How do you critique an academic source?

It is important to identify the purpose of the source before reviewing it. For example, if researchers designed a fast method with large memory consumption, then their purpose is faster execution. So it’s unfair to critique the large memory consumption without indicating that their purpose was faster execution.

To find out why an academic source was written, look for its purpose. Ask yourself, "What is this article trying to do?" The purpose could be to share new research, explain a concept, or persuade readers to think a certain way. Check the introduction or abstract for clues. If the author states the problem they're addressing or what they hope to achieve, that's the purpose. Understanding the purpose helps you decide if the source is useful for your own research or learning.

It is always worth reading around the source. We try to be as objective as we can, but our personal biases always interfere. So, I do the usual practice of strengths and weaknesses for a source, read the source in its research context, and take it a step further to look at the social norms of the time and the general trends in political/topic views of the researcher(s). It adds time, but depending on the scope and objective of your own research, it may be important to determine if your sources are biased in any way. If this is central to the paper, then it gives you avenues of analysis to discuss in your work, I find adding a notes section in your appendices to compile your findings into is useful for your review and those contextualising.

Critiquing an academic source involves a systematic evaluation of its reliability, credibility, and relevance. Assessing the sources, scrutinizing the qualifications and expertise of the author or organization is a must. Analyze the publication date to ensure it's current relevance and also examine the methodology adopted to understand its potentiality and bias. Evaluate the source's objectivity, identifying any potential conflicts of interest. Lastly, consider the source's relevance to your research question or topic, assessing whether it provides valuable insights or evidence to support your argument. A comprehensive critique ensures that the source aligns with scholarly standards and contributes meaningfully to your academic work.

To know if an academic source is reliable, check its authority. Look at who wrote it and their qualifications. Ask, "Is the author an expert in this field?" Check if they work at a respected university or have published other credible works. Also, see if the source was published in a reputable journal or website. High-quality sources often go through a process called peer review, where other experts check the work before it's published. If the source passes these tests, it's more likely to be trustworthy.

When I critique an academic source, I follow a systematic approach. First, I scrutinize the source's credibility by examining the author's qualifications, affiliations, and previous work. Next, I delve into the source's methodology. I look for details on data collection, sample size, and research design. Furthermore, I consider the publication venue. Reputable journals and publishers have stringent peer-review processes, increasing the source's reliability. Lastly, I evaluate the source's relevance to my research. Does it contribute valuable insights, or is it tangential? Critiquing for relevance helps me prioritize my sources efficiently.

To understand how an academic source got its information, look at its methods. Methods are the steps the author took to gather data or conduct research. Ask yourself, "How did they do this study?" Look for details about surveys, experiments, or interviews in the source. Check if the methods make sense for the research question. Also, see if the author explains how they handled problems or biases. Good methods mean the information is more likely to be accurate.

Beyond all, be respectful. Choose your words wisely and be objective, as responsible scientists are. Talk factual, talk data, and criticize others' works in the light of adding value to the body of science as a whole.

There is an easy acronym I learned about that can summarize what you should look for to critique/evaluate an academic source or research article. This acronym is CRAAP: Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose. So remember, when you critique an academic source, it is CRAAP!

To sum it up, when critiquing an academic source: 1. **Purpose:** Identify its goal and relevance. 2. **Authority:** Check author credentials and source reputation. 3. **Methods:** Assess data collection methods. 4. **Arguments:** Evaluate logical consistency. 5. **Evidence:** Analyze source credibility. 6. **Implications:** Reflect on contributions and limitations. Consider date, bias, peer review, and prioritize relevant sources. Hope you find this useful.

A key component is to identify the hypotheses that underly the previous knowledge, methods and interpretations of results. This is by no means easy, but this approach has the potential to be extremely fruitful.