. Surfshark and NordVPN were able to resolve the issue and improve their Windows OpenVPN speeds and drop the speed loss to 28.5% and 18.5%, respectively. That’s considerably better than the 48% speed loss we calculated with ExpressVPN’s Windows app using OpenVPN. ExpressVPN told us that engineers are focusing their resources on Lightway over OpenVPN because 99% of ExpressVPN users use Lightway to connect. It is therefore unlikely that ExpressVPN’s OpenVPN speeds will improve much in the future, if at all. 

While OpenVPN can usually deliver a good balance of privacy and speed, it’s generally not quite as fast as some of the newer lightweight protocols like WireGuard or ExpressVPN’s proprietary Lightway protocol. Case in point: We calculated an average speed loss of 38.5% (29% on MacOS and 48% on Windows) through the OpenVPN protocol with ExpressVPN and an average speed loss of just 11% (7% on MacOS and 15% on Windows) through Lightway. Lightway is a relatively new protocol and its efficient codebase allows for fast connection speeds, so if you’re looking to optimize your speeds, we recommend using Lightway. But if your privacy is critical or if you need to bypass firewalls and censorship, then OpenVPN is the way to go, because it’s able to reliably get around internet restrictions, and its privacy is rock-solid and has been extensively tested in the wild.

Overall, ExpressVPN’s speeds were consistent during each round of testing -- even taking into account its somewhat disappointing OpenVPN performance on Windows. Some VPNs are prone to dramatic speed dips or spikes from one test to another, but we didn’t experience that while testing ExpressVPN’s speeds. The speeds we measured to each location were, in most cases, as expected.

For the most part, our speeds were fastest through servers in New York, London and Europe, and slowest through servers in Australia and Singapore. This is expected, because your VPN speeds will usually be faster to servers closer to your physical location, where your data has a shorter distance to travel. We did see a few instances where speeds were faster to distant locations than they were to servers nearer to our testing locations. For example, while we saw the fastest speeds to New York (261Mbps), we registered marginally faster speeds overall to both Australia (190Mbps) and Singapore (180Mbps) than we did to France (163Mbps). Apparent anomalies like this can happen from time to time, but in this case it seemed to be more reflective of ExpressVPN’s strong speed performance to distant locations rather than poor speeds to closer locations. 

As long as your internet connection is sufficiently fast and you’re using Lightway on Windows or either Lightway or OpenVPN on Mac, your VPN speeds with ExpressVPN will be plenty fast enough for basically anything you’d want to do online. That includes data-heavy activities like gaming, downloading, video conferencing and streaming. And with ExpressVPN recently expanding its server network from 94 to 105 countries, you’ll have access to fast, stable connections on one of the largest VPN server networks in the industry. However, in our testing, we found NordVPN to be the fastest VPN overall, as well as the VPN with the most consistently stable connections.

Key takeaway: ExpressVPN is fast enough for pretty much anything, but use Lightway if you want the best speeds.

Cost: One of the most expensive VPNs on the market

• $13 per month, $60 every six months or $100 per year
• Money-back guarantee: 30 days
• Payment options: Credit card, PayPal, bitcoin, various other international payment methods via Paymentwall
• Apps available for Windows, MacOS, Linux, Android, iOS, Fire TV, Apple TV, routers 

ExpressVPN is expensive compared to most of its competitors, but the cost feels justified for a VPN product that cannot be beat. ExpressVPN’s monthly plan costs $13, which is more than Surfshark’s $11 monthly plan, and its lengthier plans are more expensive than most other VPNs, at $60 every six months or $100 for its yearly subscription. By comparison, Surfshark’s annual plan costs $60 per year after its promotional period lapses. PIA is even cheaper at $12 per month or $40 per year. NordVPN is priced similarly to ExpressVPN at $13 per month or $100 per year after its promotional period lapses. Though on the expensive side overall, I like how straightforward ExpressVPN’s pricing is at a time when VPN pricing schemes seem to be getting excessively complicated.

