how to critique research articles

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

• 1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
• 2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
• 3 Article Critique Outline
• 4 Article Critique Formatting
• 5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
• 6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
• 7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
• 8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

• A brief summary of the article .
• A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
• A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

• Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
• Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
• Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
• Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
• Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
• Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
• Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

• The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
• The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
• The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

• Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
• Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
• Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

• Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
• Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
• Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
• Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
• The purpose of the study
• The research question or questions
• The methods used
• The outcomes
• The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
• Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

• Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
• Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
• Use evidence from to support your points.
• Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland.
• PMID: 16114192
• DOI: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38

Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.

Publication types

• Data Interpretation, Statistical
• Research Design
• Review Literature as Topic

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY
• Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

• Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
• What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
• Was the sample too small to generalize from?
• Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
• How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
• How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
• Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
• Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
• How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
• What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

• << Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can Med Educ J
• v.12(3); 2021 Jun

Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

Écrire, lire et revue critique, douglas archibald.

1 University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;

Maria Athina Martimianakis

2 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Why reviews matter

What do all authors of the CMEJ have in common? For that matter what do all health professions education scholars have in common? We all engage with literature. When you have an idea or question the first thing you do is find out what has been published on the topic of interest. Literature reviews are foundational to any study. They describe what is known about given topic and lead us to identify a knowledge gap to study. All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1 , 2 In fact, for this editorial we have had to review the literature on reviews . Knowledge and evidence are expanding in our field of health professions education at an ever increasing rate and so to help keep pace, well written reviews are essential. Though reviews may be difficult to write, they will always be read. In this editorial we survey the various forms review articles can take. As well we want to provide authors and reviewers at CMEJ with some guidance and resources to be able write and/or review a review article.

What are the types of reviews conducted in Health Professions Education?

Health professions education attracts scholars from across disciplines and professions. For this reason, there are numerous ways to conduct reviews and it is important to familiarize oneself with these different forms to be able to effectively situate your work and write a compelling rationale for choosing your review methodology. 1 , 2 To do this, authors must contend with an ever-increasing lexicon of review type articles. In 2009 Grant and colleagues conducted a typology of reviews to aid readers makes sense of the different review types, listing fourteen different ways of conducting reviews, not all of which are mutually exclusive. 3 Interestingly, in their typology they did not include narrative reviews which are often used by authors in health professions education. In Table 1 , we offer a short description of three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ.

Three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ

More recently, authors such as Greenhalgh 4 have drawn attention to the perceived hierarchy of systematic reviews over scoping and narrative reviews. Like Greenhalgh, 4 we argue that systematic reviews are not to be seen as the gold standard of all reviews. Instead, it is important to align the method of review to what the authors hope to achieve, and pursue the review rigorously, according to the tenets of the chosen review type. Sometimes it is helpful to read part of the literature on your topic before deciding on a methodology for organizing and assessing its usefulness. Importantly, whether you are conducting a review or reading reviews, appreciating the differences between different types of reviews can also help you weigh the author’s interpretation of their findings.

In the next section we summarize some general tips for conducting successful reviews.

How to write and review a review article

In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are conducting. Systematic reviews tend to address very focused questions often summarizing the evidence of your topic. Other types of reviews tend to have broader questions and are more exploratory in nature.

Following your question, choose an approach and plan your methods to match your question…just like you would for a research study. Fortunately, there are guidelines for many types of reviews. As Cook points out the most important consideration is to be sure that the methods you follow lead to a defensible answer to your review question. To help you prepare for a defensible answer there are many guides available. For systematic reviews consult PRISMA guidelines ; 13 for scoping reviews PRISMA-ScR ; 14 and SANRA 15 for narrative reviews. It is also important to explain to readers why you have chosen to conduct a review. You may be introducing a new way for addressing an old problem, drawing links across literatures, filling in gaps in our knowledge about a phenomenon or educational practice. Cook refers to this as setting the stage. Linking back to the literature is important. In systematic reviews for example, you must be clear in explaining how your review builds on existing literature and previous reviews. This is your opportunity to be critical. What are the gaps and limitations of previous reviews? So, how will your systematic review resolve the shortcomings of previous work? In other types of reviews, such as narrative reviews, its less about filling a specific knowledge gap, and more about generating new research topic areas, exposing blind spots in our thinking, or making creative new links across issues. Whatever, type of review paper you are working on, the next steps are ones that can be applied to any scholarly writing. Be clear and offer insight. What is your main message? A review is more than just listing studies or referencing literature on your topic. Lead your readers to a convincing message. Provide commentary and interpretation for the studies in your review that will help you to inform your conclusions. For systematic reviews, Cook’s final tip is most likely the most important– report completely. You need to explain all your methods and report enough detail that readers can verify the main findings of each study you review. The most common reasons CMEJ reviewers recommend to decline a review article is because authors do not follow these last tips. In these instances authors do not provide the readers with enough detail to substantiate their interpretations or the message is not clear. Our recommendation for writing a great review is to ensure you have followed the previous tips and to have colleagues read over your paper to ensure you have provided a clear, detailed description and interpretation.

Finally, we leave you with some resources to guide your review writing. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 We look forward to seeing your future work. One thing is certain, a better appreciation of what different reviews provide to the field will contribute to more purposeful exploration of the literature and better manuscript writing in general.

In this issue we present many interesting and worthwhile papers, two of which are, in fact, reviews.

Major Contributions

A chance for reform: the environmental impact of travel for general surgery residency interviews by Fung et al. 18 estimated the CO 2 emissions associated with traveling for residency position interviews. Due to the high emissions levels (mean 1.82 tonnes per applicant), they called for the consideration of alternative options such as videoconference interviews.

Understanding community family medicine preceptors’ involvement in educational scholarship: perceptions, influencing factors and promising areas for action by Ward and team 19 identified barriers, enablers, and opportunities to grow educational scholarship at community-based teaching sites. They discovered a growing interest in educational scholarship among community-based family medicine preceptors and hope the identification of successful processes will be beneficial for other community-based Family Medicine preceptors.

Exploring the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: an international cross-sectional study of medical learners by Allison Brown and team 20 studied the impact of COVID-19 on medical learners around the world. There were different concerns depending on the levels of training, such as residents’ concerns with career timeline compared to trainees’ concerns with the quality of learning. Overall, the learners negatively perceived the disruption at all levels and geographic regions.

The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment? by Susan Humphrey-Murto and co-authors 21 considered factors that lead to the publication of studies supported by local medical education grants. They identified several factors associated with publication success, including previous oral or poster presentations. They hope their results will be valuable for Canadian centres with local grant programs.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical learner wellness: a needs assessment for the development of learner wellness interventions by Stephana Cherak and team 22 studied learner-wellness in various training environments disrupted by the pandemic. They reported a negative impact on learner wellness at all stages of training. Their results can benefit the development of future wellness interventions.

Program directors’ reflections on national policy change in medical education: insights on decision-making, accreditation, and the CanMEDS framework by Dore, Bogie, et al. 23 invited program directors to reflect on the introduction of the CanMEDS framework into Canadian postgraduate medical education programs. Their survey revealed that while program directors (PDs) recognized the necessity of the accreditation process, they did not feel they had a voice when the change occurred. The authors concluded that collaborations with PDs would lead to more successful outcomes.

Experiential learning, collaboration and reflection: key ingredients in longitudinal faculty development by Laura Farrell and team 24 stressed several elements for effective longitudinal faculty development (LFD) initiatives. They found that participants benefited from a supportive and collaborative environment while trying to learn a new skill or concept.

Brief Reports

The effect of COVID-19 on medical students’ education and wellbeing: a cross-sectional survey by Stephanie Thibaudeau and team 25 assessed the impact of COVID-19 on medical students. They reported an overall perceived negative impact, including increased depressive symptoms, increased anxiety, and reduced quality of education.

