academic critique essay

Essay Papers Writing Online

How to craft an effective critique essay – a step-by-step guide to capturing readers’ attention, providing insightful analysis, and offering constructive feedback.

Evaluating someone else’s writing can be a challenging task, but with the right tools and approach, you can become a skillful critic in no time. Whether you’re analyzing a piece of literature, an article, or a research paper, a critique essay allows you to delve into the elements that make up a strong written work.

By honing your critical thinking skills, you’ll be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a piece and provide insightful feedback. Through this process, you’ll not only improve your own writing abilities but also enhance your understanding and appreciation of the written word.

In this comprehensive article, we will equip you with the essential techniques and strategies needed to write an effective critique essay. From analyzing the structure and organization of a piece to evaluating the author’s arguments and evidence, you’ll learn how to assess a work’s strengths and weaknesses with precision and clarity.

What is a Critique Essay and Why is it Important?

A critique essay is a type of academic writing that involves analyzing and evaluating a piece of work, such as a book, film, artwork, or research paper. Unlike a simple summary or review, a critique essay goes beyond providing a surface-level examination of the work and delves into an in-depth analysis of its strengths, weaknesses, and overall value.

But why is writing a critique essay important? Well, there are several reasons. Firstly, it allows you to develop critical thinking skills by carefully examining and assessing the merits of a work. This type of analysis helps you become more discerning and thoughtful in your judgments, which is a valuable skill in many aspects of life.

In addition, writing a critique essay encourages you to become an active participant in the intellectual discourse surrounding a particular topic or field. By engaging with a work and providing your own analysis, you are contributing to the ongoing conversation and expanding the collective understanding of the subject matter.

Furthermore, a critique essay can serve as a useful tool for the creator of the work being critiqued. Constructive criticism can provide valuable insights and suggestions for improvement, helping the creator gain a fresh perspective and refine their skills.

Ultimately, the importance of writing a critique essay lies in its ability to foster critical thinking, contribute to intellectual discourse, and provide constructive feedback. Whether you are a student honing your analytical skills or a professional offering insights in your field, learning how to effectively critique a work is a valuable and essential skill.

Choosing a Topic for Your Critique Essay

When it comes to writing a critique essay, the first and most important step is choosing a topic that is both interesting and suitable for critique. The topic you choose will determine the direction and focus of your essay, as well as the arguments and evidence you will present. It is crucial to select a topic that you are passionate about and have a strong opinion on, as this will make the writing process more enjoyable and engaging.

When considering potential topics for your critique essay, it can be helpful to brainstorm a list of subjects that you have recently encountered in your studies, personal life, or current events. This can include books, movies, artworks, scientific studies, political speeches, or social issues. Reflect on your experiences and think about which topics have sparked your interest or elicited an emotional response.

Once you have a list of potential topics, narrow it down to one that you feel confident in critiquing. Consider the availability of resources and research materials related to the topic, as well as the relevance and significance of the subject matter. It is important to choose a topic that is not too broad or too narrow, but one that allows for a thorough analysis and evaluation.

Furthermore, when selecting a topic for your critique essay, consider the potential audience and the purpose of your writing. Are you writing for a specific academic or professional audience, or for a general readership? Is your goal to persuade, inform, or entertain? Understanding your audience and purpose will help you choose a topic that is relevant, engaging, and appropriate for your intended readers.

In conclusion, the process of choosing a topic for your critique essay requires careful consideration and reflection. By selecting a topic that you are passionate about, narrowing down your options, and considering the audience and purpose of your writing, you can ensure that your critique essay is engaging, informative, and well-structured.

Effective Methods for Analyzing and Evaluating the Work

When it comes to critiquing a piece of work, it is important to employ effective methods for analyzing and evaluating the work. These methods allow you to objectively assess the strengths and weaknesses of the work while providing constructive feedback.

One method for analyzing the work is to carefully examine the overall structure and organization. This involves evaluating the flow of ideas and the logical progression of the work. Pay attention to how well the work introduces and supports its main argument or thesis statement. Look for any inconsistencies or gaps in the logic and assess the effectiveness of the transitions between ideas.

Additionally, it is important to assess the use of evidence and examples in the work. Look for both quantitative and qualitative evidence that supports the main argument. Evaluate the credibility and relevance of the sources cited and determine if they strengthen the overall argument. Consider the quality of the examples provided and how well they illustrate the key points of the work.

Another critical aspect to evaluate in the work is the clarity and effectiveness of the writing style. Assess the use of language, considering factors such as clarity, conciseness, and precision. Look for any instances of wordiness or ambiguity and consider how well the writer communicates their ideas. Pay attention to the use of tone and voice and evaluate if they are appropriate for the intended audience.

Furthermore, it is essential to consider the originality and creativity of the work. Analyze whether the ideas presented are innovative and unique, or if they rely heavily on existing research and ideas. Evaluate the extent to which the writer brings a fresh perspective or contributes new insights to the topic. Consider the level of critical thinking and depth of analysis demonstrated in the work.

Finally, it is crucial to provide constructive feedback when evaluating the work. Identify specific strengths and weaknesses and provide evidence to support your analysis. Offer suggestions for improvement and recommend areas where the writer can further develop their ideas or arguments. Remember to maintain a balance between positive and negative feedback to help the writer grow and improve their work.

• Analyze the overall structure and organization of the work
• Assess the use of evidence and examples
• Evaluate the clarity and effectiveness of the writing style
• Analyze the originality and creativity of the ideas presented
• Provide constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement

By utilizing these effective methods for analyzing and evaluating the work, you will be able to provide a comprehensive critique that offers valuable insights and helps the writer enhance their work.

Tips for Writing a Strong and Persuasive Critique Essay

When crafting a critique essay, it is essential to adopt a strong and persuasive writing style to effectively convey your thoughts and opinions. By employing certain techniques and considerations, you can enhance the impact of your critique and make it more persuasive. This section will provide valuable tips to help you write a compelling critique essay.

First and foremost, clarity and conciseness are key. Make sure your critique is written in a clear and straightforward manner, avoiding any unnecessary jargon or complex language. This will ensure that your ideas are easily understood by your readers, allowing them to fully grasp your perspective.

Additionally, providing evidence and examples is crucial to strengthen your critique. Back up your opinions with credible sources, such as research studies, statistical data, or expert opinions. This will make your arguments more persuasive and lend credibility to your critique.

It is also important to offer a balanced perspective in your critique. While expressing your own views, be sure to acknowledge and address counterarguments or differing opinions. This will demonstrate your ability to consider multiple perspectives and make your critique more comprehensive and well-rounded.

Using persuasive language and rhetorical devices can significantly enhance the impact of your critique. Employ techniques such as persuasive appeals (ethos, logos, pathos), rhetorical questions, metaphors, and analogies to captivate your readers and engage them on an emotional and intellectual level.

Structuring your critique in a logical and organized manner is another essential aspect. Break down your critique into distinct sections, such as introduction, body paragraphs discussing various aspects of the subject, and a conclusion summarizing your main points and reinforcing your overall perspective. This will make your critique more coherent and reader-friendly.

Consider your target audience when writing your critique. Tailor your language, tone, and style to resonate with your intended readers. Adapt your arguments and examples to align with their interests, values, and beliefs. This will make your critique more relatable and persuasive to your specific audience.

Lastly, support your arguments with credible sources. Incorporating research findings, expert opinions, or firsthand experiences will strengthen the validity of your critique and provide additional weight to your arguments. This will make your critique more persuasive and enhance its overall impact.

By following these tips, you can ensure that your critique essay is not only strong but also persuasive. By employing clear and concise language, providing evidence and examples, offering a balanced perspective, using persuasive language and rhetorical devices, structuring effectively, considering your target audience, and supporting your arguments with credible sources, you can craft a compelling critique essay that effectively conveys your thoughts and opinions.

Related Post

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.

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.

How to Write Critical Reviews

When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.

Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

Understanding the Assignment

To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.

Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.

Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!

Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.

Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.

Write the introduction

Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.

If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.

Explain relationships

For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.

Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.

In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.

Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).

As you write, consider the following questions:

• Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
• Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
• What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
• What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?

Provide an overview

In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.

Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.

The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.

• What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
• How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?

Write the body

The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.

Organize using a logical plan

Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:

• First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
• Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

• What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
• What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
• Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
• Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
• Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.

Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.

And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.

Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.

Write the conclusion

You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.

You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.

Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.

Consider the following questions:

• Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
• How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
• How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
• What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

• Peterborough

How to Write Academic Reviews

• What is a review?
• Common problems with academic reviews
• Getting started: approaches to reading and notetaking
• Understanding and analyzing the work
• Organizing and writing the review

What Is a Review?

A scholarly review describes, analyzes, and evaluates an article, book, film, or performance (through this guide we will use the term “work” to refer to the text or piece to be reviewed).  A review also shows how a work fits into its disciplines and explains the value or contribution of the work to the field.