Signing up is easy, and you can use traditional payment methods like a credit card or PayPal to purchase a subscription. If you want a greater degree of anonymity during the transaction, ExpressVPN also accepts payments via bitcoin. Still, it would be good to see ExpressVPN allow for payments in additional cryptocurrencies (other VPNs like Surfshark and NordVPN accept various cryptocurrencies in addition to bitcoin). On the other hand, ExpressVPN accepts a wide range of international and online payment methods, including some like Mint Prepaid, which allow you to pay for services securely without disclosing personal information or bank account details.

ExpressVPN is available on Windows, MacOS, Linux, iOS, Android, Fire TV, Apple TV and routers. You’ll get a pretty consistent experience across most platforms, with a streamlined app that’s easy to use whether you’re a novice or seasoned VPN user. However, ExpressVPN doesn’t offer a full GUI for Linux machines, so if you’re a Linux user you’ll need to connect via the CLI , which may be less convenient than using the regular app. Some VPNs, like Surfshark, offer a full GUI for Linux users. 

ExpressVPN’s app is minimalist in design and doesn’t boast quite as many features as NordVPN or Surfshark, or as many options for customization as Private Internet Access, but it does its job well and includes crucial features like a kill switch and leak protection. Additionally, you have the option to select the VPN protocol you want to connect through and customize shortcuts to apps or websites that you can access directly from the app once it connects to a VPN server. ExpressVPN also recently released its new Advanced Protection suite that lets you block trackers, malicious sites, ads and adult sites. All apps include a few onboard privacy/security tools including an IP address checker, DNS leak test and WebRTC leak test, which collectively help you make sure the VPN is doing its job and not leaking your data. The Android app includes split tunneling and a privacy checklist tool that aims to help you shore up your digital privacy on your Android device. ExpressVPN’s built-in password manager , Keys, is included with its Android and iOS apps at no additional cost. 

We rate ExpressVPN as the best VPN for usability overall thanks to how simple and straightforward the app is to use across devices. The app features a prominent Connect button and finding a server location is a simple affair. Additional features are neatly tucked away in the Options menu and are easy to toggle on or off. It’s one of the most polished VPN apps you’ll find and its features -- like its Network Lock kill switch and Advanced Protection tools -- work as advertised.

In my previous review, I lamented the fact that ExpressVPN only offered five simultaneous connections -- my gripes at the time being threefold: 

• Many other VPNs offer far more (up to unlimited) simultaneous connections. 
• People have a lot of connected devices these days.
• For the high price tag, folks should be able to connect more than five devices at once.

I was therefore happy to see ExpressVPN recently bump its simultaneous connection allowance to eight. Even though it’s not unlimited (like Surfshark, IPVanish or PIA), it’s still an improvement and should suffice for most users. 

However, if you’re set on ExpressVPN and need more than eight simultaneous connections, you still have options -- pricey as they may be. You can pay for extra subscriptions, but that still gets you only another eight connections and is less economical over time than using a router. You can buy a third-party VPN-compatible router and set ExpressVPN up on it, or you can use Express’s own Aircove Wi-Fi 6 router with the VPN built right in. The Aircove router costs $190, but it’s an excellent option if you have lots of devices because you can connect any number of devices to the VPN at once. It’s also a solid choice for families, because it includes parental control features that let you block adult sites and limit internet time on whichever devices you choose.

If you get stuck, ExpressVPN has support staff on hand 24/7 who can help you via email or live chat. You can also browse or search ExpressVPN’s extensive knowledge base if you prefer to go it alone.

ExpressVPN is tops for streaming, except on Apple TV 

On most platforms, ExpressVPN does a superb job of unblocking streaming content from various global regions. During my testing I was easily able to access content from several different Netflix regional libraries, Disney Plus, Amazon Prime Video and Hulu. My streaming experience with ExpressVPN was exceptionally smooth on Windows , MacOS , iOS , Android and Amazon’s Fire TV Stick . 