In Do PGY-1 residents in Emergency Medicine have enough experiences in resuscitations and other clinical procedures to meet the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum? Meshkat and co-authors 26 recorded the number of adult medical resuscitations and clinical procedures completed by PGY1 Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Emergency Medicine residents to compare them to the Competence by Design requirements. Their study underscored the importance of monitoring collection against pre-set targets. They concluded that residency program curricula should be regularly reviewed to allow for adequate clinical experiences.

Rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults by Anita Cheng and team 27 studied whether rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults helped residents prepare for difficult conversations with parents expecting complications with their baby before birth. They found that while rehearsal simulation improved residents’ confidence and communication techniques, it did not prepare them for unexpected parent responses.

Review Papers and Meta-Analyses

Peer support programs in the fields of medicine and nursing: a systematic search and narrative review by Haykal and co-authors 28 described and evaluated peer support programs in the medical field published in the literature. They found numerous diverse programs and concluded that including a variety of delivery methods to meet the needs of all participants is a key aspect for future peer-support initiatives.

Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review by Bahji et al. 6 identified addiction interventions to build competency for psychiatry residents and fellows. They found that current psychiatry entrustable professional activities need to be better identified and evaluated to ensure sustained competence in addictions.

Six ways to get a grip on leveraging the expertise of Instructional Design and Technology professionals by Chen and Kleinheksel 29 provided ways to improve technology implementation by clarifying the role that Instructional Design and Technology professionals can play in technology initiatives and technology-enhanced learning. They concluded that a strong collaboration is to the benefit of both the learners and their future patients.

In his article, Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process, 30 Simon Field provided guidelines for maximizing opportunities for successful promotion experiences. His seven tips included creating a rubric for both self-assessment of likeliness of success and adjudication by the committee.

Six ways to get a grip on your first health education leadership role by Stasiuk and Scott 31 provided tips for considering a health education leadership position. They advised readers to be intentional and methodical in accepting or rejecting positions.

Re-examining the value proposition for Competency-Based Medical Education by Dagnone and team 32 described the excitement and controversy surrounding the implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) by Canadian postgraduate training programs. They proposed observing which elements of CBME had a positive impact on various outcomes.

You Should Try This

In their work, Interprofessional culinary education workshops at the University of Saskatchewan, Lieffers et al. 33 described the implementation of interprofessional culinary education workshops that were designed to provide health professions students with an experiential and cooperative learning experience while learning about important topics in nutrition. They reported an enthusiastic response and cooperation among students from different health professional programs.

In their article, Physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal education: an innovative approach to teach medical students musculoskeletal assessment techniques, Boulila and team 34 described the implementation of physiotherapist-led workshops, whether the workshops increased medical students’ musculoskeletal knowledge, and if they increased confidence in assessment techniques.

Instagram as a virtual art display for medical students by Karly Pippitt and team 35 used social media as a platform for showcasing artwork done by first-year medical students. They described this shift to online learning due to COVID-19. Using Instagram was cost-saving and widely accessible. They intend to continue with both online and in-person displays in the future.

Adapting clinical skills volunteer patient recruitment and retention during COVID-19 by Nazerali-Maitland et al. 36 proposed a SLIM-COVID framework as a solution to the problem of dwindling volunteer patients due to COVID-19. Their framework is intended to provide actionable solutions to recruit and engage volunteers in a challenging environment.

In Quick Response codes for virtual learner evaluation of teaching and attendance monitoring, Roxana Mo and co-authors 37 used Quick Response (QR) codes to monitor attendance and obtain evaluations for virtual teaching sessions. They found QR codes valuable for quick and simple feedback that could be used for many educational applications.

In Creation and implementation of the Ottawa Handbook of Emergency Medicine Kaitlin Endres and team 38 described the creation of a handbook they made as an academic resource for medical students as they shift to clerkship. It includes relevant content encountered in Emergency Medicine. While they intended it for medical students, they also see its value for nurses, paramedics, and other medical professionals.

Commentary and Opinions

The alarming situation of medical student mental health by D’Eon and team 39 appealed to medical education leaders to respond to the high numbers of mental health concerns among medical students. They urged leaders to address the underlying problems, such as the excessive demands of the curriculum.

In the shadows: medical student clinical observerships and career exploration in the face of COVID-19 by Law and co-authors 40 offered potential solutions to replace in-person shadowing that has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They hope the alternatives such as virtual shadowing will close the gap in learning caused by the pandemic.

Letters to the Editor

Canadian Federation of Medical Students' response to “ The alarming situation of medical student mental health” King et al. 41 on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (CFMS) responded to the commentary by D’Eon and team 39 on medical students' mental health. King called upon the medical education community to join the CFMS in its commitment to improving medical student wellbeing.

Re: “Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology” 42 was written by Kirubarajan in response to the article by Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology by Black and team. 43 Kirubarajan applauded the development of the podcast to meet a need in medical education, and suggested potential future topics such as interventions to prevent learner burnout.

Response to “First year medical student experiences with a clinical skills seminar emphasizing sexual and gender minority population complexity” by Kumar and Hassan 44 acknowledged the previously published article by Biro et al. 45 that explored limitations in medical training for the LGBTQ2S community. However, Kumar and Hassen advocated for further progress and reform for medical training to address the health requirements for sexual and gender minorities.

In her letter, Journey to the unknown: road closed!, 46 Rosemary Pawliuk responded to the article, Journey into the unknown: considering the international medical graduate perspective on the road to Canadian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic, by Gutman et al. 47 Pawliuk agreed that international medical students (IMGs) do not have adequate formal representation when it comes to residency training decisions. Therefore, Pawliuk challenged health organizations to make changes to give a voice in decision-making to the organizations representing IMGs.

In Connections, 48 Sara Guzman created a digital painting to portray her approach to learning. Her image of a hand touching a neuron showed her desire to physically see and touch an active neuron in order to further understand the brain and its connections.

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Published: 01 October 2023

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

• Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
• Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
• Hypothesis or aims of the study
• Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

• What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
• What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
• Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
• Were there any obvious biases?
• If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

• There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
• Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
• The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

• Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Sarah Vogel View profile

Help and feedback, publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to content

• Home – AI for Research

The Ultimate Guide to Critiquing Research Articles

The ultimate guide to critiquing research articles. Learn how to evaluate validity and reliability, identify biases, and contribute to knowledge. Enhance your critique skills and join the intellectual adventure now!

Critiquing research articles is a fundamental skill for any scientist or researcher. It allows us to evaluate the validity and reliability of the findings, identify potential biases or limitations, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in our respective fields. But why is critiquing research articles so important?

The Importance of Critiquing Research Articles

There are several reasons why critiquing research articles is crucial:

Ensuring Accuracy and Integrity: By critically analyzing the methods, results, and conclusions of a study, we can identify any flaws or inconsistencies that may undermine the credibility of the research. This helps maintain the high standards of scientific inquiry and prevents the dissemination of misleading or erroneous information.

Facilitating Scientific Progress: By identifying gaps in existing knowledge or weaknesses in previous studies, we can propose new research questions and design more robust experiments. This iterative process of critique and improvement is essential for advancing our understanding of the world and finding solutions to complex problems.

Nurturing a Culture of Intellectual Rigor: Critiquing research articles encourages researchers to question assumptions, challenge established theories, and explore alternative explanations. This fosters healthy debate, drives innovation, and pushes the boundaries of scientific inquiry.

In this blog post, we will delve deeper into the importance and relevance of critiquing research articles. We will explore effective strategies and provide valuable insights to help you enhance your critique skills. So, whether you’re a seasoned researcher or just starting your scientific journey, join us as we embark on this intellectual adventure of critiquing research articles.

Stay tuned for our next section, where we’ll discuss how to capture the reader’s attention with a clear hook.

