1. Follow the guidelines here on structuring and formatting your review.
2. Include each category in a separate section or subsection. Ensure that you discuss each category!
(If a category does not apply, then actually write in that (sub)section that the category does not
apply.) We will be looking for each category when grading.
3. Reference other articles you’ve read, if appropriate. Just as in the articles you’ve read, include a
reference marker where you refer to each in your review, and provide full bibliographic references in
a bibliography section at the end of your report.
4. Your final report should be 2 full pages or more (if measured in Times New Roman 10pt single
spaced). This does not include your bibliography, citation analysis, diagrams or large gaps between
parts of your report. There is no maximum length.
5. Do not copy any part of the article into your review. If you want to use more than 3-4 of the author’s
words, then use quotation marks, and add a page number from the article (if available) when you cite
this quotation.
6. Proof-read your review for grammar and clarity as well as spelling. Spell checkers do not fix
grammar. You should be sure that you have caught all mistakes and written clearly. Most word
processors have a grammar checker – use it!
2
Additional References to Outside Materials
Utilize at least 3 citations to articles outside those on the reading list. Use these articles to back up
your analysis, to describe or address issues, implications or recommendations for further research
or development.
Grading Notes
We have included the grading criteria in these guidelines.
Unless otherwise noted, the categories are:
great: fully discussed, explained well and well-justified
ok: partial discussion; not explained well or well-justified
poor: barely discussed
zero: not discussed
Editing Grading
Has the review been proof read for both spelling and grammar? If not up to 3 points off for poor
grammar and up to 3 points off for poor spelling.
Preparing for Your Review
The purpose of research articles is to present new or refine conceptual ideas, or to present new
evidence for conceptual ideas. A research article review results from critically examining a research
article. You will have to read your article several times to understand it fully enough to review
properly. Often, comparing your article to others will help you determine its quality.
Also, think about the article and its research ideas in terms of each of the different week’s concepts
and frameworks we study in class. Do the ideas in the article fit all the categories of appropriate class
concepts, models and frameworks? This often will help you see things the authors missed, think about
things the authors write in a new light, or see that the authors indeed covered a topic thoroughly.
3
Outline of the Article Review
Please include the following categories in your article review.
1. Full Bibliographic Reference
2. Introduction: Objectives, Article Domain, Audience, Journal and Conceptual/Emprical
Classification
3. Very Brief Summary
4. Results
5. Contributions
6. Foundation
7. Analysis
8. General Critique
9. Issues (listed by the author)
10. Issues (in your opinion)
11. Impact
12. Questions
13. Annotated Bibliography
In addition, you can lose points if your review is too short or poorly edited.
1. Full Bibliographic Reference
State the full bibliographic reference for the article you are reviewing (authors, title, journal name,
volume, issue, year, page numbers, etc.) Important: this is not the bibliography listed at the end of
the article, rather the citation of the article itself!
4
2. Introduction: Objectives, Article Domain, Audience, Journal
and Conceptual/Empirical Classification
Note: For the on-line reviews done in some class sections, this category may be broken up into several
separate subcategories. For the written review, please discuss all of these subcategories together as
follows.
Paragraph 1: State the objectives (goals or purpose) of the article. What is the article’s domain (topic
area)?
Paragraph 2:
Audience: State the article’s intended audience. At what level is it written, and what general
background should the reader have; what general background materials should the reader
be familiar with to understand the article?
Appropriate Journal? : Why is the journal appropriate (or inappropriate) for this article?
(Check the mission statement or purpose of the journal itself from its cover or its Web site.)
Paragraph 3: State whether the article is “conceptual” or “empirical”, and why you believe it is
conceptual or empirical. Empirical articles and conceptual articles have a similar objective: to
substantiate an argument proposed by the author. While a conceptual article supports such an
argument based on logical and persuasive reasoning, an empirical article offers empirical evidence to
support the argument. Empirical articles offer substantial, detailed evidence which the authors
analyze using statistical methods. Empirical articles must include hypotheses (or propositions),
detailed research results, and (statistical) analyses of this empirical evidence. Empirical research
includes experiments, surveys, questionnaires, field studies, etc, and to limited degree, case studies.
Conceptual articles may refer to such empirical evidence, but do not provide the detailed analysis of
that evidence. Of course, both types of articles can use real life examples to back up their points. Just
because an article provides examples, does not necessarily mean that it is empirical. (The lesson to
take home is not to consider a conceptual article to be an empirical one just because it provides some
summarized or some unanalyzed data.)
5
3. Very Brief Summary
For our article reviews, we do not want you to spend much space summarizing the article. Instead we
are more interested in your analysis of the article.
Thus, in this section, summarize the article only very briefly (2-3 paragraphs).
If possible, use the IS research paradigm as the format of your summary, but remaining very brief:
Paragraph 1: what is the problem or opportunity being addressed
Paragraph 2: which solution is proposed (the solution could be a new model or a theory that
explains the problem)
Paragraph 3: what evidence is put forth that this solution is appropriate (If this is an empirical
article, be sure to briefly describe what kind of empirical study was done as part of the
evidence)
4. Results
Very briefly summarize the important points (observations, conclusions, findings) and “take home
messages” in the article. Please do not repeat lists of items in the articles – just summarize the
essence of these if you feel they are necessary to include.