Reviews play an important role in scholarship. They give scholars the opportunity to respond to one another’s research, ideas and interpretations. They also provide an up-to-date view of a discipline. We recommend you seek out reviews in current scholarly journals to become familiar with recent scholarship on a topic and to understand the forms review writing takes in your discipline. Published scholarly reviews are helpful models for beginner review-writers. However, we remind you that you are to write your own assessment of the work, not rely on the assessment from a review you found in a journal or on a blog.

As a review-writer, your objective is to:

• understand a work on its own terms (analyze it)
• bring your own knowledge to bear on a work (respond to it)
• critique the work while considering validity, truth, and slant (evaluate it)
• place the work in context (compare it to other works).

Common Problems with Academic Reviews

A review is not a research paper.

Rather than a research paper on the subject of the work,an academic review is an evaluation about the work’s message, strengths, and value. For example, a review of Finis Dunaway’s Seeing Green would not include your own research about media coverage of the environmental movement; instead, your review would assess Dunaway’s argument and its significance to the field.

A review is not a summary

It is important to synthesize the contents and significance of the work you review, but the main purpose of a review is to evaluate, critically analyze, or comment on the text. Keep your summary of the work brief, and make specific references to its message and evidence in your assessment of the work.

A review is not an off-the-cuff, unfair personal response

An effective review must be fair and accurate. It is important to see what is actually in front of you when your first reaction to the tone, argument, or subject of what you are reviewing is extremely negative or positive.

You will present your personal views on the work, but they must be explained and supported with evidence. Rather than writing, “I thought the book was interesting,” you can explain why the book was interesting and how it might offer new insights or important ideas. Further, you can expand on a statement such as “The movie was boring,” by explaining how it failed to interest you and pointing toward specific disappointing moments.

Getting Started: Approaches to Reading and Notetaking

Pre-reading.

Pre-reading helps a reader to see a book as a whole. Often, the acknowledgments, preface, and table of contents of a book offer insights about the book’s purpose and direction. Take time before you begin chapter one to read the introduction and conclusion, examine chapter titles, and to explore the index or references pages.

Read more about strategies for critical and efficient reading

Reverse outline

A reverse outline helps a reader analyze the content and argument of a work of non-fiction. Read each section of a text carefully and write down two things: 1) the main point or idea, and 2) its function in the text. In other words, write down what each section says and what it does. This will help you to see how the author develops their argument and uses evidence for support.

Double-entry notebook

In its simplest form, the double-entry notebook separates a page into two columns. In one column, you make observations about the work. In the other, you note your responses to the work. This notetaking method has two advantages. It forces you to make both sorts of notes — notes about the work and notes about your reaction to the work — and it helps you to distinguish between the two.

Whatever method of notetaking you choose, do take notes, even if these are scribbles in the margin. If you don’t, you might rely too heavily on the words, argument, or order of what you are reviewing when you come to write your review.                                              

Understand and Analyze the Work

It is extremely important to work toward seeing a clear and accurate picture of a work. One approach is to try to suspend your judgment for a while, focusing instead on describing or outlining a text. A student once described this as listening to the author’s voice rather than to their own.

Ask questions to support your understanding of the work.

Questions for Works of Non-Fiction

• What is the subject/topic of the work? What key ideas do you think you should describe in your review?
• What is the thesis, main theme, or main point?
• What major claims or conclusions does the author make? What issues does the work illuminate?
• What is the structure of the work? How does the author build their argument?
• What sources does the author consult? What evidence is used to support claims? Do these sources in any way “predetermine” certain conclusions?
• Is there any claim for which the evidence presented is insufficient or slight? Do any conclusions rest on evidence that may be atypical?
• How is the argument developed? How do the claims relate? What does the conclusion reveal?

Questions for Works of Fiction

• What is the main theme or message? What issues does the book illuminate?
• How does the work proceed? How does the author build their plot?
• What kind of language, descriptions, or sections of plot alert you to the themes and significance of the book?
• What does the conclusion reveal when compared with the beginning?

Read Critically

Being critical does not mean criticizing. It means asking questions and formulating answers. Critical reading is not reading with a “bad attitude.” Critical readers do not reject a text or take a negative approach to it; they inquire about a text, an author, themselves, and the context surrounding all three, and they attempt to understand how and why the author has made the particular choices they have.

Think about the Author

You can often tell a lot about an author by examining a text closely, but sometimes it helps to do a little extra research. Here are some questions about the author that would be useful to keep in mind when you are reading a text critically:

• Who is the author? What else has the author written?
• What does the author do? What experiences of the author’s might influence the writing of this book?
• What is the author’s main purpose or goal for the text? Why did they write it and what do they want to achieve?
• Does the author indicate what contribution the text makes to scholarship or literature? What does the author say about their point of view or method of approaching the subject? In other words, what position does the author take?

Think about Yourself

Because you are doing the interpreting and evaluating of a text, it is important to examine your own perspective, assumptions, and knowledge (positionality) in relation to the text. One way to do this is by writing a position statement that outlines your view of the subject of the work you are reviewing. What do you know, believe, or assume about this subject? What in your life might influence your approach to this text?

Here are some prompts that might help you generate a personal response to a book:

• I agree that ... because ...                    
• I disagree that ... because ...
• I don’t understand ...
• This reminds me of …
• I’m surprised by …                 

Another way to examine your thoughts in relation to a text is to note your initial response to the work. Consider your experience of the text – did you like it? Why or why not?

• What did I feel when I read this book? Why?
• How did I experience the style or tone of the author? How would I characterize each?
• What questions would I ask this author if I could?
• For me, what are the three best things about this book? The three worst things? Why?

Consider Context

A reviewer needs to examine the context of the book to arrive at a fair understanding and evaluation of its contents and importance. Context may include the scholarship to which this book responds or the author’s personal motive for writing. Or perhaps the context is simply contemporary society or today’s headlines. It is certainly important to consider how the work relates to the course that requires the review.

Here are some useful questions:

• What are the connections between this work and others on similar subjects? How does it relate to core concepts in my course or my discipline?
• What is the scholarly or social significance of this work? What contribution does it make to our understanding?
• What, of relevance, is missing from the work: certain kinds of evidence or methods of analysis/development? A particular theoretical approach? The experiences of certain groups?
• What other perspectives or conclusions are possible?

Once you have taken the time to thoroughly understand and analyze the work, you will have a clear perspective on its strengths and weaknesses and its value within the field. Take time to categorize your ideas and develop an outline; this will ensure your review is well organized and clear.

Organizing and Writing the Review

A review is organized around an assessment of the work or a focused message about its value to the field. Revisit your notes and consider your responses to your questions from critical reading to develop a clear statement that evaluates the work and provides an explanation for that evaluation.

For example:

X is an important work because it provides a new perspective on . . .

X’s argument is compelling because . . . ; however, it fails to address . . .

Although X claims to . . ., they make assumptions about . . . , which diminishes the impact . . .

This statement or evaluation is presented in the introduction. The body of the review works to support or explain your assessment; organize your key ideas or supporting arguments into paragraphs and use evidence from the book, article, or film to demonstrate how the work is (or is not) effective, compelling, provocative, novel, or informative.

As with all scholarly writing, a well-organized structure supports the clarity of your review. There is not a rigid formula for organization, but you may find the following guidelines to be helpful. Note that reviews do not typically include subheadings; the headings listed here serve to help you think about the main sections of your academic review.

Introduction

Introduce the work, the author (or director/producer), and the points you intend to make about this work. In addition, you should

• give relevant bibliographic information
• give the reader a clear idea of the nature, scope, and significance of the work
• indicate your evaluation of the work in a clear 1-2 sentence thesis statement

Provide background information to help your readers understand the importance of the work or the reasons for your appraisal. Background information could include:

• why the issue examined is of current interest
• other scholarship about this subject
• the author’s perspective, methodology, purpose
• the circumstances under which the book was created

Sample Introduction

Within educational research, much attention has been given to the importance of diversity and equity, and the literature is rife with studies detailing the best ways to create environments that are supportive of diverse students. In “Guidance Matters,” however, Carpenter and Diem (2015) examined these concepts in a less-studied source: policy documents related to leadership training.  Using discourse analysis, they explored the ways in which government policies concerning the training of educational administrators discussed issues of diversity and equity. While their innovative methods allowed them to reveal the ways in which current policy promotes superficial platitudes to diversity rather than a deep commitment to promoting social justice, their data analysis left many of their identified themes vague and their discussion did not provide a clear explanation of the applications of their findings.

What works in this sample introduction:

• The nature of the larger issue, how best to create diversity and equity within educational environments, is clearly laid out.
• The paragraph clearly introduces the authors and study being reviewed and succinctly explains how they have addressed the larger issue of equity and diversity in a unique way.
• The paragraph ends with a clear thesis that outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the work.

