Lab 2: Critiquing a research paper

This lab assignment is designed to help you learn about fish and wildlife population ecology concepts and research approaches, to read published literature more critically, and to synthesize current literature. In the process, you will develop critical thinking skills, as well as improve your ability to write clearly and concisely. You are encouraged to discuss the paper and your ideas with others in the class to sharpen and clarify your thinking. However, each of you must submit your own work.

FORMAT:
Your critical essay should be typed and double-spaced in 12-point font. It should be between 500 and 750 words in length (about 2-3 pages). You can use your word processor to count the words. Include a complete citation to the paper your are critiquing at the top of the page (these words are not included in your total word count).

Paper to critique:

Ripple, W. J., E. J. Larsen, R. A. Renkin, and D. W. Smith.  2001.  Trophic cascades among wolves, elk, and aspen in Yellowstone National Park's northern range.  Biological Conservation 102:227-234.  

CONTENT:
The critique SHOULD NOT be a summary of the paper. You must address the following questions in your critique and briefly explain why: 

Abstract

        1.  Read the statement of purpose in the abstract. Does it match that in the introduction? (0.5 points)

        2.  Does it accurately summarize the article? (1 point)

Introduction

        1.  Did the authors summarize current knowledge? (1 point)

        2.  Was the problem statement or gap in knowledge clearly explained? (1 point)

        3.  Did their goal directly address the problem statement? (1 point)

        4.  Did they clearly state their objectives?  And do the objectives address their goal? (1 point)

Methods

        1.  Do the methods follow the order of the objectives? (0.5 points)

        2.  Does all information belong in the methods? Can the methods be subdivided for greater clarity? (1 point)

        3.  Does the data collection address: who, why, when, where, and how? (1 point)

        4.  Are the data analysis stated clearly?  Is there an analysis for each objective? (1 point)

Results 

        1.  What are the sample sizes? (1 point)

        2.  Are the results organized in order of the objectives? (0.5 points)     

        3.  Scrutinize the data presented in tables and figures.  Do the title and legend accurately describe the content?  Are column headings and labels accurate? (1 point)

        4.  Review the results as presented in the text while referring to data in the tables and figures.  Does the text complement, and not repeat, the data? (1 point)

Discussion

        1. Check the interpretation against the results. Does the discussion merely repeat the results? Does the interpretation arise logically from the data, or is it too far-fetched? (1 point)

        2.  Have shortcomings of the research been addressed? (1 point)

        3.  How are their results relevant to management applications and/or research questions? (1 point)

        4.  Did they solve a problem or fill a knowledge gap? (1 point)

Literature Cited

        1.  Is the correct format used for citing all the literature? (0.5 points)

Overall

        1.  Is the paper written clearly and concisely? (1 point)

        2.  Is the paper well organized? (1 point)

        3.  Did the authors tell you everything you needed to know?  Did they tell you anything you did not need to know? (1 point) 

Each question should be addressed in your critique.  If you choose to cite other papers to strengthen and add credibility to your critique be sure to follow the correct format of Journal of Wildlife Management, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, or Conservation Biology in your literature cited section and for citing references in the text.  Be sure to cite papers properly.  Your critique will be due at the beginning of class next week.

If you are unfamiliar with writing a critique, you might look at some of the critical reviews and responses often published in Conservation Biology (e.g. R. Noss. 1987. Conservation Biology 1:159-164). Also look at Kuyper 1991 below for a checklist.