Most streaming sites like Amazon Prime Video , Disney Plus and Hulu all worked well through ExpressVPN’s Apple TV app. Disappointingly, ExpressVPN’s Apple TV app was severely underwhelming -- even irritating -- when I tried using it for streaming Netflix . I kept getting SSL errors on various servers when attempting to stream content like Seinfeld, Unsolved Mysteries and Life on Our Planet -- shows that I had no issues streaming from the same servers on different platforms. ExpressVPN told me that engineers have been working on the issue and should have resolved it, but upon retesting, I was still getting SSL errors on many of the shows I tried to watch from various regions. To be fair, I was able to access those shows if I tried from a different server. But that meant that I would have to jump around from server to server until it finally worked, which was frustrating. 

ExpressVPN’s Apple TV app is new, and Apple just recently rolled out native VPN support for its Apple TV devices , so the Netflix issue could be just a minor hiccup as things start to get rolling on the platform. I’m encouraged that ExpressVPN engineers are working on the issue and I’m confident that they’ll be able to iron it out in due time. Even with its subpar performance on Apple TV , ExpressVPN’s exceptional streaming capabilities across other platforms still solidifies it as the best VPN for streaming . 

Key takeaway: Be prepared to pay a premium, but its top-notch performance and usability make the steep price mostly palatable.

Privacy and security: Decisive response to DNS issue helps ExpressVPN maintain solid privacy posture

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Encryption: AES 256-bit
• Diskless TrustedServer technology
• DNS leak detected (but immediately addressed)
• Regular independent security audits

ExpressVPN’s privacy evaluation got off to a rocky start when I uncovered a bug in the Windows app that resulted in my DNS requests being sent to my ISP instead of to ExpressVPN’s designated DNS servers. This occurred when I had ExpressVPN’s split tunneling feature enabled on my Windows 11 laptop and meant that my location and the websites I visited while connected to the VPN were visible to my ISP or any other entity who may have been monitoring my connection. A DNS leak is a major privacy vulnerability and can pose significant risks to VPN users, especially those with critical privacy requirements , or those in regions with draconian internet censorship and surveillance in place.

I immediately notified ExpressVPN of my findings and I was extremely impressed with the prompt attention the team gave to my bug report and the swiftness with which engineers worked to patch the bug. ExpressVPN immediately took action and temporarily pulled the split tunneling feature from its Windows app while engineers worked on a permanent fix. 

“Our latest version of the Windows app … removes split tunneling from our UI and turns off that functionality entirely so customers won’t be inadvertently affected by this issue while we find a solution,” an ExpressVPN representative told me via email. “Internally, we are conducting a full postmortem and examining our processes to ensure that such edge cases (rare though they are) cannot occur in the future.”

The representative also said that the issue could have affected less than 1% of ExpressVPN’s active Windows users, based on the company’s analysis of user diagnostic data. And a troubleshooting page published by ExpressVPN clarifies that “the ISP is able to determine the web domains visited by that user (e.g., google.com), but not any individual webpages, searches, or other online behavior. All contents of the user’s traffic remain encrypted by the VPN and unviewable by the ISP or any other third party.” 

ExpressVPN also promptly published a blog post acknowledging the issue and recommending Windows 11 users update their ExpressVPN software. Ultimately, ExpressVPN was able to roll out a fix to its Windows app that resolved the DNS issue and reinstated the split tunneling feature shortly after I reported the bug. During our tests with the updated Windows app, we detected no leaks with or without split tunneling enabled.

Nevertheless, this incident highlights that no software is perfect and that it’s important to run tests often to ensure the software is doing what it’s supposed to be doing. Running your own DNS leak tests is easy -- just go to a leak testing site like ipleak.net or dnsleaktest.com while connected to a VPN server and make sure that only the VPN server location you’re connected to shows up in the test results. If your location is displayed in the results, your DNS requests are being leaked. That said, ExpressVPN’s overall response and bias for action following my bug report was exactly what I would have wanted to see and underscores the provider’s strong commitment to privacy and transparency.

ExpressVPN is one of the most transparent VPN providers available. The company's comprehensive Trust Center offers a wealth of information about what’s going on behind the scenes and the efforts ExpressVPN makes to protect its users. The company also just released its first biannual transparency report -- which is another step towards increased transparency because it gives the public a look into the number of legal requests the VPN has received and how it responded to those requests. We're happy to see ExpressVPN adding transparency reports like many other VPNs, including PIA and Proton VPN , have been doing.