Understanding Research Articles

Research articles are a fundamental component of the academic and scientific community. They serve as a means for researchers to communicate their findings, share knowledge, and contribute to the advancement of their respective fields. In this section, we will delve into the purpose and structure of research articles, as well as explore the different types of research articles that exist.

Purpose and Structure of Research Articles

The purpose of a research article is to present the results of a study or experiment in a clear and organized manner. These articles typically follow a specific structure, which allows readers to navigate through the information easily. Understanding this structure is crucial for researchers who want to effectively communicate their work.

The structure of a research article usually consists of several sections, each serving a specific purpose. The most common sections include:

• Introduction: Sets the stage for the research, providing background information and stating the research question or hypothesis. This section helps readers understand the context and significance of the study.
• Methods: Outlines the procedures and techniques used in the research, including the sample size, data collection methods, and statistical analyses. This section allows other researchers to replicate the study and verify the results.
• Results: Presents the findings of the research in a concise and objective manner. It often includes tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data. This section should be focused on presenting the facts without interpretation or bias.
• Discussion: Analyzes and interprets the results of the study. Researchers may compare their findings to previous research, discuss limitations, and propose future directions. This section demonstrates their understanding of the implications of their work.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the study and reiterates their significance. It may also include recommendations for further research or practical applications of the findings.

Different Types of Research Articles

Research articles can take various forms depending on the nature of the study and the intended audience. The three main types of research articles are:

• Empirical Research Articles: Present the results of original studies or experiments. These articles follow the structure we discussed earlier, with a focus on presenting data and analysis. They are the most common type in scientific and academic journals.
• Review Articles: Provide a comprehensive analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. They summarize the findings of multiple studies and offer a broader perspective on the subject. Review articles are valuable resources for researchers looking to gain a deeper understanding of a specific field or topic.
• Theoretical Research Articles: Focus on developing new theories or frameworks. They propose conceptual models, hypotheses, or theoretical explanations for phenomena. These articles are often found in disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, and psychology.

Research articles play a critical role in the dissemination of knowledge within the academic and scientific communities. Understanding the purpose and structure of these articles is essential for researchers to effectively communicate their findings. By following a clear and organized structure, researchers can ensure that their work is accessible and impactful to their peers and the broader scientific community.

Importance of Critiquing Research Articles

Critiquing research articles plays a vital role in the academic and research community. It not only benefits researchers and academics but also contributes to the overall advancement of knowledge. In this section, we will explore the benefits of critiquing research articles, how it improves critical thinking skills and enhances research abilities, and the importance of identifying strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in existing research.

Benefits of Critiquing Research Articles for Researchers and Academics

Critiquing research articles provides researchers and academics with several important benefits:

• Staying up-to-date: By critically analyzing existing research, researchers can identify gaps in the literature and areas that require further exploration. This helps them shape their own research questions and contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
• Improving research methodologies: By closely examining the methods and techniques used in published studies, researchers can gain insights into best practices and avoid potential pitfalls. This enhances the quality and rigor of their own research, leading to more accurate and reliable results.
• Fostering collaboration and intellectual discussion: By engaging in critical analysis and providing constructive feedback, researchers can contribute to the ongoing dialogue and debate surrounding a particular topic. This not only enriches the academic discourse but also promotes the refinement and advancement of ideas.

Improving Critical Thinking Skills and Enhancing Research Abilities through Critiquing

Critiquing research articles is an excellent way to develop and improve critical thinking skills. By evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of published studies, researchers are challenged to think critically and objectively. This process cultivates a critical mindset that is essential for conducting high-quality research.

Moreover, critiquing research articles enhances researchers’ research abilities. Through the analysis of existing research, researchers gain a deeper understanding of the methodologies and approaches that have been used successfully in the past. This knowledge can be applied to their own research, allowing them to make informed decisions and design studies that are more likely to yield meaningful results.

Identifying Strengths, Weaknesses, and Gaps in Existing Research

One of the key benefits of critiquing research articles is the ability to identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in existing research. By critically evaluating published studies, researchers can:

• Assess the strengths of the research design, the validity of the findings, and the relevance of the conclusions.
• Avoid repeating mistakes in their own work by recognizing limitations in methodology, sample size, or data analysis.
• Identify areas that have not been adequately explored or where conflicting results exist, providing opportunities for further research and the potential to make significant contributions to the field.

The Key Elements of Critiquing Research Articles

When critiquing research articles, it is important to consider several key elements. These elements can help you analyze and evaluate the quality and validity of the research. In this section, we will explore some of these key components and provide tips for effectively critiquing each one.

• The Abstract: The abstract is a concise summary of the entire research article, providing an overview of the study’s purpose, methodology, results, and conclusions. When critiquing the abstract, pay attention to whether it accurately reflects the content of the article and effectively conveys the main points. Look for clarity, coherence, and relevance in the abstract.
• The Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for the research by providing background information, stating the research problem, and outlining the objectives and hypotheses of the study. When evaluating the introduction, consider whether it effectively contextualizes the research and justifies its significance. Look for logical progression of ideas and clear articulation of the research question or problem.
• The Methodology: The methodology section describes the research design, sample size, data collection methods, and statistical analysis used in the study. This section is crucial for assessing the quality and rigor of the research. When critiquing the methodology, consider whether the chosen research design is appropriate for the research question and objectives. Evaluate the sample size and whether it is representative of the target population. Assess the data collection methods for reliability and validity. Finally, examine the statistical analysis to determine if it is appropriate and accurately reflects the data.
• The Results: The results section presents the findings of the study, often using tables, graphs, or statistical analyses. When evaluating the results, look for clarity and coherence in the presentation of the data. Consider whether the results are relevant to the research question and objectives. Assess the statistical significance of the findings and whether they support or contradict previous research in the field.
• The Discussion: The discussion section is where the researchers interpret the results, relate them to previous research, and discuss the implications of the findings. When critiquing the discussion, consider whether the interpretation of the results is supported by the data presented. Look for logical connections between the results and the research question. Assess whether the authors acknowledge any limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.
• The References: The references section provides a list of the sources cited in the research article. When critiquing the references, consider whether they are relevant, reputable, and up-to-date. Look for a variety of sources to support the research claims and ensure that proper citation formats are used.

To effectively critique research articles, it is essential to analyze each component thoroughly and consider their individual strengths and weaknesses. By paying attention to the key elements, such as the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and references, you can develop a comprehensive understanding of the research and evaluate its quality. Remember to use the tips provided in this section to guide your analysis and critique.

Enhance Your Research Skills with Avidnote

If you want to learn more about research article critique and other valuable insights for academics and researchers, be sure to check out the Avidnote Blog. It offers a wealth of information and tips to enhance your research writing, reading, and analysis processes. Additionally, Avidnote, an AI platform recommended by universities, provides features tailored for researchers, such as summarizing text, analyzing research data, and organizing reading lists. Don’t forget to explore the Avidnote Premium options, including a free plan for Karlstad Studentkår members. Start improving your research workflow with Avidnote today!

The Pitfalls of Critiquing Research Articles

In the world of research, critiquing research articles is an essential skill. It allows researchers to evaluate the quality and validity of published studies, identify potential biases, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. However, there are common pitfalls that researchers should avoid when critiquing research articles. Let’s explore some of these pitfalls and how to overcome them.

Failing to Understand the Study Design and Methodology

One common mistake researchers make when critiquing research articles is failing to fully understand the study design and methodology. It is crucial to have a thorough understanding of the research design, including the sampling methods, data collection procedures, and statistical analyses employed. Without this understanding, it becomes challenging to assess the study’s strengths and weaknesses accurately.

To overcome this pitfall, researchers can start by carefully reading the methods section of the article. This section provides details about the study’s design, participants, data collection instruments, and analysis methods. By familiarizing themselves with the study’s methodology, researchers can better evaluate its appropriateness for addressing the research question and drawing valid conclusions.