5. Contributions
An article makes a “contribution” by adding to the knowledge of researchers in a research field. An
article can make a contribution to the research field in many ways. Does it provide a new way to look
at a problem? Does it bring together or “synthesize” several concepts (or frameworks, models, etc.)
together in an insightful way that has not been done before? Does it provide new solutions? Does it
provide new results? Does it identify new issues? Does it provide a comprehensive survey or review
of a domain? Does it provide new insights? Also, is it salient (relevant and current) to a particular
scientific issue or managerial problem? Are the issues addressed introduced in a way that their
relevance to practice is evident? Would answers to the questions raised in the article likely to be
useful to researchers and managers?
Note: Do not discuss the contributions of the technologies the article describes, but rather the
contributions of the article itself!
6
The article’s contributions should be original. To the best of your knowledge, are they? Are the
article’s take-home messages new?
Describe each contribution clearly in a separate paragraph or bullet point. Discuss why the
contribution is important.
Alternatively, if you believe the article makes no contributions, explain why clearly.
6. Foundation
Good research often is built upon theories and frameworks that other researchers have developed.
Sometimes articles will be substantially based upon this prior work, and refer back to it in some
detail. (Not all research articles will do this.)
Which theoretical foundations does this article and research build on, if any? In what ways? Include
references/citations of the foundation work. (You can determine this in part from the works the
article cites.)
Note, however, that most works cited are not core foundational work, but rather just support
certain aspects of the article. Similarly, do not confuse a general discussion of related topics as
foundational work.
If the article does not build upon key pieces of prior research, then write in your review “This article
does not build upon any foundation research.”
7. Analysis
Note: Many people assume this category is the same as “General Critique”. It is not. General
Critique is a different category from this, and follows below. What has changed since the article was
written? How do it’s lessons, ideas and theories still apply? To what extent has its issues been
resolved?
Optionally, try applying the article’s models, frameworks and guidelines, etc. yourself. Do you find
them useful?
In addition, you may optionally add your own additional analysis in a separate subsection. (Do not
repeat the author’s analysis in the paper – you could summarize this as part of the results section.)
7
8. General Critique
In this section you should state your opinions of how well (or poorly) the authors did their research
and presented the research results in the article. Your critique can contain both positive and negative
comments.
Justify and explain in detail each of your critique points in a separate paragraph of at least 4-5
sentences.
The following are suggestions only:
Does it build upon the appropriate foundation (i.e., upon appropriate prior research)?
Did the authors choose the correct approach, and then execute it properly?
How confident are you in the article’s results, and why?
Are its ideas really new, or do the authors simply repackage old ideas and perhaps give them a new
name?
Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the article’s introduction and outline?
What are the article’s shortcomings (faults) and limitations (boundaries)? Did it discuss all of the
important aspects and issues in its domain (topic area)?
In what way should the article have made a contribution, but then did not?
Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases or occurrences?
How complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Do the authors include an adequate discussion,
analysis and conclusions? Did they justify everything adequately? Did they provide enough
background information for the intended audience to understand it? For you to understand it?
Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations?
For full credit, ask yourself these questions when justifying your critique points:
8
why/why not?
how?
what distinguishes the differences/different approaches, and in what ways?
9. Issues (listed by the author)
What open questions or issues has the author stated remain unresolved? Discuss each in a separate
paragraph of 5-10 sentences. Each issue’s paragraph should take the following format:
what is the issue?
why do you believe this is an important issue?
in what way is it unresolved
suggestions for resolving it – if you give your own suggestions (instead of or in addition to
the authors’, then precede each with “I would propose …” If it has been resolved since the
article was written, then state how it was resolved.
Note: If you have any critiques in this section, they most likely belong in the General Critique
section instead.
10. Issues (in your opinion)
List several open questions or issues which remain unresolved in your opinion? For example, what
possible future research questions could arise from this article? Discuss each in a separate
paragraph of 5-10 sentences. Each issue’s paragraph should take the following format:
what is the issue?
why do you believe this is an important issue?
in what way is it unresolved
suggestions for resolving it
Note: If you have any critiques in this section, they most likely belong in the General Critique
section instead.
9
11. Impact
To determine how much impact this article has had, you can do a citation analysis. Discuss what this
citation analysis shows, and why; don’t just list the citations! If the article has no citations, then write
in your review “I found no citations in the Science Citation Index, the Social Sciences Citation Index
or on the Internet.” Then clearly explain why you believe there were no citations at all. If you found
citations in some indexes or on the Internet but not the others, then explain this as well.
Include your citation lists in an appendix to your review (see below for details).
12. Questions
List three insightful questions of your own, arising from this article. Do not ask definitions, but
rather questions that really make one think.
13. Annotated Bibliography
For every item you have cited in your report, you need a full reference and an annotation explaining
it. This includes references to any class materials, as well as the three additional citations utilized in
sections 6-14.
1. List the full bibliographic references (authors, title, journal name, volume, issue, year, page
numbers, etc.) for anything you have cited in your review. IMPORTANT: This is NOT the bibliography
listed at the end of the article. It is the bibliographic references for any readings you yourself
referred to inside your review.
2. Write 2-4 sentences describing the article.
3. Write 2-3 sentences describing why you cited it.
Also, be sure that you have included a bibliographic marker to each (such as [Bieber & Smith, 2001])
in the text of your review.