In terms of independent audit count, ExpressVPN is tops. The company underwent 12 independent security audits in 2022, far more than any of its competitors. Even though ExpressVPN didn’t undergo any audits in 2023, the company was audited at a consistent clip from March to November 2022. A company representative told me that a new privacy policy audit is currently being conducted by KPMG and should be ready for publication soon. 

ExpressVPN’s privacy policy also displays a commitment to protecting users’ privacy. “We do not collect logs of your online activity while you are connected to our Services, including no logging of browsing history, traffic destination, data content, or DNS queries," it says. "We also never store connection logs, meaning no logs of your IP address, your outgoing VPN IP address, connection timestamp, or session duration.”

We appreciate the unambiguous language used throughout ExpressVPN’s privacy policy, which clearly lays out how the company processes user data. While some VPNs’ privacy policies are vague about exactly who can access your data, ExpressVPN makes it clear that “any personal information associated with ExpressVPN accounts is controlled only by ExpressVPN, including being stored on systems, servers, and services owned or leased by ExpressVPN and its subsidiaries.” 

While it’s impossible to verify with 100% certainty that a VPN’s no-logs claims are true, an independent security audit can help build trust. 

New features and security improvements

Since my last review, ExpressVPN has made significant strides in strengthening its already strong privacy posture. Its open-source Lightway protocol was recently upgraded to DTLS 1.3 , which enhances encryption and helps better to protect against threats like eavesdropping and man-in-the-middle attacks, where an adversary can monitor your connection and even steal sensitive data that you may be transmitting online, like passwords or financial information. 

Integrated with Lightway’s upgrade to DTLS 1.3 is post-quantum protection to help future-proof ExpressVPN’s encryption standards against threats from quantum computers going forward. Quantum computers are getting increasingly advanced and are projected to be able to decrypt the encryption algorithms that are considered secure today -- which would make it exponentially easier for an attacker to ultimately compromise your private data. ExpressVPN is one of the very few providers at this time that offers such protections. Its proactive approach to address the looming expanded threat landscape early on puts the provider in a favorable position ahead of other VPNs who haven’t yet implemented similar technology to safeguard against future threats.

ExpressVPN’s new Advanced Protection features also help boost user privacy and security by blocking trackers, malicious sites, ads and adult sites. You can enable or disable each blocker individually directly from the app to customize your desired level of protection. In my testing, the features worked as expected. Other VPNs like Surfshark, NordVPN and PIA already offer tools for blocking ads, trackers and malware, so it’s good to see that ExpressVPN has stepped up and begun offering similar functionality in its apps.

Also, ExpressVPN’s new auto-update feature helps protect your privacy by automatically updating your app to the latest version. You can disable this feature in the Settings menu if you prefer to update manually, but we recommend keeping it on.

Core privacy protections still in place

One of the ways ExpressVPN sets itself apart on privacy is through its TrustedServer technology. TrustedServer builds on the principles behind the diskless, RAM-only server infrastructure, which is based on the goal that server data is not stored on a hard disk and is completely wiped when the server is shut down or rebooted. ExpressVPN takes this a step further with TrustedServer by reinstalling the entire software stack with every reboot, minimizing potential risks associated with misconfiguration. That additional reinstallation step is one of the ways that ExpressVPN continues to set the bar for privacy protections in the VPN industry.

The Network Lock kill switch worked as expected during my testing when I forced a break in the VPN connection. ExpressVPN’s industry standard AES 256-bit encryption is solid and in line with other top VPNs like Surfshark and NordVPN. Privacy-conscious users will also appreciate that ExpressVPN is based in the British Virgin Islands, a privacy-friendly jurisdiction without mandatory data retention laws and outside data-sharing alliances like the Fourteen Eyes countries. NordVPN’s Panama jurisdiction is similarly favorable for privacy, while Surfshark’s Netherlands, PIA’s and IPVanish’s US jurisdictions are less so. I also like how the Lightway protocol implements obfuscation by default: As long as you’re connecting through Lightway, you won’t have to connect separately to obfuscated servers to conceal your VPN use.