Summary of the Work

Keep the summary of the work short! A paragraph or two should be sufficient. Summarize its contents very briefly and focus on:

• the purpose of the work
• the main points of the work
• the ideas, themes, or arguments that you will evaluate or discuss in the review

Analysis and Evaluation

Analyze and explain the significance of the main points of the work. Evaluate the work, answering questions such as the following:

• Does the work do what its author claimed it would?
• Is the work valid and accurate?
• How does the work fit into scholarship in the field?
• What are your reasons for agreeing, disagreeing, liking, disliking, believing, disbelieving?

Note that this section will take up the bulk of your review and should be organized into paragraphs. Because this form of writing typically does not use subheadings, strong paragraphing, particularly the use of clear topic sentences, is essential. Read more on paragraphing.

Reviews are informed by your critical reading or viewing of a work; therefore you need to include specific evidence from the work to support your claims about its message and its impact. Your writing and  your assessment of the work will be most effective if you paraphrase or summarize the evidence you use, rather than relying on direct quotations. Be sure to follow the rules for citation in your discipline. Read more on paraphrasing and summarizing.

Sample Body Paragraph

One of the strengths of Carpenter and Diem’s  (2015) study was innovative use of  and nuanced explanation of discourse analysis. Critiquing much of the research on policy for its positivist promises of “value neutral and empirically objective” (p. 518) findings, Carpenter and Diem (2015) argued that discourse theory can provide an important lens through which to view policy and its relationship to educational outcomes.  By interrogating the “inscribed discourses of policy making” (p. 518), they showed how policy language constructs particular social meanings of concepts such as diversity and equity. Significantly, this analysis was not simply about the language used within documents; instead, Carpenter and Diem (2015) argued that the language used was directly related to reality. Their “study examine[d] how dominant discourses related to equity, and their concretization within guiding policy documents, may shape the ways in which states, local school districts, and educational leaders are asked to consider these issues in their everyday practice” (Carpenter & Diem, 2015, p. 519). Thus, through the use of discourse theory, Carpenter and Diem (2015) framed policy language, which some might consider abstract or distant from daily life, as directly connected to the experience of educational leaders.

What works in this sample body paragraph:

• The paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence that connects directly to a strength mentioned in the thesis of the review.
• The paragraph provides specific details and examples to support how and why their methods are innovative.
• The direct quotations used are short and properly integrated into the sentences.

The paragraph concludes by explaining the significance of the innovative methods to the larger work.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Give your overall assessment of the work. Explain the larger significance of your assessment. Consider who would benefit from engaging with this work.

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

UMGC Effective Writing Center Writing to Critique

Explore more of umgc.

• Writing Resources

When you hear that your writing assignment is a “critique,” here’s what you do: instantly substitute the word “evaluation.” You see, essentially, that’s what a critique is—an e-value-ation. You rate the value of something. The value can be positive, negative or, most likely, a mix of the two.

Evaluating or critiquing is something that you do every day, whether you are aware of it or not. You do it personally—is this the right outfit for today’s video? I can’t believe my spouse did our townhouse totally in beige.

But you also do it professionally: Will my team’s plans for the new product launch work? Should I hire or promote this person? What’s the best notebook computer for the sales team? All of those contain an evaluation. As a matter of fact, your ability to think critically (in an evaluative fashion) and to offer compelling reasons and evidence for your evaluations is one of the most valued skills in the workplace and will play a crucial role in your career advancement.

Let’s take a look at the typical parts of a critique or evaluation essay and get to know what should be done in each one:

Introduction

Unlike the introduction to most of the essays you write in school, where the main purpose is simply to introduce the thesis, the introduction of a critique or evaluation essay is more complex.

First, you must introduce the author and the title of the work being critiqued. This information is often in the first sentence of a critique’s introduction, but so long as the info is at or near the top you are fine.

Second,  state the author’s main point (whether in the entire work or the section of the work you are critiquing). The main point is sometimes called the “take away”—what the author wants the reader to remember or do after reading.

Third, state in 1-2 sentences your overall evaluation of the work you are critiquing. If “overall evaluation” sounds like your conclusion, bingo, you are correct. So, it may be wise to leave this portion of your intro unwritten until you have finished your first draft.

Fourth, be sure to add any background information the reader needs to place the author’s work in context. What overall topic is the work related to? Is there a controversy involved? Be sure to set the stage since your reader has not read the work.

After the introduction comes part two: the summary of the work or that part of the work under consideration. When writing this summary, you are an objective reporter providing an unbiased statement of two things:

• the author’s overall point or take-away
• the main supports offered for that point

And like a good reporter, your language should be untainted by your own views and certainly be written in the third person—no I’s or you’s. Your goal: After someone reads a good summary (also called an abstract), that reader should know the author’s thesis and main points without detecting any of your opinion.

Part three is the evaluation. This is where you transition from being a reporter to being a judge. Just like a judge at a gymnastics meet, you weigh the strong points and the weak points of the performance, then provide an overall rating. Also, just like at a gymnastics meet, you have a scorecard of criteria that you use to make this judgment, this rating. However, instead of mount and dismount, flexibility and strength, your criteria are more likely to be items like this:

• Accuracy of information
• Presence or lack of definition of key terms
• Hidden assumptions
• Clarity of language
• Fairness—the author weighed both sides without undue bias
• Logic and Organization—do the main points link together in a meaningful way and add up to a valid argument? Are there gaps in the argument?
• Fallacies—these refer to such argument no-no’s as name calling, hasty generalization, oversimplification, substituting emotional language for fact or logic, or the black/white or either/or fallacy, the bandwagon appeal (everybody is doing it, so it must be OK), and so on.

Part four is the response. Now it’s your turn. You are no longer a reporter or a judge. You are you, providing your personal take on this work. How do you do that? Simple: Ask yourself questions like these:

• What do I agree and disagree with?
• What does the author get right, what does she/he get wrong, in my opinion?
• What ultimate merit does this work have—some, a little, none?
• Would I recommend this work as a source on this topic or should it be avoided—why or why not?

The response section is also where you would use outside sources to back up your opinion of this work and its merits or demerits. In that sense, your response section is like a miniature essay, where your thesis is your opinion of the work and your main points support your opinion.

Part five is the wrap up. It doesn’t have to be long. Your main tasks are to:

• Remind your audience of the overall importance of the topic—bring the reader back to ground zero, the topic at hand.
• Bring together your assessment or rating of the work, together with your personal response to it. In doing so, focus on overall strengths and weaknesses. Then use both to state what you believe is the ultimate success of the work .

So there you are—the mysteries of the “critique” demystified. You simply

• Introduce the work
• Summarize the work
• Rate the work based on a set of clear criteria
• Respond to the work in a personal way
• Wrap it up by talking about overall success failure of the work and the importance of the topic it tries to address.

Do those things—in that order—and you will end up with a critique that is sound and meaningful.

Our helpful admissions advisors can help you choose an academic program to fit your career goals, estimate your transfer credits, and develop a plan for your education costs that fits your budget. If you’re a current UMGC student, please visit the Help Center .

Personal Information

Contact information, additional information.

By submitting this form, you acknowledge that you intend to sign this form electronically and that your electronic signature is the equivalent of a handwritten signature, with all the same legal and binding effect. You are giving your express written consent without obligation for UMGC to contact you regarding our educational programs and services using e-mail, phone, or text, including automated technology for calls and/or texts to the mobile number(s) provided. For more details, including how to opt out, read our privacy policy or contact an admissions advisor .

Please wait, your form is being submitted.

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

• 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

• Writing well

How to write a critique

• Starting well
• How to write an annotated bibliography
• How to write a case study response
• How to write an empirical article
• How to write an essay
• How to write a literature review
• How to write a reflective task
• How to write a report
• Finishing well

Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued.

• Study the work under discussion.
• Make notes on key parts of the work.
• Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work.
• Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.

Example template

There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or Canvas site for guidance from your lecturer. The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one example.

Introduction

Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:

• name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator
• describe the main argument or purpose of the work
• explain the context in which the work was created - this could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience
• have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be - for instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.

Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.

Critical evaluation

This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.

A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.

Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:

• Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
• What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
• What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
• What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
• What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
• How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
• Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?

This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.

To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your evaluation of the work.

This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:

• a statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work
• a summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation was formed
• in some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.

Reference list

Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style to use.

• Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
• Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
• Mainly focused on the critical evaluation of the work?
• Systematically outlined an evaluation of each element of the work to achieve the overall purpose?
• Used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my assessment of elements of the work?
• Formed an overall evaluation of the work, based on critical reading?
• Used a well structured introduction, body and conclusion?
• Used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation; and appropriate referencing style?

Further information

• University of New South Wales: Writing a Critical Review
• University of Toronto: The Book Review or Article Critique

Global links and information

• Referencing and using sources
• Background and development
• Changes to QUT cite|write
• Need more help?
• Current students
• Current staff
• TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12079 (Australian University)
• CRICOS No. 00213J
• ABN 83 791 724 622
• Last modified: 28-May-2024
• Accessibility
• Right to Information
• Feedback and suggestions

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.

