Degradation of Human-Dominated Ecosystemsnrem 612

Degradation of Human-Dominated EcosystemsNREM 612

Paper Critique Guidelines

The purpose of the critique is for you to summarize and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the assigned papers. This will helpprepare you to be an active participant in the class discussion. The critiqueswill beTYPED in12-point Times New Roman font, with 1 inch margins,double spacing, and must NOT exceed 2 pages.

The summary questionsshould be BRIEFLYaddressedin the first paragraph of your critique (not > 1/2 of the first page). The evaluation/assessment questions should be addressed in the remaining paragraph(s). This is an opportunity for you to provide your opinion of the paper. It will not be appropriate to address all of the evaluation/assessment questions(#s 4-10) every critique. Pick only those questions which apply to the specific reading.

You mustalwaysaddress question 11 (how many times has the paper been cited), question 12 (your assessment of the impact this paper has had or will have on the field of ecosystem degradation) and question 13 (your opinion of the paper).

Please list the following at the top of the page (See example below):

Student Name

Date

Critique 1

Author(s). Date: Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo. 1997.

Paper Title: Human domination of earth’s ecosystems.

Reference: Science277:494-499.

Please address the following summary questions in the 1st paragraph your critique (25%):

1. What was/were the main objective(s) of the paper?

1. What were the key methods or approach?

1. What were the important results and conclusions?

Please address the following evaluation/assessment questionsin the following paragraphs. These are not just yes or no questions—elaborate and justify your answers (The most importantpart, 75%):

1. Were there any errors in experimental design, statistical analyses, or analytical approaches? If so, please describe.

1. What assumptions, if any, were made with the data, calculations, models, etc. and were these assumptions reasonable?

1. Were data presented in a straightforward manner? Were tables and figures well-planned and used appropriately; were they labeled adequately so that they could stand by themselves? If no, describe how they could have been improved.

1. Were references provided for all appropriate factual information? Were all of the pertinent references cited? Were there too many, adequate, or too few citations?

1. Did the paper meet the stated objective(s)? Why or why not?

1. Were the main conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper? Why or why not?

1. Did the paper/report/chapter present information that was/is novel and of interest to others in the field of ecosystem degradation?

1. How many times has the paper been cited (use Google Scholar, Web of Science, or Scopus)?

1. What impact has or will the paper have on the field of ecosystem degradation?

1. What is your opinion of the paper?

Critique Grading Rubric

10/10 = An outstanding critique that follows all instructions correctly, is well crafted and free of grammatical errors, succinctly answers questions 1-3 in < ½ of the first page, provides specific and insightful answers to questions 4-10 (which ever apply), reports the number of times the paper has been cited and the database used, and provides a illuminating and accurate assessment of the paper based on information in the critique.

9/10 = A very good critique that follows all instructions correctly, is well crafted and mostly free of grammatical errors, succinctly answers questions 1-3 in < ½ of the first page, provides adequate answers to questions 4-10 (which ever apply), reports the number of times the paper has been cited and mentions the database used, and provides a reasonable and appropriate assessment of the paper based on information in the critique.

8/10 = A good critique that follows most instructions correctly, has some writing and grammatical errors, does not answer questions 1-3 in < ½ of the first page, provides average answers to questions 4-10 (which ever apply), reports the number of times the paper has been cited but not the database, and provides decent assessment of the paper.

7/10 = and so on.

1