Overall, ExpressVPN is one of the best VPNs when it comes to privacy and security -- even despite the DNS issue, considering the team’s rapid response.

Key takeaway: The DNS leaks were alarming, but the company’s exhaustive efforts to remedy the situation helped put me at ease. Also, the quantum protection is pretty rad, because it can help safeguard your data from futuristic threats. The company’s unwavering commitment to privacy and transparency, along with its other Lightway enhancements, help put it a cut above most of its rivals -- even after we knocked its privacy rating down a notch on account of the DNS issue. Perhaps the only VPN that tops ExpressVPN on privacy and transparency is the Swiss-based, open-source Proton VPN . 

ExpressVPN continues to set the standard for VPN services

Sure, ExpressVPN is expensive, but ultimately you’re getting one of the very best VPNs on the planet. One of the things I like most about ExpressVPN is that it’s consistently proving to be ahead of the curve and setting standards by proactively implementing solutions for the cyberthreats of the future. I also like how streamlined the app is and how easy it is to use across platforms. Even if you’ve never used a VPN app before, you’ll have no issues interacting with ExpressVPN’s simple, straightforward design right out of the box. It’s sufficiently fast for casual users who simply want to stream content, and its privacy protections are some of the best for folks who need heightened privacy online. And ExpressVPN’s enhancements to Lightway that include post-quantum protection, along with its TrustedServer technology, helps set standards and drive the industry forward.

However, ExpressVPN is not flawless. The DNS leak issue demonstrated that even some of the best VPN software can have chinks in its armor. That said, ExpressVPN handled my bug report professionally and went above and beyond to transparently address the situation. The company’s response was immediate and decisive, and helped convince me of its commitment to user privacy. In an industry that’s rife with misrepresentations and hyperbolic claims , ExpressVPN shows that it’s one of the few that actually walks the walk.

CNET VPN Coverage

• Best iPhone VPN
• Best Free VPN
• Best Android VPN
• Best Mac VPN
• Best Mobile VPN
• Best VPN for Windows
• Fastest VPN
• Best Cheap VPN
• Best VPN Deals
• Surfshark VPN
• Hotspot Shield
• Norton Secure
• Mullvad VPN
• Best VPN for Smart TV
• Best VPN for Firestick
• Setup VPN on Smart TV
• VPN Travel Hack
• Streaming TV Insider
• How We Test VPNs
• Important VPN Terms
• VPN and Internet Speed
• Why Not to Use a Free VPN
• Critical vs Casual VPN
• VPN Kill Switch
• VPN Trackers
• 3 Crucial VPN Features
• Setup VPN on iPhone

A riveting "Star Wars: The Acolyte" breaks away from the usual Jedi rhetoric about good and evil

"russian doll" co-creator leslye headland uses unknowns and a familiar format to critique our beloved heroes, by melanie mcfarland.

Five years’ worth of “ Star Wars ” shows has provided enough evidence for a person to suspect that the extensively known canon fans revere has also creatively shacked it. Instead of expanding the universe in new ways, the corporate dream machine plugged into familiar characters and artifacts. Recent series hinged upon the adventures of  young-ish Obi-Wan Kenobi and younger Leia , adult Ahsoka , and an unmasked Boba Fett .

At least “ The Mandalorian ” expands the culture behind some very familiar armor using characters most viewers knew nothing about before watching it.

“ Star Wars: The Acolyte ” does something similar with the franchise’s most emblematic figures, which would be a snooze if not for their role in a story that asks us to question our presumed faith in their righteousness. 

Generations who came of age with George Lucas’ fantasies had the light versus dark side, Jedi versus Sith dichotomy drilled into us along with the assurance that Force-wielders, besides being special, belonged to one team or the other. The first six movies packaged this alongside an unsubtle version of misogyny: nearly all human Jedi with lines were white guys until Samuel L. Jackson.  