How to Write a Critique Paper: Format, Tips, & Critique Essay Examples

A critique paper is an academic writing genre that summarizes and gives a critical evaluation of a concept or work. Or, to put it simply, it is no more than a summary and a critical analysis of a specific issue. This type of writing aims to evaluate the impact of the given work or concept in its field.

Want to learn more? Continue reading this article written by Custom-writing experts! It contains:

• best tips on how to critique an article or a literary work,
• a critique paper example with introduction, body, and conclusion.

💁 What Is a Critique Paper?

• 👣 Critical Writing Steps

👀 Critical Essay Types

📝 critique paper format, 📑 critique paper outline, 🔗 references.

A critique is a particular academic writing genre that requires you to carefully study, summarize, and critically analyze a study or a concept. In other words, it is nothing more than a critical analysis. That is all you are doing when writing a critical essay: trying to understand the work and present an evaluation. Critical essays can be either positive or negative, as the work deserves.

👣 How to Write a Critique Essay: Main Steps

Starting critique essays is the most challenging part. You are supposed to substantiate your opinion with quotes and paraphrases, avoiding retelling the entire text. A critical analysis aims to find out whether an article or another piece of writing is compelling. First, you need to formulate the author’s thesis: what was the literary work supposed to convey? Then, explore the text on how this main idea was elaborated. Finally, draft your critique according to the structure given below.

Step 1: Critical Reading

1.1. Attentively read the literary work. While reading, make notes and underline the essentials.

• Try to come into the author’s world and think why they wrote such a piece.
• Point out which literary devices are successful. Some research in literary theory may be required.
• Find out what you dislike about the text, i.e., controversies, gaps, inconsistency, or incompleteness.

1.2. Find or formulate the author’s thesis. 

• What is the principal argument? In an article, it can be found in the first paragraph.
• In a literary work, formulate one of the principal themes, as the thesis is not explicit.
• If you write a critique of painting, find out what feelings, emotions, or ideas, the artist attempted to project.

1.3. Make a summary or synopsis of the analyzed text. 

• One paragraph will suffice. You can use it in your critique essay, if necessary.
• The point is to explore the gist.

Step 2: Analyzing the Text

After the reading phase, ask yourself the following questions :

• What was your emotional response to the text? Which techniques, images, or ideas made you feel so?
• Find out the author’s background. Which experiences made them raise such a thesis? What other significant works have they written that demonstrate the general direction of thought of this person?
• Are the concepts used correctly in the text? Are the references reliable, and do they sufficiently substantiate the author’s opinion?

Step 3: Drafting the Essay

Finally, it is time to draft your essay. First of all, you’ll need to write a brief overview of the text you’re analyzing. Then, formulate a thesis statement – one sentence that will contain your opinion of the work under scrutiny. After that, make a one-paragraph summary of the text.

You can use this simple template for the draft version of your analysis. Another thing that can help you at this step is a summary creator to make the creative process more efficient.

Critique Paper Template

• Start with an introductory phrase about the domain of the work in question.
• Tell which work you are going to analyze, its author, and year of publication.
• Specify the principal argument of the work under study.
• In the third sentence, clearly state your thesis.
• Here you can insert the summary you wrote before.
• This is the only place where you can use it. No summary can be written in the main body!
• Use one paragraph for every separate analyzed aspect of the text (style, organization, fairness/bias, etc.).
• Each paragraph should confirm your thesis (e.g., whether the text is effective or ineffective).
• Each paragraph shall start with a topic sentence, followed by evidence, and concluded with a statement referring to the thesis.
• Provide a final judgment on the effectiveness of the piece of writing.
• Summarize your main points and restate the thesis, indicating that everything you said above confirms it.

You can evaluate the chosen work or concept in several ways. Pick the one you feel more comfortable with from the following:

• Descriptive critical essays examine texts or other works. Their primary focus is usually on certain features of a work, and it is common to compare and contrast the subject of your analysis to a classic example of the genre to which it belongs.
• Evaluative critical essays provide an estimate of the value of the work. Was it as good as you expected based on the recommendations, or do you feel your time would have been better spent on something else?
• Interpretive essays provide your readers with answers that relate to the meaning of the work in question. To do this, you must select a method of determining the meaning, read/watch/observe your analysis subject using this method, and put forth an argument.

There are also different types of critiques. The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, in the article “ Writing critiques ,” discusses them as well as the appropriate critique language.

Critique Paper Topics

• Critique of the article Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Nicholas Carr .
• Interpret the symbolism of Edgar Alan Poe’s The Black Cat .
• Examine the topicality of the article Impact of Racial/Ethnic Differences on Child Mental Health Care .
• Critical essay on Alice Walker’s short story Everyday Use .
• Discuss the value of the essay The Hanging by George Orwell.
• A critique on the article Stocks Versus Bonds: Explaining the Equity Risk Premium .
• Explore the themes Tennessee Williams reveals in The Glass Menagerie.
• Analyze the relevance of the article Leadership Characteristics and Digital Transformation .
• Critical evaluation of Jonathan Harvey’s play Beautiful Thing .
• Analyze and critique Derek Raymond’s story He Died with His Eyes Open .
• Discuss the techniques author uses to present the problem of choice in The Plague .
• Examine and evaluate the research article Using Evidence-Based Practice to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia .
• Explore the scientific value of the article Our Future: A Lancet Commission on Adolescent Health and Wellbeing .
• Describe the ideas E. Hemingway put into his A Clean, Well-Lighted Place .
• Analyze the literary qualities of Always Running La Vida Loca: Gang Days in L. A .
• Critical writing on The Incarnation of Power by Wright Mills.
• Explain the strengths and shortcomings of Tim Kreider’s article The Busy Trap .
• Critical response to Woolf’s novel Mrs. Dalloway .
• Examine the main idea of Richard Godbeer’s book Escaping Salem .
• The strong and weak points of the article The Confusion of Tongues by William G. Bellshaw .
• Critical review of Gulliver’s Travels .
• Analyze the stylistic devices Anthony Lewis uses in Gideon’s Trumpet.
• Examine the techniques Elie Wiesel uses to show relationship transformation in the book Night .
• Critique of the play Fences by August Wilson.
• The role of exposition in Achebe’s novel Things Fall Apart.
• The main themes John Maxwell discusses in his book Disgrace .
• Critical evaluation of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 .
• The ideas and concept of the book The Vegetarian Imperative .
• Different points of view on one historical figure in the book Two Lives of Charlemagne .

Since the APA critique paper format is one of the most common, let’s discuss it in more detail. Check out the information below to learn more:

The APA Manual recommends using the following fonts:

• 11-point Calibri,
• 11-point Arial,
• 10-point Lucida Sans Unicode,
• 12-point Times New Roman,
• 11-point Georgia,
• 10-point Computer Modern.

Add 1-inch margins on all sides.

📌 Page numbers

Page numbers should appear at the top right-hand corner, starting with the title page.

📌 Line spacing

The entire document, including the title page and reference list, should be double-spaced.

📌 Title page

The title page should include the following information:

• page number 1 in the top right-hand corner of the page header,
• paper title,
• the student’s name,
• the name of the department and the college or university,
• course number and name,
• the instructor’s name,
• due date (the date format used in your country).

📌 Critique paper title

The title of your critique paper should be no more than 12 words. In addition, it should be centered and typed in bold using title case.

📌 In-text citations

For the in-text citation, provide the author’s last name and publication year in brackets. If you are using direct citation, add the page number after the year.

📌 References

The last page of your paper should include a list of all sources cited in your essay. Here’s a general format of book and journal article citations you should use:

Book: Last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year). Book title: Subtitle . Publisher.

Journal article: Last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year). Title of the article. Journal Title, volume (issue number), start page–end page.

The main parts of good critical response essays are:

• Introduction. The introduction is the most essential part of the critical response. It should be concise and include the author and title of the work being analyzed, its main idea, and a strong thesis statement.
• Summary. This should be brief and to the point. Only the author’s/creator’s main ideas and arguments should be included.
• Analysis/interpretation. Discuss what the author’s/creator’s primary goal was and determine whether this goal was reached successfully. Use the evidence you have gathered to argue whether or not the author/creator achieved was adequately convincing (remember there should be no personal bias in this discussion).
• Evaluation/response. At this point, your readers are ready to learn your objective response to the work. It should be professional yet entertaining to read. Do not hesitate to use strong language. You can say that the work you analyzed was weak and poorly-structured if that is the case, but keep in mind that you have to have evidence to back up your claim.
• Conclusion. The last paragraph of your work should restate the thesis statement, summarize the key points, and create a sense of closure for the readers.

Critique Paper Introduction

The introduction is setting the stage for your analysis. Here are some tips to follow when working on it:

• Provide the reader with a brief synopsis of the main points of the work you are critiquing .
• State your general opinion of the work , using it as your thesis statement. The ideal situation is that you identify and use a controversial thesis.
• Remember that you will uncover a lot of necessary information about the work you are critiquing. You mustn’t make use of all of it, providing the reader with information that is unnecessary in your critique. If you are writing about Shakespeare, you don’t have to waste your or your reader’s time going through all of his works.

