Methodological Articles Reading a Scientific Paper for Psychology and the Social Sciences: A Critical Guide

Aim: A critical review of a journal article is a comprehensive evaluation of the article content, formal structure and methodological approach. Success in this task requires students to develop analytic and reflexive skills as pre-requisites to identify key research question(s), relevant findings and main conclusions reached. Critical skills are also an important aspect of a student’s academic and future professional life, yet this has been a largely overlooked component of academic training. This paper aims to provide undergraduate students with a simple and straightforward set of guidelines for reading, analysing and interpreting research articles. Content, structure and common mistakes in research papers are addressed, along with the most relevant standards for review. Conclusion: With this reference guide we hope students will be able to more thoroughly analyse and critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a research article. list, the institutional affiliation, academic degree and area of ex-pertise are presented. The section ends with the identification of the e-mail and full address of the author to whom all correspondence should be addressed. The abstract is the “hall of entrance” of the article. It summarizes the most important features of the manuscript (Provenzale & Stanley, 2006), providing the reader with a global first impression on the paper (Hartley & Betts, 2009). In general, the abstract must answer two questions: “What should be learned in this article?”, “Is it worth reading the paper further on?”. The abstract is a synopsis of the whole paper. In 150 to 250 words it provides a succinct, clear, and comprehensive summary of the main sections of the paper. A well-structured abstract follows a standard back-bone structure of problem/purpose of the study, method, results, and conclusion (Hartley, 2012). The problem sums up the reason(s) and purpose of the study, research questions, hypotheses being tested, and their relative contribution to the field. The methods covers the methodologies used to investigate the problem, including the identification of participants, procedures, statistical analyses and any software used. Finally, the results section presents key findings of the research, including reference to indicators of statistical significance of the coefficients. Abstract ends with a summary of the findings, considerations about the novelty of the study, and the abstract state what is the purpose of the article: what was done, found, and the significance of the results obtained?


Introduction
It is easy to find good (though dense) books on how to write, read and review scientific papers. However, this literature may not be particularly useful to aid students in the task of critically reviewing research articles. In addition, there is a lack of published papers on this topic (e.g., McKenzie, 1995). This topic is essentially covered in the Instructions for Authors section of Scientific Journals, and general guidelines for the structure and content of the manuscripts differ according to the specifications of each journal. Although students are asked to critically review the scientific literature throughout their undergraduate studies, limited training and resources are available. In fact, accomplishing this task requires not only that students develop objective and mature reading and comprehension skills, but also the ability to identify the core aspects of an article, namely key research questions and hypothesis, relevant findings and main conclusions. This article conveys a systematic approach for reviewing manuscripts. In each section, content, writing style and common flaws are addressed. In complement, an exhaustive set of guiding questions is provided to support the evaluation of the quality of scientific articles (see Appendix).

Psychology, Community & Health
pch.psychopen.eu | 2182-438X One must note that this work is circumscribed to correlational research articles and not to the full range of scientific articles (e.g. experimental designs).

Conceptualisation and Characteristics
A critical review is a systematic evaluation of what one has learned from reading a scientific article. It conveys an assessment of the article's strengths, weaknesses and validity through explanation, interpretation and analysis.
A good critical review (a) frames the content of the article in the context of the current knowledge, (b) clarifies the study aims and tested hypotheses, (c) evaluates how replicable is the methodology used to test hypotheses and (d) assesses whether the conclusions are in line with the main findings. In addition, the article must provide readers with information about the work's contribution to research in a particular scientific domain.