“Acolyte” creator and showrunner Leslye Headland wipes those images away within the opening frames of the series when a young woman ( Amandla Stenberg ) rolls up to Master Indara ( Carrie-Anne Moss ) in a tavern and challenges her to fight. The ensuing battle is a slice of straight-up action movie fan fic, pitting Trinity from “The Matrix” movies against an ace fighter with a vendetta a la “ Kill Bill ” – except, again, this is “Star Wars.”

Headland, who co-created “ Russian Doll ,” knows exactly which buttons she’s pushing by leading with this scene in the same way Disney and Lucasfilm are cunning to use an economic montage of its highlights to promote the show. 

Both women are unknown characters, with one of them representing an unknown faction. The show itself arrives in a cloud of mystery, limiting which specifics we can detail. 

What I can say is that Headland takes a relatively ordinary plot device and uses it as a vehicle to do some quietly revolutionary storytelling – again, by “Star Wars” standards. 

Liberated from most aspects of the Skywalker saga, she and her writers take a relatively simple fugitive mystery tale and use it to remind us of the patriarchal and spiritual colonialism inherent to the galaxy’s foremost religious order. 

It’s also a ripping, nimbly paced action series that knows its audience and knows how to exploit this fandom’s strengths and weak spots. Let’s just say that Moss isn’t the main star here. That honor goes to Stenberg, who plays two roles, Osha and Mae, along with “ Squid Game ” star Lee Jung-jae  as Sol, a Jedi Master tasked with finding a rogue Force user whose skills are formidable and troubling.

“This is about power . . . and who is allowed to use it.”

“The Acolyte” is set a century before the rise of the Empire when the Jedi Order managed the galaxy – meaning, lots of rough robes, humming lightsabers and battles between opponents who fling each other around without touching. But it also pre-dates many other traditions which may be why Lee and other stars seem freer to emote.  

No new addition to this entertainment catalog can be entirely divorced from everything we’ve already seen. In the slightest details of that opaque description, we recognize a few repeating refrains: Osha and Mae are twins . The Jedi’s adversary is presumably evil; we already know of such a group. Perhaps this show explores their origins, but the four episodes provided for review don’t show anything definitive that would indicate that.

Driving the season is a straightforward crime-solving arc that seems simplistic next to the do-or-die sagas driving nearly every other installment in this library besides “ Andor .”  The ticking time bomb in “The Acolyte” ostensibly comes down to saving a group of individuals that the galaxy probably wouldn’t miss from a nobody with an axe to grind. There are no planets at stake, no rebellion whose survival teeters on a knife's edge.

Some people are going to absolutely hate that.

We need your help to stay independent

But in the same way that “Andor” used its title character to navigate a parable about how fascism has a way of rising from rampant corporate greed, “The Acolyte” is at its best when it asks both its protagonists and the audience to question our blind faith in the concept of so-called law and order.

It hints that in an opening title card that forgoes the long crawl to simply describe the era as a time of peace, explaining that The Jedi Order and the Galactic Republic “have prospered for centuries without war.” For such a political arrangement to prosper, there must be the necessary tension of an antagonist being kept at bay. As a perfectly reasonable character points out in an upcoming episode, some conflicts don’t originate from which side is “good” and which is “bad”: “This is about power,” they say, “and who is allowed to use it.”

Moss may beckon viewers to “The Acolyte,” but beyond her role, the show places the most weight on Stenberg, who evokes a natural duality in her sisters that sidesteps the usual pitfalls of such performances. 

The opening quartet of installments doesn’t feature her acting against herself yet, which is the real test of how well an actor pulls off believably playing her double. But she plays the more shadowed of the siblings without any of the flat spikes and splinters of pure evil that inform most of the hostile beings in this universe. 

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter , Crash Course.

Lee balances this with a performance soaked in empathy and regret, granting his physical confrontations with the lost soul he’s tracking a hint of operatic pathos.  Setting this bar allows the actors playing other knights of his order and his padawan Jecki Lon (Dafne Keen) to accordingly relax or stiffen up. 

