Length: 4-5 pages (No More!) double-spaced (12pt Times New Roman)
Neat and Clear with correct spacing and Font
Only use the source attached, no outside research needed
Goal: to communicate the most important points of the paper, its significance, and
to guide the reader through the most important data and/or reasoning that support the paper’s
viewpoint. Your writing should be concise and engaging–it’s the act of distilling down a
scientific paper into a succinct, interesting narrative that makes this assignment worthwhile.
Note: “Critical” does not mean that you need to criticize the paper or evaluate it
stylistically. (e.g. “Dr. Smith really confused me on page 4 because ….”)
It does mean that you need to make judgments as to what’s really important/novel/
controversial about the paper you’re reviewing and tell the reader why.
Format: Non-technical! Your critical review should strive to give someone who has not read
the article you discuss a good idea of its significance and nature of the scientific argument
presented in the paper. The review should be addressed to someone at the level of a fellow
classmate in EEPS 240. It does not need to discuss every aspect of the paper, or follow the
points made in the paper in the same order as the original text (although that may make
sense). Please use page numbers; it will help me when I write up comments on your
text!
You should try to identify early on the major research question, the methods used, and your
judgement about both significant results and problems that remain. You should present your
work at a level readable by your classmates. This is actually quite hard- you will have to
understand the technical material well enough to get it across in a non- jargony, non-
specialist way.
You should use scientific citation format: in the text “Smith et al., 1990”. At the end of the
paper you should put a formal reference, using author’s name, initials, year of publication,
title, journal, volume number, and page numbers (see format I use in the menu of papers for
your topic). YOU WILL FIND ON CANVAS under “Critical review and term paper” folder:
Potential paper topics
Guide to scientific writing
Model for Critical Review: Nature “News & Views”
Actual article by Kump et al. reviewed by N. Sleep for Nature
CRITICAL REVIEW: GUIDELINES
Mechanics:
Choose 1 paper to review. Topical papers, rather than review papers,
make better choices
Length: 4-5 pages, double spaced
Good resources: Google Scholar, ISI Web of Science
Aim for clarity and “big picture”
The level of writing should be one that one of your classmates can follow.
Avoid direct quotes if possible
Use scientific reference format: (Smith and Jones, 1997) and then list the
full reference for Smith and Jones at the end of the review
What do I mean by “critical” review?
“critical” means selecting the most important points of the paper, not just
summarizing the whole thing
“critical” means putting the paper in the context of a larger question in
Earth Sciences
“critical” means analyzing the key theories and the key data presented in
the paper. In the long run, the success or failure of the paper will come
from whether the theories are clearly developed, and whether the key
data were interpreted correctly. You don’t have to vote whether you are
sure the data or theory are right; you will do your job to identify the
essential points for your reader.
What I am looking for:
Introduction that clearly maps out the major problems that the paper
deals with and the major conclusions
Text that links the key pieces of the papers arguments to its conclusions
Text that can stand on its own- i.e. with a good c.r., the reader wouldn’t
have to read the original paper to get most of the important content
Text that avoids vague phrases and passive construction
Text that ends with a tight concluding paragraph tying the material
together
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|