Structure of a Scientific Article
Scientific articles present original findings based on rigorous empirical research. They vary in content or structure, depending on the type of journal to which they will be submitted. In general, the structure follows: Introduction, Methods, Results and Analysis, and Discussion structure (IMRaD; Saracho, 2013). For didactic purposes we add considerations about title, author affiliations and abstract, as they are essential to capture the attention of the reader for the paper.
The title provides a clear description of what the paper is about. It is the first thing that will be read and sometimes the last, being determinant for the reader to continue to be interested. A well-written title is accurate, clear, concise, revealing and provocative. In 10 to 15 words, it provides the reader in a timesaving but informative way, the general field of the paper, objectives and/or main results. Titles can be worded in different ways, including (a) general versus specific, (b) declarative versus interrogative, (c) with or without subtitles, and (d) short indicative versus long informative. The option for a particular type of title is in accordance to the style of the author and the requirements of the scientific journal. Titles that are long, grandiose or promise too much are to be avoided.
The authors and affiliations section presents the authors of the manuscript by based on the relevance and nature of their contribution to the article. In the authors' list, the institutional affiliation, academic degree and area of expertise are presented. The section ends with the identification of the e-mail and full address of the author to whom all correspondence should be addressed. relevance of implications for theory and practice. In terms of writing style, a good abstract should be self-contained.
It should be written in a concise and clear fashion to provide a summary of key aspects of research without the need to consult the full paper. Sentences are usually worded in an active style and exclude personal pronouns.
Verbs are conjugated in the past tense, when they describe followed procedures, and in the present tense when reporting results. Digits can be used to present figures, except when these are placed in the beginning of the phrase. Acronyms should only be used in exceptional cases and should be clear defined. Abstracts should not cite references, report on subsequent tables and figures and provide statements that are not supported by data.
They should also avoid lengthy or omitted background information.
Most scientific journals require, after the abstract, three to 10 index terms, keywords or short phrases for crossindexing purposes. Keywords should clearly indicate the field of study and main concepts targeted in the paper.
The paper proceeds with the introduction.
Crafting a convincing introduction can be a challenge for authors (Drotar, 2009). Indeed, in just a few pages, researchers need to set the conceptual framework of the paper, address the problem under investigation and state the novelty and relevance of the current research to answer specific research questions. To make this task easier, the introduction follows a common structure. In the first paragraph, authors specify the broad research topic, main issues and questions left unanswered from previous research (when applicable) and the main research question under study (Drotar, 2009).
From the second to the penultimate paragraph, the introduction reviews the relevant literature for understanding the state of the art in the subject. In general, this section starts with an historic overview of the topic covered and most relevant conceptual frameworks. It follows a description of the conceptual framework adopted in terms of key constructs and operational definitions. Specific linkages are then made between previous research and the work addressed in the scientific paper. Theory-based research is then presented. Authors generally convey a broad perspective on the findings, including both confirmatory and contradicting evidence to the hypotheses of the current study.
The purpose and specific contribution(s) of the study to the field are addressed in a subsection of the introduction usually entitled "Aims of this research". In this section authors clearly state the study objectives and hypotheses under testing. The focus is put on new research questions, or innovative ways to address them (in terms of methods, theory, and/or findings; Drotar, 2008;Sternberg & Gordeeva, 1996). The translation of research questions into hypotheses aims to help readers understanding the logic of the study and give focus to methods. Common flaws in the introduction include (a) insufficient background information, or limited to a unique conceptual framework, for the sample choice. Information should be provided in sufficient detail for readers to reach an informed conclusion.
The procedure describes the data collection method, waves of measurement defined for the study, pilot studies performed, and the time, place and duration of data collection. Information about the ethical aspects is also to be conveyed, including the procedures followed to recruit the participants, and permissions from the institution(s) and informed consent from the participants (or parents of underage participants). Procedures followed to ensure anonymity are made explicit and, when applicable.
In the measures subsection the variables and instruments used to collect the data are described. Information usually specifies the type and format of the instruments (e.g., self-report questionnaires), the data collection methods (e.g., computer software and apparatus). When questionnaire adaptation or validation was performed a reference to authorship and publication, and a justification of their appropriateness is necessary. Further, when questionnaires are developed or validated for various cultures, this section also describes the procedures for the transcultural adaptation/validation of instruments, the changes made to the original scale and the psychometric properties of the instruments in the original and current samples. Sources of measurement error should be also conveyed, as well as the steps taken to minimize them. Finally, the methods section provide a detailed description of the statistical methods used for data analysis, a justification for their adequacy, and the statistical software used in the analyses, including the version number (e.g., AMOS 20.0).
The results section presents the main findings of the study. Presentation of results generally follows a funnel logic method, from more general to more specific. The report of the statistical results should be clear and concise, but The discussion section provides a theory-based interpretation of findings, states their significance for current research, and derives implications for theory and practice. Alternative interpretations for findings are also provided, particularly when it is not possible to conclude for the directionality of the effects.
In the discussion, authors also acknowledge the strengths and limitations/weaknesses of the study and offer concrete directions about for future research (e.g. research of statistical methods to improve inference). Several questions are usually answered in this section, including "What research questions remain unanswered?", "Is it necessary to test new hypotheses?" and "What kind of work can shed light on these issues?". The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study and their original contribution to the field, giving particular emphasis to the way the findings contribute to move the research literature significantly forward. The conclusion is the "business card" of the paper, i.e., the message that the reader will (hopefully) recall in the future. It may stand alone, as a subsection of the discussion or may be presented as a combined discussion and conclusion section.

Final Remarks and Limitations
In this article we provide a systematic approach to the structure of a scientific article. We examined the structure and key features of research papers according to the conventional IMRaD structure and enunciated some of the most relevant flaws. In addition, we organized the standards for a critical review by formulating a series of orienting questions that guide the review of each section of an article. Despite these limitations, we believe that the present paper provides a useful resource to guide the critical review of a research paper, and stimulates reflexive thinking and critical analysis skills on students. Future research should extend these reflections to other scientific publications, such as experimental or review articles.

Funding
The first author holds a grant from the Portuguese Science Foundation (SFRH / BD / 74193 / 2010).

Competing Interests
One of the authors (João Marôco) is a member of Psychology, Community and Health's Editorial Board but played no editorial role for this particular article or intervened in any form in the peer review procedure.