Charlie Barnett ’s Yord Fandar is wound especially tight when it comes to dealing with Osha, which doesn’t allow for the actor to showcase the admirable range and subtleties of which he avails himself in “Russian Doll.” Mae, on the other hand, has a lazy and barely trustworthy smuggler pal Qimir ( Manny Jacinto ), making it tough to determine which sister is on the less desirable team.

Ultimately these characters’ personalities matter less than what they represent on the moral scale instead of how closely they hew to established “Star Wars” canon. “The Acolyte” carries fewer of those weights, allowing it the space to reconsider our dogmatic devotion to one of cinema’s exemplary institutions of heroism. 

There’s much to appreciate about a show that cunningly strives not only to be deemed good but to make us redefine what that means. And it only took looking farther into this saga’s distant past to move ahead in ways its storytelling can challenge us.

"Star Wars: The Acolyte" debuts with two episodes Tuesday, June 4 at 6 p.m. PT / 9 p.m. ET on Disney+.

about "Star Wars"

• The "Star Wars" kids aren't alright
• What Star Wars creatures teach us about empathy
• The Force of sexism is strong in Ahsoka

Melanie McFarland is Salon's award-winning senior culture critic. Follow her on Twitter: @McTelevision

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Related articles.

• Mobile Site
• Staff Directory
• Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

• Biz & IT
• Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

Takes one to know one? —

Our unbiased take on mark zuckerberg’s biased apple vision pro review, ceo's quest 3 comparison offers an interesting look at mixed-reality design trade-offs..

Kyle Orland - Feb 15, 2024 10:00 pm UTC

Further Reading

For that reason alone, Zuckerberg's Instagram-posted thoughts on the Vision Pro can't be considered an impartial take on the device's pros and cons. Still, Zuckerberg's short review included its fair share of fair points, alongside some careful turns of phrase that obscure the Quest's relative deficiencies.

  View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Mark Zuckerberg (@zuck)

To figure out which is which, we thought we'd consider each of the points made by Zuckerberg in his review. In doing so, we get a good viewpoint on the very different angles from which Meta and Apple are approaching mixed-reality headset design.

There’s “high-quality” and then there’s “high-quality”

Near the start of his analysis, Zuckerberg says that the "Quest 3 does high-quality passthrough with big screens, just like Vision Pro." This is only true in the most technical sense. Saying both headsets have "high-quality passthrough" is like saying an old 720p LCD TV and a new 4K OLED both have "high-quality screens."

Compared side by side, Apple's array of cameras and higher-resolution displays combine for a much sharper and more dynamic view of the "real world" than the Quest 3, which barely limps over the "good enough" passthrough threshold, in my experience. That display quality extends to the "big screens" Zuckerberg mentions, too, which are noticeably clearer and easier to read on the Vision Pro.

Speaking of those "big screens," the experience with 2D virtual displays is quite different in both headsets. The Vision Pro seems built from the ground up with the ability to place and resize thousands of flat iOS apps anywhere around your virtual space. Those virtual windows react to the light in the room, cast gentle shadows in your virtual view, and get occluded by objects in the real world, adding to the sense that they are really "there" with you.

The Quest, on the other hand, was built more with immersive VR experiences in mind. Yes, recent Quest OS upgrades added the ability to snap selected flat apps and system tools (e.g., the store) into place in your Quest "home environment." But the system-level "huge floating screens" experience is still much more limited than that on the Vision Pro, which offers easy free positioning and resizing of all sorts of apps. Quest users looking for something similar need to rely on a third-party tool like Virtual Desktop, which also has its own quirks and limitations.

reader comments

Promoted comments.

Former Meta CTO John Carmack knew this well when he pushed the company to develop a $250, 250 g headset designed to bring "super light comforts" to "more people at low-end price points."

Just like the Nintendo Switch and Sony PS5 aim for different portions of the video game market, Meta and Apple's headsets are designed for very different portions of the mixed reality market.

C'mon Aurich. I feel like this was your moment to shine. Photoshopping a Vision Pro onto Zuck. You can do it! We believe in you!

Channel Ars Technica