Critique Paper Body

The body of the critique contains the supporting paragraphs. This is where you will provide the facts that prove your main idea and support your thesis. Follow the tips below when writing the body of your critique.

• Every paragraph must focus on a precise concept from the paper under your scrutiny , and your job is to include arguments to support or disprove that concept. Concrete evidence is required.
• A critical essay is written in the third-person and ensures the reader is presented with an objective analysis.
• Discuss whether the author was able to achieve their goals and adequately get their point across.
• It is important not to confuse facts and opinions . An opinion is a personal thought and requires confirmation, whereas a fact is supported by reliable data and requires no further proof. Do not back up one idea with another one.
• Remember that your purpose is to provide the reader with an understanding of a particular piece of literature or other work from your perspective. Be as specific as possible.

Critique Paper Conclusion

Finally, you will need to write a conclusion for your critique. The conclusion reasserts your overall general opinion of the ideas presented in the text and ensures there is no doubt in the reader’s mind about what you believe and why. Follow these tips when writing your conclusion:

• Summarize the analysis you provided in the body of the critique.
• Summarize the primary reasons why you made your analysis .
• Where appropriate, provide recommendations on how the work you critiqued can be improved.

For more details on how to write a critique, check out the great critique analysis template provided by Thompson Rivers University.

If you want more information on essay writing in general, look at the Secrets of Essay Writing .

Example of Critique Paper with Introduction, Body, and Conclusion

Check out this critical response example to “The Last Inch” by James Aldridge to show how everything works in practice:

Introduction 

In his story “The Last Inch,” James Aldridge addresses the issue of the relationship between parents and children. The author captured the young boy’s coming into maturity coinciding with a challenging trial. He also demonstrated how the twelve-year-old boy obtained his father’s character traits. Aldridge’s prose is both brutal and poetic, expressing his characters’ genuine emotions and the sad truths of their situations.

Body: Summary 

The story is about Ben Ensley, an unemployed professional pilot, who decides to capture underwater shots for money. He travels to Shark Bay with his son, Davy. Ben is severely injured after being attacked by a shark while photographing. His last hope of survival is to fly back to the little African hamlet from where they took off.

Body: Analysis 

The story effectively uses the themes of survival and fatherhood and has an intriguing and captivating plot. In addition, Ben’s metamorphosis from a failing pilot to a determined survivor is effectively presented. His bond with his son, Davy, adds depth and emotional importance to the story. At the same time, the background information about Ben’s past and his life before the shark attack could be more effectively integrated into the main story rather than being presented as separate blocks of text.

Body: Evaluation 

I find “The Last Inch” by James Aldridge a very engaging and emotional story since it highlights the idea of a father’s unconditional love and determination in the face of adversity. I was also impressed by the vivid descriptions and strong character development of the father and son.

Conclusion 

“The Last Inch” by James Aldridge is an engaging and emotional narrative that will appeal to readers of all ages. It is a story of strength, dedication, and the unbreakable link between father and son. Though some backstory could be integrated more smoothly, “The Last Inch” impresses with its emotional punch. It leaves the readers touched by the raw power of fatherly love and human will.

📚 Critique Essay Examples

With all of the information and tips provided above, your way will become clearer when you have a solid example of a critique essay.

Below is a critical response to The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman.

When speaking of feminist literature that is prominent and manages to touch on incredibly controversial issues, The Yellow Wallpaper is the first book that comes to mind. Written from a first-person perspective, magnifying the effect of the narrative, the short story by Charlotte Perkins Gilman introduces the reader to the problem of the physical and mental health of the women of the 19th century. However, the message that is intended to concern feminist ideas is rather subtle. Written in the form of several diary entries, the novel offers a mysterious plot, and at the same time, shockingly realistic details.

What really stands out about the novel is the fact that the reader is never really sure how much of the story takes place in reality and how much of it happens in the psychotic mind of the protagonist. In addition, the novel contains a plethora of description that contributes to the strain and enhances the correlation between the atmosphere and the protagonist’s fears: “The color is repellent, almost revolting; a smoldering unclean yellow, strangely faded by the slow-turning sunlight” (Gilman).

Despite Gilman’s obvious intent to make the novel a feminist story with a dash of thriller thrown in, the result is instead a thriller with a dash of feminism, as Allen (2009) explains. However, there is no doubt that the novel is a renowned classic. Offering a perfect portrayal of the 19th-century stereotypes, it is a treasure that is certainly worth the read.

If you need another critique essay example, take a look at our sample on “ The Importance of Being Earnest ” by Oscar Wilde.

And here are some more critique paper examples for you check out:

• A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Critique Paper
• Critique on “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
• “When the Five Rights Go Wrong” Article Critique
• Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey — Comparison & Critique
• “The TrueBlue Study”: Qualitative Article Critique
• Ethical Conflict Associated With Managed Care: Views of Nurse Practitioners’: Article Critique
• Benefits and Disadvantages of Prone Positioning in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress: Article Critique
• Reducing Stress in Student Nurses: Article Critique
• Management of Change and Professional Safety – Article Critique
• “Views of Young People Towards Physical Activity”: Article Critique

Seeing an example of a critique is so helpful. You can find many other examples of a critique paper at the University of Minnesota and John Hopkins University. Plus, you can check out this video for a great explanation of how to write a critique.

• Critical Analysis
• Writing an Article Critique
• The Critique Essay
• Critique Essay
• Writing a Critique
• Writing A Book Critique
• Media Critique
• Tips for an Effective Creative Writing Critique
• How to Write an Article Critique
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

What is a creative essay, if not the way to express yourself? Crafting such a paper is a task that allows you to communicate your opinion and tell a story. However, even using your imagination to a great extent doesn’t free you from following academic writing rules. Don’t even get...

A compare and contrast essay — what is it? In this type of paper, you compare two different things or ideas, highlighting what is similar between the two, and you also contrast them, highlighting what is different. The two things might be events, people, books, points of view, lifestyles, or...

What is an expository essay? This type of writing aims to inform the reader about the subject clearly, concisely, and objectively. The keyword here is “inform”. You are not trying to persuade your reader to think a certain way or let your own opinions and emotions cloud your work. Just stick to the...

Have you ever tried to write a story analysis but ended up being completely confused and lost? Well, the task might be challenging if you don’t know the essential rules for literary analysis creation. But don’t get frustrated! We know how to write a short story analysis, and we are...

Have you ever tried to get somebody round to your way of thinking? Then you should know how daunting the task is. Still, if your persuasion is successful, the result is emotionally rewarding. A persuasive essay is a type of writing that uses facts and logic to argument and substantiate...

One of the most critical skills that students gain during their college years is assignment writing. Composing impressive essays and research papers can be quite challenging, especially for ESL students. Nonetheless, before learning the art of academic writing, you may make numerous common essay mistakes. Such involuntary errors appear in:...

You’re probably thinking: I’m no Mahatma Gandhi or Steve Jobs—what could I possibly write in my memoir? I don’t even know how to start an autobiography, let alone write the whole thing. But don’t worry: essay writing can be easy, and this autobiography example for students is here to show...

Some people know which profession to choose from childhood, while others decide much later in life. However, and whenever you come to it, you may have to elaborate on it in your personal statement or cover letter. This is widely known as “Why I Want to Be a Teacher” essay.

Assigned with an essay about friendship? Congrats! It’s one of the best tasks you could get. Digging through your memories and finding strong arguments for this paper can be an enjoyable experience. I bet you will cope with this task effortlessly as we can help you with the assignment. Just...

When you are assigned an autobiography to write, tens, and even hundreds of questions start buzzing in your head. How to write autobiography essay parts? What to include? How to make your autobiography writing flow? Don’t worry about all this and use the following three simple principles and 15 creative...

A life experience essay combines the elements of narration, description, and self-reflection. Such a paper has to focus on a single event that had a significant impact on a person’s worldview and values. Writing an essay about life experience prompts students to do the following: You may struggle with such...

Who has made a significant impact in your life and why? Essay on the topic might be challenging to write. One is usually asked to write such a text as a college admission essay. A topic for this paper can be of your choice or pre-established by the institution. Either...

May I know who’s the author? For my citation activity.

Hello, Kriszha! You can reference it as a web source/web page.

Wow…great work… kindly can you assist me in writing a critique about indiscipline in a school

That’s an interesting demonstration I watched. However, my weakness is that I’m very poor in language and analysing issues.

Hi, can you help me for my assignment about article critiquing?

I need your help if you can send me a full written dissertation..thank you

This is gud

Can you help me to my activities

Thank you so much! This really helped me!

How to Write a Critical Essay

Hill Street Studios / Getty Images

• An Introduction to Punctuation

Olivia Valdes was the Associate Editorial Director for ThoughtCo. She worked with Dotdash Meredith from 2017 to 2021.

