Trouble in Paradise, Article Critique Example

To conduct a professional PhD level paper review, it is necessary to verify several aspects of the paper that is being examined (Question 1). First, it is necessary to detect whether the information used is valid, either in terms of correctness or originality. Next, it is valuable to determine whether the steps used in the methodology can accurately contribute to the reporting of the results. Last, it is necessary to ascertain whether the conclusion drawn is reasonable based on the methodology used, results received, and knowledge present in the literature. To determine a full picture of quality, it is also important to examine whether this project has been previously performed or reported by another author, or the same author in an attempt to achieve a higher publication rate.

iThenticate was used to detect the originality of the paper. It was found that approximately 53 of the words used in this article are a match for a publication uploaded onto issi2013.org, however, this yielded a less than 1% match, indicating that this research paper is largely original (Question 2). It does not appear that this paper was published previously by the authors in the same language or in any other language. Both authors have previously published articles on the same topic, but none of the information is phrased in the same manner.

Based on the information presented, it appears that the authors of this particular article provided a comprehensive review of the information available (Question 3). As a consequence, no information is new. One paper that focuses on a similar topic, “CAWS: a wiki system to improve workspace awareness to advance effectiveness of co-authoring activities” provides a means by which co-authoring activities could be improved (Liccardi et al., 2007). Meanwhile, articles such as “Co-authoring in refereed journals: Views of accounting faculty and department chairs” account for the opinions of the individuals involved in authoring peer-reviewed research (Nathan et al., 1998). The authors also tend to address their own works frequently “Social dynamics of research collaboration: Norms, practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights” (Youtie & Bozeman, 2014).

Based on the information provided above, the new article does not add to the literature because similar work was done before (Question 4). The authors attempt to be original by providing a summary of current research knowledge, but they do not draw any new conclusions or evidence based on this analysis (Liccardi et al., 20017; Nathan et al., 1998).

The language used throughout the article is simple (Question 5). The following portion of the text is exemplary of the language used in this article, “In sum, co-authoring is not a sub-set of research collaboration because some who collaborate are not given co-author status and some who are given or claim such status have not been truly involved in collaboration (Bozeman & Youtie, 2015). Another section reads, “ I did great work for a company for two years, then left to go to graduate school” (Bozeman & Youtie, 2015). Using words like “great” and repeatedly stating “collaboration” instead of using alternative vocabulary words is a sign that the article is written using basic language that anyone could understand. However, this language is typical of the introduction section in papers, instead of the paper as a whole. In spite of this, this simple language makes the paper easy to understand for a broad range of readers.

The author can improve this article by adding more sources to the main portion of the text (Question 6). The author provides a lot of examples about the co-authorship problem without citing the source of these long examples. In some cases, this may be the authors own opinion, but this doesn’t contribute favorably to the content of the paper. Thus, it would be beneficial for the authors to have conducted more interviews to incorporate the experiences of others into their paper. 

On a scale of 0 to 100, this paper would receive a score of 65 because while the paper wasn’t perfect, it accomplished its goal of compiling literature on this topic (Question 7). However, while the score is a passing rate, the authors did not contribute anything new to this topic and could improve their paper to accomplish this goal. It received a score of 65 because it functions as a valuable summary of known information, but can be modified to be more effective. The previous discussion reveals the strengths and weaknesses that contributed to this decision.

References

Bozeman B, Youtie J. (2015). Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring. Sci Eng Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s11948-015-9722-5.

Liccardi I, Davis HC, White S. (2007). CAWS: a wiki system to improve workspace awareness to advance effectiveness of co-authoring activities. Retrieved from      http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1241040

Nathan S, Hermanson DR, Hermanson RH. (1998). Co-authoring in refereed journals: Views of accounting faculty and department chairs. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(1).

Youtie, J., & Bozeman, B. (2014). Social dynamics of research collaboration: Norms, practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights. Scientometrics, 101(2), 953–962.