Skip to Main Content

RTT440: Research in Radiation Therapy: Week 2

Course Guide for RTT440

How to Read a Scholarly Research Article

Now that you have your article, how do you read it? How you read and take notes on a scholarly journal article is going to affect how you critique it. Check out these tabs for some tips and tricks to consider when reading through these articles. 

UNDERSTAND THE AUTHOR

The first thing you need to do in order to read and critique a scholarly journal article is understand the author. To understand the author, keep in mind the following:

  • Authors of journal articles always have an argument. They are trying to convince you of something and publish in order to:
    • Present their own research.
    • Agree with, and support other scholars in the field.
    • Disagree with other scholars, and present alternate points of view. 
  • Authors can be both good and bad.
    • Good: authors present you with new, research-based information.
    • Bad: authors can be biased and only present one side of the story. 

 

*Modified from guides by Pasadena City College, University of New England, and Fitchburg State University.

HOW TO APPROACH THE ARTICLE

Don't be a passive reader. Keep in mind your reason for reading the article. 

  1. Remember your research question (or the core question the article itself is attempting to discuss).
  2. Focus on the information in the article that is relevant to your research question (skim over other parts)
  3. Question everything you read -- not everything is 100% true or correct.
  4. Think critically about what you read and try to build your own argument based on it. 

 

*Modified from guides by Pasadena City College, University of New England, and Fitchburg State University.

STEPS TO READ THE ARTICLE

Part of being an informed reader is knowing how to read the article.

You are looking through a lot of articles for a specific reason. The quickest and most effective reading method is to understand how the articles are organized and then read specific areas to locate the information you need.

  • Look at the structure of the article (most scientific articles follow the same format). 
  1. Abstract (summary of the whole article)
  2. Introduction (why they did the research) - The purpose/hypothesis of the study is presented and previous research framing the current question is reviewed.
  3. Methodology (how they did the research) - An accounting of how the study was carried out: who the subjects were, under what conditions they were tested, etc. 
  4. Results (what happened) - The data from the study is presented with dense mathematical formulas, charts, graphs, or other visual representations. 
  5. Discussion (what the results mean) - A narrative review of the data and whether it proved or disproved the original thesis. 
  6. Conclusion (what they learned) - A restatement of the results in straightforward language and future directions for research.
  7. References (whose research they read and cited to support their own body of work)
  • Read the abstract and conclusion first (these have the main points).
  • If you find anything in the abstract or conclusion that is important for your paper, search for the information within the body of the article. 
  • If you need more information, then read through whole sections (usually discussion or results section). 
  • Pay attention to what each section is about. The Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion sections usually have the most important information. 

*Modified from guides by Pasadena City College, University of New England, and Fitchburg State University.

HOW TO REFERENCE THE ARTICLE

There are two main ways to reference an article in your paper:

  1. Quoting
    • Use quotations when the author's original words are so poignant that you can not reword it and retain the integrity of what the author was saying.
    • Usually, use quotations for definitions.
  2. Paraphrasing
    • Use paraphrasing to tell your reader in your own words what the author had to say.
    • Most commonly used in academic writing. 

Your program uses APA Style formatting. For more help with APA style and Word document formatting, please visit the APA page of this guide. 

 

*Modified from guides by Pasadena City College, University of New England, and Fitchburg State University.

ITEMS TO CONSIDER WHEN CRITIQUING AN ARTICLE

  • Hypotheses
    • Are research questions and/or hypotheses explicitly stated? If not, is their absence justified?
    • Are questions and hypotheses appropriately worded, with clear specification of key variables and the study population? 
    • Are the questions/hypotheses consistent with the literature review and the conceptual framework? 
  • Sampling Method
    • Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants?
    • Was the study subject to external review by an institutional review board/ethics review board? 
    • Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefit to participants?
  • Subjects Chosen
    • Was the population identified and described? 
    • Was the sample described in sufficient detail?
    • Was the best possible sampling design used to enhance the samples representativeness? Were sample biases minimized?
    • Was the sample size adequate? 
  • Data Collection Method
    • Were key variables operationalized using the best possible method?
    • Are the specific instruments adequately described and were they good choices, given the study purpose and study population? 
  • Study Design
    • What evidence does the author offer in support of the position put forth?
    • What is the nature of each piece of supporting evidence? (ex. based on empirical research, ethical consideration, common knowledge, anecdote?)
    • Does the research design adequately address the question posed above?
  • Statistical Analysis
    • Were analyses undertaken to address each research question or test each hypothesis? 
    • Were appropriate statistical methods used, given the level of measurement of the variables, number of groups being compared, and so on?
  • Discussion
    • Are all major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior research and/or the study's conceptual framework?
    • Were casual inferences, if any, justified?
    • Are the interpretations consistent with the results and with the study's limitations? 
    • Does the report address the issue of the generalizability of the findings?