• B.A., American Studies, Yale University

A critical essay is a form of academic writing that analyzes, interprets, and/or evaluates a text. In a critical essay, an author makes a claim about how particular ideas or themes are conveyed in a text, then supports that claim with evidence from primary and/or secondary sources.

In casual conversation, we often associate the word "critical" with a negative perspective. However, in the context of a critical essay, the word "critical" simply means discerning and analytical. Critical essays analyze and evaluate the meaning and significance of a text, rather than making a judgment about its content or quality.

What Makes an Essay "Critical"? 

Imagine you've just watched the movie "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." If you were chatting with friends in the movie theater lobby, you might say something like, "Charlie was so lucky to find a Golden Ticket. That ticket changed his life." A friend might reply, "Yeah, but Willy Wonka shouldn't have let those raucous kids into his chocolate factory in the first place. They caused a big mess."

These comments make for an enjoyable conversation, but they do not belong in a critical essay. Why? Because they respond to (and pass judgment on) the raw content of the movie, rather than analyzing its themes or how the director conveyed those themes.

On the other hand, a critical essay about "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" might take the following topic as its thesis: "In 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,' director Mel Stuart intertwines money and morality through his depiction of children: the angelic appearance of Charlie Bucket, a good-hearted boy of modest means, is sharply contrasted against the physically grotesque portrayal of the wealthy, and thus immoral, children."

This thesis includes a claim about the themes of the film, what the director seems to be saying about those themes, and what techniques the director employs in order to communicate his message. In addition, this thesis is both supportable  and  disputable using evidence from the film itself, which means it's a strong central argument for a critical essay .

Characteristics of a Critical Essay

Critical essays are written across many academic disciplines and can have wide-ranging textual subjects: films, novels, poetry, video games, visual art, and more. However, despite their diverse subject matter, all critical essays share the following characteristics.

• Central claim . All critical essays contain a central claim about the text. This argument is typically expressed at the beginning of the essay in a thesis statement , then supported with evidence in each body paragraph. Some critical essays bolster their argument even further by including potential counterarguments, then using evidence to dispute them.
• Evidence . The central claim of a critical essay must be supported by evidence. In many critical essays, most of the evidence comes in the form of textual support: particular details from the text (dialogue, descriptions, word choice, structure, imagery, et cetera) that bolster the argument. Critical essays may also include evidence from secondary sources, often scholarly works that support or strengthen the main argument.
• Conclusion . After making a claim and supporting it with evidence, critical essays offer a succinct conclusion. The conclusion summarizes the trajectory of the essay's argument and emphasizes the essays' most important insights.

Tips for Writing a Critical Essay

Writing a critical essay requires rigorous analysis and a meticulous argument-building process. If you're struggling with a critical essay assignment, these tips will help you get started.

• Practice active reading strategies . These strategies for staying focused and retaining information will help you identify specific details in the text that will serve as evidence for your main argument. Active reading is an essential skill, especially if you're writing a critical essay for a literature class.
• Read example essays . If you're unfamiliar with critical essays as a form, writing one is going to be extremely challenging. Before you dive into the writing process, read a variety of published critical essays, paying careful attention to their structure and writing style. (As always, remember that paraphrasing an author's ideas without proper attribution is a form of plagiarism .)
• Resist the urge to summarize . Critical essays should consist of your own analysis and interpretation of a text, not a summary of the text in general. If you find yourself writing lengthy plot or character descriptions, pause and consider whether these summaries are in the service of your main argument or whether they are simply taking up space.
• 100 Persuasive Essay Topics
• Null Hypothesis Examples
• An Introduction to Academic Writing
• Definition and Examples of Analysis in Composition
• How to Write a Good Thesis Statement
• The Ultimate Guide to the 5-Paragraph Essay
• How To Write an Essay
• Critical Analysis in Composition
• Tips on How to Write an Argumentative Essay
• What an Essay Is and How to Write One
• How to Write and Format an MBA Essay
• Higher Level Thinking: Synthesis in Bloom's Taxonomy
• How To Write a Top-Scoring ACT Essay for the Enhanced Writing Test
• What Is a Critique in Composition?
• How to Structure an Essay
• How to Write a Solid Thesis Statement

Book Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you write a book review, a report or essay that offers a critical perspective on a text. It offers a process and suggests some strategies for writing book reviews.

What is a review?

A review is a critical evaluation of a text, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout will focus on book reviews. For a similar assignment, see our handout on literature reviews .

Above all, a review makes an argument. The most important element of a review is that it is a commentary, not merely a summary. It allows you to enter into dialogue and discussion with the work’s creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where you find the work exemplary or deficient in its knowledge, judgments, or organization. You should clearly state your opinion of the work in question, and that statement will probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although you may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features:

• First, a review gives the reader a concise summary of the content. This includes a relevant description of the topic as well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• Second, and more importantly, a review offers a critical assessment of the content. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you as noteworthy, whether or not it was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at hand.
• Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review often suggests whether or not the audience would appreciate it.

Becoming an expert reviewer: three short examples

Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that you may feel unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison’s new book if you’ve never written a novel yourself, much less won a Nobel Prize? The point is that someone—a professor, a journal editor, peers in a study group—wants to know what you think about a particular work. You may not be (or feel like) an expert, but you need to pretend to be one for your particular audience. Nobody expects you to be the intellectual equal of the work’s creator, but your careful observations can provide you with the raw material to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews require you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Consider the following brief book review written for a history course on medieval Europe by a student who is fascinated with beer:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600, investigates how women used to brew and sell the majority of ale drunk in England. Historically, ale and beer (not milk, wine, or water) were important elements of the English diet. Ale brewing was low-skill and low status labor that was complimentary to women’s domestic responsibilities. In the early fifteenth century, brewers began to make ale with hops, and they called this new drink “beer.” This technique allowed brewers to produce their beverages at a lower cost and to sell it more easily, although women generally stopped brewing once the business became more profitable.

The student describes the subject of the book and provides an accurate summary of its contents. But the reader does not learn some key information expected from a review: the author’s argument, the student’s appraisal of the book and its argument, and whether or not the student would recommend the book. As a critical assessment, a book review should focus on opinions, not facts and details. Summary should be kept to a minimum, and specific details should serve to illustrate arguments.

Now consider a review of the same book written by a slightly more opinionated student:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 was a colossal disappointment. I wanted to know about the rituals surrounding drinking in medieval England: the songs, the games, the parties. Bennett provided none of that information. I liked how the book showed ale and beer brewing as an economic activity, but the reader gets lost in the details of prices and wages. I was more interested in the private lives of the women brewsters. The book was divided into eight long chapters, and I can’t imagine why anyone would ever want to read it.

There’s no shortage of judgments in this review! But the student does not display a working knowledge of the book’s argument. The reader has a sense of what the student expected of the book, but no sense of what the author herself set out to prove. Although the student gives several reasons for the negative review, those examples do not clearly relate to each other as part of an overall evaluation—in other words, in support of a specific thesis. This review is indeed an assessment, but not a critical one.

Here is one final review of the same book:

One of feminism’s paradoxes—one that challenges many of its optimistic histories—is how patriarchy remains persistent over time. While Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 recognizes medieval women as historical actors through their ale brewing, it also shows that female agency had its limits with the advent of beer. I had assumed that those limits were religious and political, but Bennett shows how a “patriarchal equilibrium” shut women out of economic life as well. Her analysis of women’s wages in ale and beer production proves that a change in women’s work does not equate to a change in working women’s status. Contemporary feminists and historians alike should read Bennett’s book and think twice when they crack open their next brewsky.

This student’s review avoids the problems of the previous two examples. It combines balanced opinion and concrete example, a critical assessment based on an explicitly stated rationale, and a recommendation to a potential audience. The reader gets a sense of what the book’s author intended to demonstrate. Moreover, the student refers to an argument about feminist history in general that places the book in a specific genre and that reaches out to a general audience. The example of analyzing wages illustrates an argument, the analysis engages significant intellectual debates, and the reasons for the overall positive review are plainly visible. The review offers criteria, opinions, and support with which the reader can agree or disagree.

Developing an assessment: before you write

There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the work at hand is necessary before you actually begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-step process: developing an argument about the work under consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft. See our handout on argument .

What follows is a series of questions to focus your thinking as you dig into the work at hand. While the questions specifically consider book reviews, you can easily transpose them to an analysis of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don’t feel obligated to address each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the book in question.

• What is the thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? What is the approach to the subject (topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support their argument? What evidence do they use to prove their point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author’s information (or conclusions) conflict with other books you’ve read, courses you’ve taken or just previous assumptions you had of the subject?
• How does the author structure their argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• How has this book helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the book to your reader?

Beyond the internal workings of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the text’s production:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the biographer was the subject’s best friend? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events they write about?
• What is the book’s genre? Out of what field does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know. Keep in mind, though, that naming “firsts”—alongside naming “bests” and “onlys”—can be a risky business unless you’re absolutely certain.

