Journal article critique
Usefulness of title of article The title was sufficiently clear for average reader to understand the further content of the article. Usefulness of Abstract The authors used one well-developed, coherent, unified and concise paragraph understandable to a wide audience. The objectives and focus of the article were clearly stated and agreed with the title. The authors introduced the methods of accomplishing the task in general, without any specifications.
The abstract was written in accordance with “Descriptive abstract qualities” (Driscoll, 2013), but the nformation provided in it didn’t follow the organization of the report itself. Also, the authors didn’t use the keywords to ease the web search of the article on electronic information systems. Usefulness of the Introduction Overall, introductory part was clear and cohesive. In the first introductory paragraph the authors used too many logos and ethos appeals disguised into anecdotal evidence, trying to motivate the reader.
Journal article critique Essay Example
But in reality they exaggerated the importance of the issue. Also in this paragraph the authors could not establish general context and importance of the topic. Place the authors I would avoid many questions in introductory part and strengthen the significance of topic with undeniable facts. The authors emphasized the general approach taken and significance of specific results. But the phrase “In this paper we show that… ” would be more appreciated and understood by the reader, while decoding the purpose of the research.
Beside this, in the last part of introduction, the authors included the phrase: “Irrespective of the work setting, place, people, industry and culture, some golden rules remain intact. “, which awakes the interest in reader’s mind for further reading.. The authors did not give a reader a roadmap for the rest of the paper. Place the author I would have finished my introductory part with: “The remainder of this paper is structured as follows… ” Usefulness of Research Methods section The authors sited clear review of literature, but research methods, instruments and development were biased and explained insufficiently.
The data was given without citations. Key data and research details are unavailable for review by others. Theory of “Communication accommodation” was not illustrated fully and evaded the third fragment – “over-accommodation” in addition to “convergence” and “divergence”. The population used was concrete, but demographic profile of the participants and research questions was not revealed, making the reader impossible to reach a particular conclusion. The authors used accurate data, but manipulated and misrepresented the information to support a particular conclusion.
Alternative perspectives and data were totally ignored. Comprehensive overview of an issue and its discussion in context was provided by the authors. But, place the author I would have done this by referencing books and websites with suitable background information. The authors did not use strong source of evidence by referencing the xperts have approached the issue on……. ” or “All major studies have given a holistic view to the very definition of communication Usefulness of Main Research Findings The findings were well organized, but statistics were not included at all.
Information was sectioned and divided into separate paragraphs, but place the author I would have included the sequence or itemizing the findings with bullets. The findings were generalized and contained too basic and already existing information. Thus, its applicability and usefulness to the society, in one way or other, was in minimal rate. The results of the research would not be useful neither to develop new research tools and techniques, nor for data collection instruments. The findings should be maintained in such a way that there is no need to change the result in future.
Usefulness of Conclusion The conclusions were based on the findings and logically stated according to structure of the article. Concluding part could not maintain a good image of the article, due to lack of the findings with broad-based statements that related to the project’s goals. The authors were open and candid about the values and perspectives hey have brought to the task, but as a reader of the article I was not able to understand the context. The concluding part was enough persuasive with implementation of logos and pathos appeals, but place the author I would have based the sentences solely on findings and not on anecdotal evidence.
Usefulness of References The reference units chosen by the authors cannot be considered as right or wrong to use for a particular analysis because they are not given in the the article. The works were not cited and bibliography was not included into the article. In introductory part he authors mentioned that research based on different sources reflected different perspectives. However, this source selection affected results of the research. However, contact information of the authors provided to ask for or receive the used sources. Would I recommend the Journal to other students?