Article Review Instructions
You should start your Review by indicating the TITLE, AUTHOR, and # of the article you have read. Please put all this information on a title page or on the top of the first page.
The article that you pick to review must be between 8 to 10 pages and it should be an academic journal in the area of marketing.
The Article Review should consist of FOUR (4) parts:
HIGHLIGHTING THE CENTRAL ISSUE/DISCUSSION OF THE ARTICLE
What is the issue being discussed? How this issue is relevant to the current market trend?
SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE
I suggest you write this immediately after reading your article…when it is freshest in your mind. Summaries are difficult for most of us to do…so think of it as your "impression" of what it is about. This is not the place for detail after detail…that's not a summary. A summary contains a balanced presentation of relevant ideas about the article so that…another person is able to tell what it is about. The suggested length is 1/2 to 1 page…much over a page and you are really beyond summarizing.
ASSESSMENT OF THE ARTICLE
This is the core of the Review. I want you to assess the article critically…which doesn't necessarily mean negatively. "Critically" here means going beyond surface reactions, delving into the why's and wherefore's of the author's thoughts and writing. For instance, what did you think of the article…what about the main theses/purposes of the author? How well did the author(s) state and support their position? What do they use to do so? What else do you feel needs to be said or examined besides the points the author(s) made? Are there identifiable paradigms and/or theoretical perspectives being used? How "radical" is the analysis? What can you critically presuppose from what is said? What level(s) of reality is the author focused on? Does the author engage in empathetic analysis? Are the "motifs of sociological consciousness" being used…and how could they be used by you to critique the article? In other words, utilize the"Sociological Concepts" to write an assessment. Don't just give a superficial treatment of plusses or minuses…go into depth.
As you read the article keep track of statements you find particularly interesting or meaningful…to you. Select FOUR (4) of them and analyze/react to them.
You may handwrite or type this Review…although I certainly prefer typing. The maximum length of the Review is…FIVE (5) pages…no more! (Of course, this FIVE does not include title pages or any blank sheets and your references…just the written part!!) Part of writing is to learn to say what you have to say in concise and precise language.
Also, you may be as creative as you want in writing this Review. You can simply follow the 4-part format indicated above…no muss/no fuss. However, you can mix it up a bit…creatively speaking…but just make sure the 4 parts are there. Be especially careful not to mix the Reason for Choosing and the Summary with the Assessment, though..
ARTICLE REVIEW EVALUATION FORM
1. Introduction – reason for choosing the article (10 points)
2. Summary of the article (10 points)
3. Assessment of the article – Argument and Evidence (10 points)
4. Meaningful Quote/Statement (10 points)
5. References (5 points)
Total score for ONE article review is 45 points. However, 10 points will be subtracted for each week the paper is late.
Each article review will be sent for similarity indexes checking. If more than 25% score, possibility of plagiarism is existed. Therefore, you will score ZERO.
The Score for each section (1 – 4) is based on the following rubrics:
1 = absent or poor in content and presentation
– Incomplete or inappropriate response to the writing task
– Text lacks proper organizational components (section are either missing or in the wrong order; information meant for one section is in another)
– Usage and syntactical error so severe that meaning is obscured
– An accumulation of errors in grammar, diction, and sentence structure
2 = basic content included
– Evidence is not relevant
– An accumulation of errors in grammar and sentence structure
– Little or inappropriate details to support ideas
– Content inappropriate to headings
– The point of discussion section does not match the title
– List-like and formulaic writing rather than narrative style
3= Satisfactory content
– Address relevancy issue
– Not interesting but adequate content
– Appropriate headings and organization
– Content appropriate to headings
– Formulaic organization which does not necessarily advance the argument being made
4= Good presentation in content and quality
– Evidence is interesting and relevant
– Effective response in the writing task
– Development with appropriate support and integration of sources
– Critical thinking is clearly demonstrate
5= Excellence content and quality
– Evidence is interesting and contribute valuable knowledge to the field
– Synthesis of ideas using a variety of sources
– Full development with appropriate support from the sources
– Consistent attention to the needs of the reader
– Clear and correct organization of materials in appropriate sections
– Strong discussion and conclusion