Writing the review

Once you have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that will describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Check out our handout on thesis statements . Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.

Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical manner. That logic, unlike more standard academic writing, may initially emphasize the author’s argument while you develop your own in the course of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you may want to make the work and the author more prominent; if you want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (but never separate from) those of the work under review. What follows is just one of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

Since most reviews are brief, many writers begin with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their argument. But you can introduce your review differently depending on the argument and audience. The Writing Center’s handout on introductions can help you find an approach that works. In general, you should include:

• The name of the author and the book title and the main theme.
• Relevant details about who the author is and where they stand in the genre or field of inquiry. You could also link the title to the subject to show how the title explains the subject matter.
• The context of the book and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audience alerts readers to your “take” on the book. Perhaps you want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. Another reviewer might want to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your argument.
• The thesis of the book. If you are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. But identifying the book’s particular novelty, angle, or originality allows you to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
• Your thesis about the book.

Summary of content

This should be brief, as analysis takes priority. In the course of making your assessment, you’ll hopefully be backing up your assertions with concrete evidence from the book, so some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.

The necessary amount of summary also depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If you are writing book reviews for colleagues—to prepare for comprehensive exams, for example—you may want to devote more attention to summarizing the book’s contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as a class assignment on the same work—you may have more liberty to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument. See our handout on summary for more tips.

Analysis and evaluation of the book

Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that deal with single aspects of your argument. This arrangement can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, but it can help you differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more clearly. You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book as you discuss it. Given the argument you want to make, you can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the book. If you find it useful to include comparisons to other books, keep them brief so that the book under review remains in the spotlight. Avoid excessive quotation and give a specific page reference in parentheses when you do quote. Remember that you can state many of the author’s points in your own words.

Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the book. You should not introduce new evidence for your argument in the conclusion. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your own thesis. This paragraph needs to balance the book’s strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the body of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable one? What do they all add up to? The Writing Center’s handout on conclusions can help you make a final assessment.

Finally, a few general considerations:

• Review the book in front of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don’t criticize the book for not being something it was never intended to be.
• With any luck, the author of the book worked hard to find the right words to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the same. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be sure, however, to cite specific examples to back up your assertions carefully.
• Try to present a balanced argument about the value of the book for its audience. You’re entitled—and sometimes obligated—to voice strong agreement or disagreement. But keep in mind that a bad book takes as long to write as a good one, and every author deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.
• A great place to learn about book reviews is to look at examples. The New York Times Sunday Book Review and The New York Review of Books can show you how professional writers review books.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Drewry, John. 1974. Writing Book Reviews. Boston: Greenwood Press.

Hoge, James. 1987. Literary Reviewing. Charlottesville: University Virginia of Press.

Sova, Dawn, and Harry Teitelbaum. 2002. How to Write Book Reports , 4th ed. Lawrenceville, NY: Thomson/Arco.

Walford, A.J. 1986. Reviews and Reviewing: A Guide. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

How to Write a Peer Review

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.

Major vs. minor issues

What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is  fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:

• Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
• Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
• Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
• Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors.

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors.  If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.

If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

• Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
• Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
• Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
• Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
• Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

Don’t

• Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.
• Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you don’t need to do their work for them.
• Use the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
• Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
• Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments

✗ Before

“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”

✓ After

“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”

“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”

“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”

“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”

“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.

What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”

What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”

What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”

What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you turn in your report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!

• Getting started as a reviewer
• Responding to an invitation
• Reading a manuscript
• Writing a peer review

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Writing a Critique

• About this Guide
• What Is a Critique?
• Getting Started
• Components of a Critique Essay

Types of Critiques

There are many types of critiques. Critiques can be written on:

• Literary works
• Published works
• Drafts of works
• Policies, of any kind
• Works of art

Anywhere that criticism can exist, a critique can follow to evaluate arguments, identify gaps, and/or make recommendations. 

Defining Critique

A critique evaluates a resource. It requires both critical reading and analysis in order to present the strengths and weaknesses of a particular resource for readers. The critique includes your opinion of the work. Because of the analytics involved, a critique and a summary are not the same. For quick reference, you can use the following chart in order to determine if your paper is a critique or a summary.

Looking for more information on writing a summary or an abstract? Check out our Writing a Summary guide . 

• << Previous: About this Guide
• Next: Getting Started >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2023 10:46 AM
• URL: https://library.tiffin.edu/critique

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The Purdue On-Campus Writing Lab and Purdue Online Writing Lab assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue Writing Lab serves the Purdue, West Lafayette, campus and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

A Message From the Assistant Director of Content Development 

The Purdue OWL® is committed to supporting  students, instructors, and writers by offering a wide range of resources that are developed and revised with them in mind. To do this, the OWL team is always exploring possibilties for a better design, allowing accessibility and user experience to guide our process. As the OWL undergoes some changes, we welcome your feedback and suggestions by email at any time.

Please don't hesitate to contact us via our contact page  if you have any questions or comments.

All the best,

Social Media

Facebook twitter.

Essays That Worked

The essays are a place to show us who you are and who you’ll be in our community.

It’s a chance to add depth to something that is important to you and tell the admissions committee more about your background or goals. Below you’ll find selected examples of essays that “worked,” as nominated by our admissions committee. In each of these essays, students were able to share stories from their everyday lives to reveal something about their character, values, and life that aligned with the culture and values at Hopkins.

Read essays that worked from Transfer applicants .

Hear from the class of 2027.

These selections represent just a few examples of essays we found impressive and helpful during the past admissions cycle. We hope these essays inspire you as you prepare to compose your own personal statements. The most important thing to remember is to be original as you share your own story, thoughts, and ideas with us.

Ordering the Disorderly

Ellie’s essay skillfully uses the topic of entropy as an extended metaphor. Through it, we see reflections about who they are and who they aspire to be.

Pack Light, But Be Prepared

In Pablo’s essay, the act of packing for a pilgrimage becomes a metaphor for the way humans accumulate experiences in their life’s journey and what we can learn from them. As we join Pablo through the diverse phases of their life, we gain insights into their character and values.

Tikkun Olam

Julieta illustrates how the concept of Tikkun Olam, “a desire to help repair the world,” has shaped their passions and drives them to pursue experiences at Hopkins.

Kashvi’s essay encapsulates a heartfelt journey of self-discovery and the invaluable teachings of Rock, their 10-year-old dog. Through the lens of their companionship, Kashvi walked us through valuable lessons on responsibility, friendship, patience, and unconditional love.

Classical Reflections in Herstory

Maddie’s essay details their intellectual journey using their love of Greek classics. They incorporate details that reveal the roots of their academic interests: storytelling, literary devices, and translation. As their essay progresses, so do Maddie’s intellectual curiosities.

My Spotify Playlist

Alyssa’s essay reflects on special memories through the creative lens of Spotify playlists. They use three examples to highlight their experiences with their tennis team, finding a virtual community during the pandemic, and co-founding a nonprofit to help younger students learn about STEM.

More essays that worked

We share essays from previously admitted students—along with feedback from our admissions committee—so you can understand what made them effective and how to start crafting your own.

Application Workshops

Our interactive workshops—on topics like the college search process and essay preparation—will help you build your strongest application when you’re ready to apply.

REGISTER FOR AN APPLICATION WORKSHOP

Application tips in your inbox

Join our mailing list to receive insights from our admissions committee, event invites, and other resources for your college journey.

Quick Links:

• Majors, Minors & Programs
• Application Deadlines & Requirements
• College Planning Guide

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

What is peer review?

Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation and has continued successfully with relatively minor changes for some 350 years.

Elsevier relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them.

Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions opens in new tab/window of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process opens in new tab/window under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677).

Despite many criticisms about the integrity of peer review, the majority of the research community still believes peer review is the best form of scientific evaluation. This opinion was endorsed by the outcome of a survey Elsevier and Sense About Science conducted in 2009 opens in new tab/window and has since been further confirmed by other publisher and scholarly organization surveys. Furthermore, a  2015 survey by the Publishing Research Consortium opens in new tab/window , saw 82% of researchers agreeing that “without peer review there is no control in scientific communication.”

To learn more about peer review, visit Elsevier’s free e-learning platform  Researcher Academy opens in new tab/window and see our resources below.

The peer review process

Types of peer review.

Peer review comes in different flavours. Each model has its own advantages and disadvantages, and often one type of review will be preferred by a subject community. Before submitting or reviewing a paper, you must therefore check which type is employed by the journal so you are aware of the respective rules. In case of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you have been invited to review, consult the journal’s homepage or contact the editorial office directly.  

Single anonymized review

In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single anonymized review include:

Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions , as the reviewers will not be influenced by potential criticism from the authors.

Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.

Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work.

Double anonymized review

Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.

Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, such as on author's gender, country of origin, academic status, or previous publication history.

Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.

But bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter, or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. More information for authors can be found in our  double-anonymized peer review guidelines .

Triple anonymized review

With triple anonymized review, reviewers are anonymous to the author, and the author's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in a way to minimize any potential bias towards the authors. However, it should be noted that: 

The complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable.

As with double anonymized review, there is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly identify the author(s) from their writing style, subject matter, citation patterns, or other methodologies.

Open review

Open peer review is an umbrella term for many different models aiming at greater transparency during and after the peer review process. The most common definition of open review is when both the reviewer and author are known to each other during the peer review process. Other types of open peer review consist of:

Publication of reviewers’ names on the article page 

Publication of peer review reports alongside the article, either signed or anonymous 

Publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) with authors’ and editors’ responses alongside the article 

Publication of the paper after pre-checks and opening a discussion forum to the community who can then comment (named or anonymous) on the article 

Many believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For three years, five Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) as articles alongside the accepted paper on ScienceDirect ( example opens in new tab/window ).

Read more about the experiment

More transparent peer review

Transparency is the key to trust in peer review and as such there is an increasing call towards more  transparency around the peer review process . In an effort to promote transparency in the peer review process, many Elsevier journals therefore publish the name of the handling editor of the published paper on ScienceDirect. Some journals also provide details about the number of reviewers who reviewed the article before acceptance. Furthermore, in order to provide updates and feedback to reviewers, most Elsevier journals inform reviewers about the editor’s decision and their peers’ recommendations. 

Article transfer service: sharing reviewer comments

Elsevier authors may be invited to  transfer  their article submission from one journal to another for free if their initial submission was not successful. 

As a referee, your review report (including all comments to the author and editor) will be transferred to the destination journal, along with the manuscript. The main benefit is that reviewers are not asked to review the same manuscript several times for different journals. 

Tools and resources

Interesting reads.

Chapter 2 of Academic and Professional Publishing, 2012, by Irene Hames in 2012 opens in new tab/window

"Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Perspectives in Publishing No 2, August 2004, by Adrian Mulligan opens in new tab/window

“The history of the peer-review process” Trends in Biotechnology, 2002, by Ray Spier opens in new tab/window

Reviewers’ Update articles

Peer review using today’s technology

Lifting the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni

How face-to-face peer review can benefit authors and journals alike

Innovation in peer review: introducing “volunpeers”

Results masked review: peer review without publication bias

Elsevier Researcher Academy modules

The certified peer reviewer course opens in new tab/window

Transparency in peer review opens in new tab/window

Reference Examples

More than 100 reference examples and their corresponding in-text citations are presented in the seventh edition Publication Manual . Examples of the most common works that writers cite are provided on this page; additional examples are available in the Publication Manual .

To find the reference example you need, first select a category (e.g., periodicals) and then choose the appropriate type of work (e.g., journal article ) and follow the relevant example.

When selecting a category, use the webpages and websites category only when a work does not fit better within another category. For example, a report from a government website would use the reports category, whereas a page on a government website that is not a report or other work would use the webpages and websites category.

Also note that print and electronic references are largely the same. For example, to cite both print books and ebooks, use the books and reference works category and then choose the appropriate type of work (i.e., book ) and follow the relevant example (e.g., whole authored book ).

Examples on these pages illustrate the details of reference formats. We make every attempt to show examples that are in keeping with APA Style’s guiding principles of inclusivity and bias-free language. These examples are presented out of context only to demonstrate formatting issues (e.g., which elements to italicize, where punctuation is needed, placement of parentheses). References, including these examples, are not inherently endorsements for the ideas or content of the works themselves. An author may cite a work to support a statement or an idea, to critique that work, or for many other reasons. For more examples, see our sample papers .

Reference examples are covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Chapter 10 and the Concise Guide Chapter 10

Related handouts

• Common Reference Examples Guide (PDF, 147KB)
• Reference Quick Guide (PDF, 225KB)

Textual Works

Textual works are covered in Sections 10.1–10.8 of the Publication Manual . The most common categories and examples are presented here. For the reviews of other works category, see Section 10.7.

• Journal Article References
• Magazine Article References
• Newspaper Article References
• Blog Post and Blog Comment References
• UpToDate Article References
• Book/Ebook References
• Diagnostic Manual References
• Children’s Book or Other Illustrated Book References
• Classroom Course Pack Material References
• Religious Work References
• Chapter in an Edited Book/Ebook References
• Dictionary Entry References
• Wikipedia Entry References
• Report by a Government Agency References
• Report with Individual Authors References
• Brochure References
• Ethics Code References
• Fact Sheet References
• ISO Standard References
• Press Release References
• White Paper References
• Conference Presentation References
• Conference Proceeding References
• Published Dissertation or Thesis References
• Unpublished Dissertation or Thesis References
• ERIC Database References
• Preprint Article References

Data and Assessments

Data sets are covered in Section 10.9 of the Publication Manual . For the software and tests categories, see Sections 10.10 and 10.11.

• Data Set References
• Toolbox References

Audiovisual Media

Audiovisual media are covered in Sections 10.12–10.14 of the Publication Manual . The most common examples are presented together here. In the manual, these examples and more are separated into categories for audiovisual, audio, and visual media.

• Artwork References
• Clip Art or Stock Image References
• Film and Television References
• Musical Score References
• Online Course or MOOC References
• Podcast References
• PowerPoint Slide or Lecture Note References
• Radio Broadcast References
• TED Talk References
• Transcript of an Audiovisual Work References
• YouTube Video References

Online Media

Online media are covered in Sections 10.15 and 10.16 of the Publication Manual . Please note that blog posts are part of the periodicals category.

• Facebook References
• Instagram References
• LinkedIn References
• Online Forum (e.g., Reddit) References
• TikTok References
• X References
• Webpage on a Website References
• Clinical Practice References
• Open Educational Resource References
• Whole Website References

2024 Theses Doctoral

Understanding Consumer Emotions from User-Generated Content

Wu, Yinghao

This dissertation aims to provide a deeper understanding of consumer emotions from user-generated content. In the first essay of my dissertation, “Digital Therapy for Negative Consumption Experiences: The Impact of Emotional and Rational Reviews on Review Writers and Readers,” we examine whether the manner in which a consumer writes a review can help them recover from a negative consumption experience, as well as how this influences other review readers. To test these research questions, we use a multimethod approach and collect archival data, field data, and participants’ physiological responses as well as memory recall. We employ machine learning techniques to train multilabel classifiers with review textual data and categorize online reviews into one of the three types: emotional (feelings and emotions), rational (facts, beliefs, and thought processes), and integrated (the combination of the two). We first show that, similar to writing about traumatic life experiences, when a review writer writes an integrated review about a negative experience (compared to when they only express emotional or rational aspects), they feel better afterwards and are more likely to purchase again. We also show that integrated reviews do not any have adverse effects on review readers. Finally, in two controlled experiments, we examine the underlying mechanisms for this positive effect of writing an integrated review on review writers by collecting biophysiological response data (i.e., review writers’ blood pressure and pulse) and by analyzing thought listing data. The results show that writing an integrated review about a negative consumption experience appears to lead to catharsis and cognitive reappraisal of the negative experience, which in turn lead to better outcomes. This research shows that writing online reviews can serve as a digital therapy tool that helps consumers recover from negative consumer experiences and has positive benefits for the involved firms. This has important implications for the design of review systems and for firms, especially in situations where customers have negative experiences with their products and services. The first essay of my dissertation suggests that consumers can benefit by expressing emotions (together with rational thoughts) in their online reviews. In the second essay of my dissertation, “Are Emotions Gendered? Gender Stereotypes in Online Reviews,” we examine whether the domain of online reviews is inclusive enough to allow all consumers to feel free to express their emotions. In this research, we examine whether review readers’ reactions to reviews where writers express their emotion vary with the gender of the review writer. More specifically, we examine how gender stereotypes in general, and the belief that females are more emotional than males in particular, influences review readers’ reactions to reviews as well as the manner in which review writers construct their reviews. We find that even though the domain of online reviews is a relatively private and safe place for consumers to express their evaluations of products and services, a common feature of online review system designs, that is asking review writers to provide an avatar and/or names that might reflect their gender, leads to less favorable reactions to reviews written by women (vs. men) because of gender stereotypes. Further, when the stereotype that women are more emotional than men is made salient before review writing (versus when it is not), female review writers express less emotion, possibly because emotionality has negative associations such as being “irrational,” “overdramatic,” and “sensitive.” This finding is important because other research has shown that reviews that contain more emotion are evaluated more positively by review readers. Most importantly, while we provide evidence that this stereotype is believed and has a negative impact on review writers and readers, we show that it is not true in this context – females are no more emotional than men in review writing contexts.

• Consumer behavior
• Consumers--Psychology
• Sex differences (Psychology)
• Stereotypes (Social psychology)
• Business--Psychological aspects

This item is currently under embargo. It will be available starting 2029-05-22.

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard