marcusandy;60135 said:
I am critiquing an article to whether it is a good article for a researcher to use in a research paper.
I need some topics of why an article would be good or bad...Then an explanation why you say that an article should or should not have that criteria in it.
Thank you for all the help.
I just need some ideas so I can go from there!
Marcus
Here are a few concepts for you to ponder ...
Is it Replicable? Is it Independently Verified?
Two warning signs are testing/data that the author has not replicated themselves and has not had independently verified by a third party.
Within the scientific community, when someone discovers something new they will almost always seek independent verification from some of their peers before they "publish" their findings. So as you are reading the article, look for references that they have replicated the tests themselves and that they have shared the data or have had samples tested by peers to independently verify their findings.
A fun example is the theoretical discussion about whether "Cold Fusion" is possible. Would you want to "quote" or "cite" research in a research article written by someone else that is later refuted - or worse - popularized as either a hoax or bad science. For a fun read - simply check out the Wikipedia discussion of Cold Fusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
Cause versus Effect?
I used to write a weekly column titled "What We Know That Isn't So" ... the column took popular beliefs or "rules of thumb" and debunked them. Thus another risk to look out for is whether the author attributed "effects" to "causes" but can not directly link them.
All too often someone will observe an "input" into a process and observe a "result" - they will then attempt to make a definitive statement that X causes Y. But have they conducted adequate tests to isolate what is actually occurring to be able to link the cause and effect, or is the result simply a symptom of the bigger picture.
My grandmother believed that the act of going to a hospital would kill you. As far as she was concerned, hospitals kill you. She would make the statement that hospitals kill.
Is it appropriate for her to make such a connection? Perhaps not. Through observation, she may be able to actually gather empirical data to support her conclusion. But is it the act of going to a hospital that resulted in the deaths or where those deaths caused by some other factors?
I know that sounds like a silly example - but that was deliberate to demonstrate the risks that are involved when evaluating research papers and the conclusions that they reach or draw.
Best wishes ...
Greg