Biases in the Critique Process

Another common pitfall is the presence of biases in the critique process. Biases can manifest in various ways, such as personal beliefs, professional affiliations, or even unconscious biases. These biases can influence the interpretation of the research findings and compromise the objectivity of the critique.

To mitigate biases, researchers should strive to maintain objectivity and impartiality throughout the critique process. One way to achieve this is by critically evaluating the evidence presented in the research article and considering alternative explanations for the findings. It is also essential to be aware of one’s own biases and consciously challenge them to ensure a fair and balanced evaluation.

Emotional Reactions

Researchers should be cautious of their emotional reactions when critiquing research articles. It is natural to have preferences or opinions, but it is crucial to separate personal beliefs from the evaluation of the study’s scientific merit. By focusing on the evidence and logical reasoning, researchers can avoid being swayed by emotional biases and provide a more objective critique.

Maintaining objectivity also involves being open to different perspectives and interpretations. It is essential to consider the limitations of the study and acknowledge areas where further research is needed. Constructive criticism can contribute to the development of robust scientific knowledge, and researchers should approach the critique process with a mindset of continuous improvement.

Critiquing research articles is a valuable skill for researchers, but it is not without its pitfalls. To avoid these pitfalls, researchers should strive to understand the study design and methodology thoroughly, overcome biases, and maintain objectivity and impartiality throughout the critique process. By doing so, researchers can provide insightful and constructive critiques that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. So, let’s continue honing our critiquing skills and fostering a culture of rigorous and objective research evaluation.

Tools and Resources to Aid in Critiquing Research Articles

When it comes to critiquing research articles, having the right tools and resources can make the process more efficient and effective. In this section, we will explore some helpful tools and online platforms that can assist you in your critique. Additionally, we will discuss Avidnote, an AI-powered platform specifically designed to enhance the research critique process.

Online Platforms, Software, and AI Tools for Effective Critiquing

The internet has opened up a world of possibilities for researchers, providing access to a wealth of information and resources. When it comes to critiquing research articles, there are several online platforms and software tools available that can streamline the process and help you uncover the strengths and weaknesses of a study.

One online platform worth mentioning is Avidnote . Designed with researchers in mind, Avidnote offers a range of AI-powered features that can enhance your research writing, reading, and analysis processes. With Avidnote, you can write research papers faster, summarize text, analyze research data, transcribe interviews, and more. It’s like having a virtual research assistant at your fingertips.

Avidnote is highly recommended by universities and offers AI functionalities specifically tailored for researchers. Whether you’re a student or a seasoned academic, Avidnote can help you save time and improve the quality of your critique. Plus, Avidnote offers different pricing plans to suit your needs, ranging from a free plan to professional and premium plans with additional AI usage, storage, and features.

One of the standout features of Avidnote is its commitment to data privacy. As a user, you own all the data you produce on the platform, and Avidnote ensures that your information is kept secure. This is particularly important when critiquing research articles, as you may be dealing with sensitive or confidential data.

In addition to its powerful AI capabilities, Avidnote also promotes ethical writing practices. The platform encourages users to use its features responsibly and provides valuable insights and tips for academics and researchers on its blog. Whether you’re looking for guidance on critiquing research articles or other aspects of the research process, Avidnote’s blog is a valuable resource.

Avidnote also offers features to help you organize your reading lists and prepare for critiques. With its seamless integration with reference management software, you can easily annotate and mark papers, store secure and searchable notes, and take quick notes on the go. The platform also allows you to work in groups and create shared projects, making collaboration with colleagues a breeze.

If you’re a member of Karlstad Studentkår, you’ll be pleased to know that you can access Avidnote Premium for free by registering with the code KAU. This is a fantastic opportunity to take advantage of Avidnote’s premium features without breaking the bank. Additionally, PhD students who are members of the student association can also access Avidnote for free, further demonstrating the platform’s commitment to supporting academic research.

When it comes to critiquing research articles, having the right tools and resources can make all the difference. Online platforms, software tools, and AI-powered platforms like Avidnote can streamline the critique process, saving you time and improving the quality of your analysis. With its range of features tailored for researchers, Avidnote is a valuable tool that can enhance your research writing, reading, and analysis processes. So why not give it a try and see how it can transform your critique?

The Importance of Constructive Feedback in Research

In the research community, providing constructive feedback on research articles plays a crucial role in promoting growth and improvement. Constructive feedback not only helps researchers refine their work but also contributes to the overall advancement of knowledge in their field.

Constructive feedback is invaluable in the research community because it allows researchers to identify areas for improvement and refine their work. By offering insights and suggestions, reviewers can help authors strengthen their arguments, enhance the clarity of their writing, and address any potential weaknesses. This collaborative process fosters a culture of continuous improvement and drives the advancement of research.

Guidelines for Offering Helpful and Respectful Feedback

When providing feedback, it is essential to follow guidelines that ensure the feedback is helpful, respectful, and constructive. One important guideline is to focus on the content rather than the person behind it. By separating the work from the individual, feedback can be given in a way that is less personal and more objective. This approach helps maintain a positive and supportive environment for researchers.

Another guideline is to be specific and provide concrete examples. Vague statements like “this section needs improvement” are not helpful. Instead, pointing out specific areas that could benefit from clarification or providing alternative approaches can guide authors in making meaningful revisions. Additionally, offering examples or referring to relevant research can strengthen the feedback and provide authors with a clearer understanding of how to improve their work.

It is also important to be respectful and considerate when giving feedback. Recognize the effort and time that went into the research and acknowledge the strengths of the work. By starting with positive feedback, reviewers can create a more receptive atmosphere and help authors feel encouraged to make necessary revisions. Additionally, using a constructive and supportive tone throughout the feedback can help foster a collaborative relationship between reviewers and authors.

The Role of Feedback in Research Development

Feedback plays a crucial role in promoting growth and improvement in research. It helps researchers identify blind spots and encourages them to explore different perspectives. By engaging in a constructive dialogue, researchers can refine their ideas, challenge assumptions, and broaden the impact of their work. Constructive feedback also contributes to the overall quality of research publications, ensuring that they meet the rigorous standards of the scientific community.

Research is a dynamic and evolving process, and feedback is a key component in driving progress. By offering constructive feedback, researchers contribute to the continuous development of their field and help elevate the quality of research outcomes. It is through this collaborative effort that researchers can collectively push the boundaries of knowledge and make meaningful contributions to their respective disciplines.

In Conclusion

Providing constructive feedback on research articles is crucial for the growth and improvement of the research community. By adhering to guidelines that promote helpful, respectful, and constructive feedback, researchers can actively contribute to the advancement of their field. The feedback process fosters a culture of continuous improvement, encourages collaboration, and drives the overall progress of research. So, let us embrace the power of constructive feedback and work together to push the boundaries of knowledge.

Why Critiquing Research Articles is Crucial

Critiquing research articles is a crucial skill for researchers to develop for their personal and professional growth. It allows them to:

Evaluate the quality and validity of research

Identify gaps in knowledge

Contribute to the advancement of their field

Avidnote: Enhancing Research Processes

Avidnote is an AI platform designed for researchers that offers a range of features to enhance the research writing, reading, and analysis processes. With Avidnote, researchers can:

Write research papers faster

Summarize text

Analyze research data

Transcribe interviews

Avidnote provides researchers with the tools they need to streamline their work. It has recommendations from universities and offers a range of pricing plans to cater to researchers at every level. The platform ensures data privacy and promotes ethical writing practices.

Avidnote Blog: Valuable Resource for Researchers

The Avidnote blog is a valuable resource for academics and researchers. It provides insights and tips on various topics, including critiquing research articles. Avidnote also offers features to help users organize their reading lists and prepare for critiques, making the process more efficient and effective.

Avidnote’s Integration with OpenAI

Avidnote integrates with OpenAI’s private beta, staying at the forefront of research and academic work. This integration offers cutting-edge tools for users.

Members of Karlstad Studentkår can even access Avidnote Premium for free by registering with the code KAU. This further enhances their research capabilities.

Avidnote: Simplifying the Research Process

Avidnote is the ultimate companion for researchers, providing them with the necessary tools and resources to excel in their work. Whether it’s writing, organizing studies, or collaborating with others, Avidnote simplifies the research process and allows researchers to focus on making impactful contributions to their field. Try it out by clicking here .

Remember, your research has the power to shape the future. Let Avidnote be your ally on this journey.

You may also like

Ambio: A Comprehensive Resource for Environmental Research

Ambio: A comprehensive resource for environmental research. Explore a wealth of knowledge on the human-environment relationship and gain insights to shape our planet’s future. Join us today!

How to Enhance Productivity in Academia

Enhance productivity in academia with time management and efficiency strategies. Achieve academic goals by optimizing your workflow and finding a balance between work and self-care. Boost your productivity now!

Privacy Overview

Adding {{itemName}} to cart

Added {{itemName}} to cart

SPH Writing Support Services

• Appointment System
• ESL Conversation Group
• Mini-Courses
• Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group
• Career Writing
• Citing Sources
• Critiquing Research Articles
• Project Planning for the Beginner This link opens in a new window
• Grant Writing
• Publishing in the Sciences
• Systematic Review Overview
• Systematic Review Resources This link opens in a new window
• Writing Across Borders / Writing Across the Curriculum
• Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers (Vance et al.)
• Critique Process (Boswell & Cannon)
• The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective (Knowles & Gray)
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care (Lipp & Fothergill)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research (Coughlan et al.)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research (Coughlan et al.)

Guidelines:

• Critiquing Research Articles (Flinders University)
• Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study (American Nurses Association)
• How to Critique a Journal Article (UIS)
• How to Critique a Research Paper (University of Michigan)
• How to Write an Article Critique
• Research Article Critique Form
• Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article (University of Calgary)

Presentations:

• The Critique Process: Reviewing and Critiquing Research
• Writing a Critique
• << Previous: Citing Sources
• Next: Project Planning for the Beginner >>
• Last Updated: Apr 5, 2024 9:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/writing_support_services

IOE Writing Centre

• Writing a Critical Review

Writing a Critique

A critique (or critical review) is not to be mistaken for a literature review. A 'critical review', or 'critique', is a complete type of text (or genre), discussing one particular article or book in detail.  In some instances, you may be asked to write a critique of two or three articles (e.g. a comparative critical review). In contrast, a 'literature review', which also needs to be 'critical', is a part of a larger type of text, such as a chapter of your dissertation.

Most importantly: Read your article / book as many times as possible, as this will make the critical review much easier.

1. Read and take notes 2. Organising your writing 3. Summary 4. Evaluation 5. Linguistic features of a critical review 6. Summary language 7. Evaluation language 8. Conclusion language 9. Example extracts from a critical review 10. Further resources

Read and Take Notes

To improve your reading confidence and efficiency, visit our pages on reading.

Further reading: Read Confidently

After you are familiar with the text, make notes on some of the following questions. Choose the questions which seem suitable:

• What kind of article is it (for example does it present data or does it present purely theoretical arguments)?
• What is the main area under discussion?
• What are the main findings?
• What are the stated limitations?
• Where does the author's data and evidence come from? Are they appropriate / sufficient?
• What are the main issues raised by the author?
• What questions are raised?
• How well are these questions addressed?
• What are the major points/interpretations made by the author in terms of the issues raised?
• Is the text balanced? Is it fair / biased?
• Does the author contradict herself?
• How does all this relate to other literature on this topic?
• How does all this relate to your own experience, ideas and views?
• What else has this author written? Do these build / complement this text?
• (Optional) Has anyone else reviewed this article? What did they say? Do I agree with them?

^ Back to top

Organising your writing

You first need to summarise the text that you have read. One reason to summarise the text is that the reader may not have read the text. In your summary, you will

• focus on points within the article that you think are interesting
• summarise the author(s) main ideas or argument
• explain how these ideas / argument have been constructed. (For example, is the author basing her arguments on data that they have collected? Are the main ideas / argument purely theoretical?)

In your summary you might answer the following questions:     Why is this topic important?     Where can this text be located? For example, does it address policy studies?     What other prominent authors also write about this?

Evaluation is the most important part in a critical review.

Use the literature to support your views. You may also use your knowledge of conducting research, and your own experience. Evaluation can be explicit or implicit.

Explicit evaluation

Explicit evaluation involves stating directly (explicitly) how you intend to evaluate the text. e.g. "I will review this article by focusing on the following questions. First, I will examine the extent to which the authors contribute to current thought on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) pedagogy. After that, I will analyse whether the authors' propositions are feasible within overseas SLA classrooms."

Implicit evaluation

Implicit evaluation is less direct. The following section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review contains language that evaluates the text. A difficult part of evaluation of a published text (and a professional author) is how to do this as a student. There is nothing wrong with making your position as a student explicit and incorporating it into your evaluation. Examples of how you might do this can be found in the section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review. You need to remember to locate and analyse the author's argument when you are writing your critical review. For example, you need to locate the authors' view of classroom pedagogy as presented in the book / article and not present a critique of views of classroom pedagogy in general.

Linguistic features of a critical review

The following examples come from published critical reviews. Some of them have been adapted for student use.

Summary language

•     This article / book is divided into two / three parts. First...
•     While the title might suggest...
•     The tone appears to be...
•     Title is the first / second volume in the series Title, edited by...The books / articles in this series address...
•     The second / third claim is based on...
•     The author challenges the notion that...
•     The author tries to find a more middle ground / make more modest claims...
•     The article / book begins with a short historical overview of...
•     Numerous authors have recently suggested that...(see Author, Year; Author, Year). Author would also be once such author. With his / her argument that...
•     To refer to title as a...is not to say that it is...
•     This book / article is aimed at... This intended readership...
•     The author's book / article examines the...To do this, the author first...
•     The author develops / suggests a theoretical / pedagogical model to…
•     This book / article positions itself firmly within the field of...
•     The author in a series of subtle arguments, indicates that he / she...
•     The argument is therefore...
•     The author asks "..."
•     With a purely critical / postmodern take on...
•     Topic, as the author points out, can be viewed as...
•     In this recent contribution to the field of...this British author...
•     As a leading author in the field of...
•     This book / article nicely contributes to the field of...and complements other work by this author...
•     The second / third part of...provides / questions / asks the reader...
•     Title is intended to encourage students / researchers to...
•     The approach taken by the author provides the opportunity to examine...in a qualitative / quantitative research framework that nicely complements...
•     The author notes / claims that state support / a focus on pedagogy / the adoption of...remains vital if...
•     According to Author (Year) teaching towards examinations is not as effective as it is in other areas of the curriculum. This is because, as Author (Year) claims that examinations have undue status within the curriculum.
•     According to Author (Year)…is not as effective in some areas of the curriculum / syllabus as others. Therefore the author believes that this is a reason for some school's…

Evaluation language

•     This argument is not entirely convincing, as...furthermore it commodifies / rationalises the...
•     Over the last five / ten years the view of...has increasingly been viewed as 'complicated' (see Author, Year; Author, Year).
•     However, through trying to integrate...with...the author...
•     There are difficulties with such a position.
•     Inevitably, several crucial questions are left unanswered / glossed over by this insightful / timely / interesting / stimulating book / article. Why should...
•     It might have been more relevant for the author to have written this book / article as...
•     This article / book is not without disappointment from those who would view...as...
•     This chosen framework enlightens / clouds...
•     This analysis intends to be...but falls a little short as...
•     The authors rightly conclude that if...
•     A detailed, well-written and rigorous account of...
•     As a Korean student I feel that this article / book very clearly illustrates...
•     The beginning of...provides an informative overview into...
•     The tables / figures do little to help / greatly help the reader...
•     The reaction by scholars who take a...approach might not be so favourable (e.g. Author, Year).
•     This explanation has a few weaknesses that other researchers have pointed out (see Author, Year; Author, Year). The first is...
•     On the other hand, the author wisely suggests / proposes that...By combining these two dimensions...
•     The author's brief introduction to...may leave the intended reader confused as it fails to properly...
•     Despite my inability to...I was greatly interested in...
•     Even where this reader / I disagree(s), the author's effort to...
•     The author thus combines...with...to argue...which seems quite improbable for a number of reasons. First...
•     Perhaps this aversion to...would explain the author's reluctance to...
•     As a second language student from ...I find it slightly ironic that such an anglo-centric view is...
•     The reader is rewarded with...
•     Less convincing is the broad-sweeping generalisation that...
•     There is no denying the author's subject knowledge nor his / her...
•     The author's prose is dense and littered with unnecessary jargon...
•     The author's critique of...might seem harsh but is well supported within the literature (see Author, Year; Author, Year; Author, Year). Aligning herself with the author, Author (Year) states that...
•     As it stands, the central focus of Title is well / poorly supported by its empirical findings...
•     Given the hesitation to generalise to...the limitation of...does not seem problematic...
•     For instance, the term...is never properly defined and the reader left to guess as to whether...
•     Furthermore, to label...as...inadvertently misguides...
•     In addition, this research proves to be timely / especially significant to... as recent government policy / proposals has / have been enacted to...
•     On this well researched / documented basis the author emphasises / proposes that...
•     Nonetheless, other research / scholarship / data tend to counter / contradict this possible trend / assumption...(see Author, Year; Author, Year).
•     Without entering into detail of the..., it should be stated that Title should be read by...others will see little value in...
•     As experimental conditions were not used in the study the word 'significant' misleads the reader.
•     The article / book becomes repetitious in its assertion that...
•     The thread of the author's argument becomes lost in an overuse of empirical data...
•     Almost every argument presented in the final section is largely derivative, providing little to say about...
•     She / he does not seem to take into consideration; however, that there are fundamental differences in the conditions of…
•     As Author (Year) points out, however, it seems to be necessary to look at…
•     This suggest that having low…does not necessarily indicate that…is ineffective.
•     Therefore, the suggestion made by Author (Year)…is difficult to support.
•     When considering all the data presented…it is not clear that the low scores of some students, indeed, reflects…

Conclusion language

•     Overall this article / book is an analytical look at...which within the field of...is often overlooked.
•     Despite its problems, Title offers valuable theoretical insights / interesting examples / a contribution to pedagogy and a starting point for students / researchers of...with an interest in...
•     This detailed and rigorously argued...
•     This first / second volume / book / article by...with an interest in...is highly informative...

Example extracts from a critical review

Writing critically.

If you have been told your writing is not critical enough, it probably means that your writing treats the knowledge claims as if they are true, well supported, and applicable in the context you are writing about. This may not always be the case.

In these two examples, the extracts refer to the same section of text. In each example, the section that refers to a source has been highlighted in bold. The note below the example then explains how the writer has used the source material.    

There is a strong positive effect on students, both educationally and emotionally, when the instructors try to learn to say students' names without making pronunciation errors (Kiang, 2004).

Use of source material in example a: 

This is a simple paraphrase with no critical comment. It looks like the writer agrees with Kiang. (This is not a good example for critical writing, as the writer has not made any critical comment).        

Kiang (2004) gives various examples to support his claim that "the positive emotional and educational impact on students is clear" (p.210) when instructors try to pronounce students' names in the correct way. He quotes one student, Nguyet, as saying that he "felt surprised and happy" (p.211) when the tutor said his name clearly . The emotional effect claimed by Kiang is illustrated in quotes such as these, although the educational impact is supported more indirectly through the chapter. Overall, he provides more examples of students being negatively affected by incorrect pronunciation, and it is difficult to find examples within the text of a positive educational impact as such.

Use of source material in example b: 

The writer describes Kiang's (2004) claim and the examples which he uses to try to support it. The writer then comments that the examples do not seem balanced and may not be enough to support the claims fully. This is a better example of writing which expresses criticality.

^Back to top

Further resources

You may also be interested in our page on criticality, which covers criticality in general, and includes more critical reading questions.

Further reading: Read and Write Critically

We recommend that you do not search for other university guidelines on critical reviews. This is because the expectations may be different at other institutions. Ask your tutor for more guidance or examples if you have further questions.

IOE Writing Centre Online

Self-access resources from the Academic Writing Centre at the UCL Institute of Education.

Anonymous Suggestions Box

Information for Staff

Academic Writing Centre

Academic Writing Centre, UCL Institute of Education [email protected] Twitter:   @AWC_IOE Skype:   awc.ioe

Reading and critiquing a research article

Nurses use research to answer questions about their practice, solve problems, improve the quality of patient care, generate new research questions, and shape health policy. Nurses who confront questions about practice and policy need strong, high-quality, evidence-based research. Research articles in peer-reviewed journals typically undergo a rigorous review process to ensure scholarly standards are met. Nonetheless, standards vary among reviewers and journals. This article presents a framework nurses can use to read and critique a research article.

When deciding to read an article, determine if it’s about a question you have an interest in or if it can be of use in your practice. You may want to have a research article available to read and critique as you consider the following questions.

Does the title accurately describe the article?

A good title will pique your interest but typically you will not know until you are done reading the article if the title is an accurate description. An informative title conveys the article’s key concepts, methods, and variables.

Is the abstract representative of the article?

The abstract provides a brief overview of the purpose of the study, research questions, methods, results, and conclusions. This helps you decide if it’s an article you want to read. Some people use the abstract to discuss a study and never read further. This is unwise because the abstract is just a preview of the article and may be misleading.

Does the introduction make the purpose of the article clear?

A good introduction provides the basis for the article. It includes a statement of the problem, a rationale for the study, and the research questions. When a hypothesis is being tested, it should be clearly stated and include the expected results.

Is a theoretical framework described?

When a theoretical framework is used, it should inform the study and provide a rationale. The concepts of the theoretical framework should relate to the topic and serve as a basis for interpreting the results. Some research doesn’t use a theoretical framework, such as health services research, which examines issues such as access to care, healthcare costs, and healthcare delivery. Clinical research such as comparing the effectiveness of two drugs won’t include a theoretical framework.

Is the literature review relevant to the study and comprehensive? Does it include recent research?

The literature review provides a context for the study. It establishes what is, and is not known about the research problem. Publication dates are important but there are caveats. Most literature reviews include articles published within the last 3 to 5 years. It can take more than a year for an article to be reviewed, revised, accepted, and published, causing some references to seem outdated.

Literature reviews may include older studies to demonstrate important changes in knowledge over time. In an area of study where little or no research has been conducted, there may be only a few relevant articles that are a decade or more old. In an emerging area of study there may be no published research, in which case related research should be referenced. If you are familiar with the area of research, review the references to determine if well-known and highly regarded studies are included.

Does the methods section explain how a research question was addressed?

The methods section provides enough information to allow the study to be replicated. Components of this section indicate if the design is appropriate to answer the research question(s).

• Did the researcher select the correct sample to answer the research questions and was the size sufficient to obtain valid results?
• If a data collection instrument was used, how was it created and validated?
• If any materials were used, such as written guides or equipment, were they described?
• How were data collected?
• Was reliability and validity accounted for?
• Were the procedures listed in a step-by-step manner?

Independent and dependent variables should be described and terms defined. For example, if patient falls in the hospital are considered the dependent variable, or outcome, what are the independent variables, or factors, being investigated that may influence the rate at which patient falls occur? In this example, independent variables might include nurse staffing, registered nurse composition (such as education and certification), and hospital Magnet &#174 status.

Is the analytical approach consistent with the study questions and research design?

The analytical approach relates to the study questions and research design. A quantitative study may use descriptive statistics to summarize the data and other tests, such as chi squares, t-tests, or regression analysis, to compare or evaluate the data. A qualitative study may use such approaches as coding, content analysis, or grounded theory analysis. A reader who is unfamiliar with the analytical approach may choose to rely on the expertise of the journal’s peer reviewers who assessed whether the analytical approach was correct.

Are the results presented clearly in the text and in tables and figures?

Results should be clearly summarized in the text, tables, and figures. Tables and figures are only a partial representation of the results and critical information may be only in the text. In a quantitative study, the significance of the statistical tests is important. The presentation of qualitative results should avoid interpretation, which is reserved for the discussion.

Are the limitations presented and their implications discussed?

It is essential that the limitations of the study be presented. These are the factors that explain why the results may need to be carefully interpreted, may only be generalized to certain situations, or may provide less robust results than anticipated. Examples of limitations include a low response rate to a survey, not being able to establish causality when a cross-sectional study design was used, and having key stakeholders refuse to be interviewed.

Does the discussion explain the results in relation to the theoretical framework, research questions, and significance of the study?

The discussion serves as an opportunity to explain the results in respect to the research questions and the theoretical framework. Authors use the discussion to interpret the results and explain the meaning and significance of the study. It’s also important to distinguish the study from others that preceded it and provide recommendations for future research.

Depending on the research, it may be equally important for the investigators to present the clinical and/or practical significance of the results. Relevant policy recommendations are also important. Evaluate if the recommendations are supported by the data or seem to be more of an opinion. A succinct conclusion typically completes the article.

Once you’re done reading the article, how do you decide if the research is something you want to use?

Determine the scientific merit of the study by evaluating the level and quality of the evidence. There are many scales to use, several of which can be found in the Research Toolkit on the American Nurses Association’s website http://www.nursingworld.org/research-toolkit.aspx . Consider what you learned and decide if the study is relevant to your practice or answered your question as well as whether you can implement the findings.

A new skill

A systematic approach to reading and critiquing a research article serves as a foundation for translating evidence into practice and policy. Every nurse can acquire this skill.

Louise Kaplan is director of the nursing program at Saint Martin’s University in Lacey, Washington. At the end of this article is a checklist for evaluating an article.

Selected references

Hudson-Barr D. How to read a research article. J Spec Pediatr Nurs . 2004;9(2):70-2.

King’s College D. Leonard Corgan Library. Reading a research article. http://www.lib.jmu.edu/ilworkshop08/materials/studyguide3.pdf . Accessed September 5, 2012.

Oliver D, Mahon SM. Reading a research article part I: Types of variables. Clin J Oncol Nurs . 2005;9(1):110-12.

Oliver D, Mahon SM. Reading a research article part II: Parametric and nonparametric statistics. Clin J Oncol Nurs . 2005;9(2):238-240.

Oliver D, Mahon SM. Reading a research article part III: The data collection instrument. Clin J Oncol Nurs . 2006;10(3):423-26.

Rumrill P, Fitzgerald S, Ware, M. Guidelines for evaluating research articles. Work . 2000;14(3):257-63.

15 Comments .

very helpful resource to critique any research article

I like it helped me a lot in my critical appraisal. thank you very much.

This article will help me with my understanding of how to read and critique a research article. This article was helpful in breaking down this information very basic to get a clear, concise understanding. Now I can take this information and go to the next level in my discussions

Great information and I will use this article for future reference.

This checklist and explanation for a literature review and/or reading and critiquing a research article was very helpful. As I only have 2 more classes to get my degree, I wish I knew this info 2 semesters ago! I will also pass this along to coworkers that will be going back to school in the near future.

Great article, I enjoyed the information. Thank You for this resource. Carolyn Martinez

Fantastic guide to the interpretation of clinical trials. Found this so helpful!

Great information and article. Thank you for the information.

well explained. its sometimes hard for P.G students to understand the concept but these guidelines are helpful to learn for novice.

This is great,am looking for guilgline on how to do research critique and this is just the solution.Thnks weldone

Unsure how to appropriately critique an article, thank you for your infomation

I am currently taking a Health Service Research course and was not sure how to sturcture my assignment. Thanks for posting this article!

very informative…very helpful to students doing research work.

Great timing; have just been asked to review and article and you provide the guide! Will share with colleagues.

I will be passing this article on to a friend who is taking a nursing research class. This article is a great reference for nursing students.

Comments are closed.

NurseLine Newsletter

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Hidden Referrer

*By submitting your e-mail, you are opting in to receiving information from Healthcom Media and Affiliates. The details, including your email address/mobile number, may be used to keep you informed about future products and services.

Test Your Knowledge

Recent posts.

Effective clinical learning for nursing students

Nursing professional development at night

Engaging nurses in scholarly work

Mentorship matters

2023 nursing trends and salary survey results

NCLEX vs Next Generation

Patient care assistant training

Re-imagining nursing’s social contract with the public

Is there a nurse in the House? Or the Senate?

Prevent compassion fatigue through self-compassion

Implementing trauma-informed care 

Addressing transgender myths

Motivate Gen Z nursing students

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome

Pulmonary hypertension: Consider the “zebra”

A guide for critique of research articles

Following is the list of criteria to evaluate (critique) a research article. Please note that you should first summarize the paper and then evaluate different parts of it.

Most of the evaluation section should be devoted to evaluation of internal validity of the conclusions. Please add at the end a section entitled ''changes in the design/procedures if I want to replicate this study." Attach a copy of the original article to your paper.

Click here to see a an example (this is how you start) of a research critique.

Click here to see the original article.

The following list is a guide for you to organize your evaluation. It is recommended to organize your evaluation in this order. This is a long list of questions. You don’t have to address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions . Some questions may not be relevant to your article.

Introduction

1.     Is there a statement of the problem?

2.     Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data?

3.     Is background information on the problem presented?

4.     Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?

5.     Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

Review of Related Literature

1.     Is the review comprehensive?

2.     Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation?

3.     Are most of the sources primary, i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources?

4.     Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of various studies compared and contrasted, i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?

5.     Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?

6.     Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?

1.     Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?

2.     Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference?

3.     If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

4.     Is each hypothesis testable?

Method          Subjects

1.     Are the size and major characteristics of the population studied described?

2.     If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?

3.      Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?

4.     Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?

5.     Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?

6.     Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represented?      

Instruments

1.     Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?

2.     Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content?

3.     Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables?

4.     Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample under study?

5.     Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?

6.     Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?

7.     If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?

8.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its development and validation described?

9.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?

Design and Procedure

1.     Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the   study?

2.     Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?

3.     If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the subsequent study?

4.     Are the control procedures described?

5.     Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or she was unable to control for?

1.     Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented?

2.     Was the probability level, α, at which the results of the tests of significance were evaluated,

       specified in advance of the data analyses?

3.     If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the

       required assumptions for parametric tests?

4.     Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the

       study?

5.     Was every hypothesis tested?

6.     Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom?

7.     Are the results clearly presented?

8.     Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?

9.     Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?

Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)

1.     Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?

2.     Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results

        obtained by other researchers in other studies?

3.     Are generalizations consistent with the results?

4.     Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?

5.     Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed?

6.     Are recommendations for future action made?

7.     Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on statistical

       significance only, i.e., has the author avoided confusing practical and statistical

       significance?

8.     Are recommendations for future research made?

Additional general questions to be answered in your critique.

1. What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?

2. Describe the sample used in this study.

3. Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.

4. What type of research is this?  Explain.

5. How was the data analyzed?

6. What is (are) the major finding(s)?

How to Critique an Article: Mastering the Article Evaluation Process

Did you know that approximately 4.6 billion pieces of content are produced every day? From news articles and blog posts to scholarly papers and social media updates, the digital landscape is flooded with information at an unprecedented rate. In this age of information overload, honing the skill of articles critique has never been more crucial. Whether you're seeking to bolster your academic prowess, stay well-informed, or improve your writing, mastering the art of article critique is a powerful tool to navigate the vast sea of information and discern the pearls of wisdom.

How to Critique an Article: Short Description

In this article, we will equip you with valuable tips and techniques to become an insightful evaluator of written content. We present a real-life article critique example to guide your learning process and help you develop your unique critique style. Additionally, we explore the key differences between critiquing scientific articles and journals. Whether you're a student, researcher, or avid reader, this guide will empower you to navigate the vast ocean of information with confidence and discernment. Still, have questions? Don't worry! We've got you covered with a helpful FAQ section to address any lingering doubts. Get ready to unleash your analytical prowess and uncover the true potential of every article that comes your way!

What Is an Article Critique: Understanding The Power of Evaluation

An article critique is a valuable skill that involves carefully analyzing and evaluating a written piece, such as a journal article, blog post, or news article. It goes beyond mere summarization and delves into the deeper layers of the content, examining its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. Think of it as an engaging conversation with the author, where you provide constructive feedback and insights.

For instance, let's consider a scenario where you're critiquing a research paper on climate change. Instead of simply summarizing the findings, you would scrutinize the methodology, data interpretation, and potential biases, offering thoughtful observations to enrich the discussion. Through the process of writing an article critique, you develop a critical eye, honing your ability to appreciate well-crafted work while also identifying areas for improvement.

In the following sections, our ' write my paper ' experts will uncover valuable tips on and key points on how to write a stellar critique, so let's explore more!

Unveiling the Key Aims of Writing an Article Critique

Writing an article critique serves several essential purposes that go beyond a simple review or summary. When engaging in the art of critique, as when you learn how to write a review article , you embark on a journey of in-depth analysis, sharpening your critical thinking skills and contributing to the academic and intellectual discourse. Primarily, an article critique allows you to:

• Evaluate the Content : By critiquing an article, you delve into its content, structure, and arguments, assessing its credibility and relevance.
• Strengthen Your Critical Thinking : This practice hones your ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in written works, fostering a deeper understanding of complex topics and critical evaluation skills.
• Engage in Scholarly Dialogue : Your critique contributes to the ongoing academic conversation, offering valuable insights and thoughtful observations to the existing body of knowledge.
• Enhance Writing Skills : By analyzing and providing feedback, you develop a keen eye for effective writing techniques, benefiting your own writing endeavors.
• Promote Continuous Learning : Through the writing process, you continually refine your analytical abilities, becoming an avid and astute learner in the pursuit of knowledge.

How to Critique an Article: Steps to Follow

The process of crafting an article critique may seem overwhelming, especially when dealing with intricate academic writing. However, fear not, for it is more straightforward than it appears! To excel in this art, all you require is a clear starting point and the skill to align your critique with the complexities of the content. To help you on your journey, follow these 3 simple steps and unlock the potential to provide insightful evaluations:

Step 1: Read the Article

The first and most crucial step when wondering how to do an article critique is to thoroughly read and absorb its content. As you delve into the written piece, consider these valuable tips from our custom essay writer to make your reading process more effective:

• Take Notes : Keep a notebook or digital document handy while reading. Jot down key points, noteworthy arguments, and any questions or observations that arise.
• Annotate the Text : Underline or highlight significant passages, quotes, or sections that stand out to you. Use different colors to differentiate between positive aspects and areas that may need improvement.
• Consider the Author's Purpose : Reflect on the author's main critical point and the intended audience. Much like an explanatory essay , evaluate how effectively the article conveys its message to the target readership.

Now, let's say you are writing an article critique on climate change. While reading, you come across a compelling quote from a renowned environmental scientist highlighting the urgency of addressing global warming. By taking notes and underlining this impactful quote, you can later incorporate it into your critique as evidence of the article's effectiveness in conveying the severity of the issue.

Step 2: Take Notes/ Make sketches

Once you've thoroughly read the article, it's time to capture your thoughts and observations by taking comprehensive notes or creating sketches. This step plays a crucial role in organizing your critique and ensuring you don't miss any critical points. Here's how to make the most out of this process:

• Highlight Key Arguments : Identify the main arguments presented by the author and highlight them in your notes. This will help you focus on the core ideas that shape the article.
• Record Supporting Evidence : Take note of any evidence, examples, or data the author uses to support their arguments. Assess the credibility and effectiveness of this evidence in bolstering their claims.
• Examine Structure and Flow : Pay attention to the article's structure and how each section flows into the next. Analyze how well the author transitions between ideas and whether the organization enhances or hinders the reader's understanding.
• Create Visual Aids : If you're a visual learner, consider using sketches or diagrams to map out the article's key points and their relationships. Visual representations can aid in better grasping the content's structure and complexities.

Step 3: Format Your Paper

Once you've gathered your notes and insights, it's time to give structure to your article critique. Proper formatting ensures your critique is organized, coherent, and easy to follow. Here are essential tips for formatting an article critique effectively:

• Introduction : Begin with a clear and engaging introduction that provides context for the article you are critiquing. Include the article's title, author's name, publication details, and a brief overview of the main theme or thesis.
• Thesis Statement : Present a strong and concise thesis statement that conveys your overall assessment of the article. Your thesis should reflect whether you found the article compelling, convincing, or in need of improvement.
• Body Paragraphs : Organize your critique into well-structured body paragraphs. Each paragraph should address a specific point or aspect of the article, supported by evidence and examples from your notes.
• Use Evidence : Back up your critique with evidence from the article itself. Quote relevant passages, cite examples, and reference data to strengthen your analysis and demonstrate your understanding of the article's content.
• Conclusion : Conclude your critique by summarizing your main points and reiterating your overall evaluation. Avoid introducing new arguments in the conclusion and instead provide a concise and compelling closing statement.
• Citation Style : If required, adhere to the specific citation style guidelines (e.g., APA, MLA) for in-text citations and the reference list. Properly crediting the original article and any additional sources you use in your critique is essential.

How to Critique a Journal Article: Mastering the Steps

So, you've been assigned the task of critiquing a journal article, and not sure where to start? Worry not, as we've prepared a comprehensive guide with different steps to help you navigate this process with confidence. Journal articles are esteemed sources of scholarly knowledge, and effectively critiquing them requires a systematic approach. Let's dive into the steps to expertly evaluate and analyze a journal article:

Step 1: Understanding the Research Context

Begin by familiarizing yourself with the broader research context in which the journal article is situated. Learn about the field, the topic's significance, and any previous relevant research. This foundational knowledge will provide a valuable backdrop for your journal article critique example.

Step 2: Evaluating the Article's Structure

Assess the article's overall structure and organization. Examine how the introduction sets the stage for the research and how the discussion flows logically from the methodology and results. A well-structured article enhances readability and comprehension.

Step 3: Analyzing the Research Methodology

Dive into the research methodology section, which outlines the approach used to gather and analyze data. Scrutinize the study's design, data collection methods, sample size, and any potential biases or limitations. Understanding the research process will enable you to gauge the article's reliability.

Step 4: Assessing the Data and Results

Examine the presentation of data and results in the article. Are the findings clear and effectively communicated? Look for any discrepancies between the data presented and the interpretations made by the authors.

Step 5: Analyzing the Discussion and Conclusions

Evaluate the discussion section, where the authors interpret their findings and place them in the broader context. Assess the soundness of their conclusions, considering whether they are adequately supported by the data.

Step 6: Considering Ethical Considerations

Reflect on any ethical considerations raised by the research. Assess whether the study respects the rights and privacy of participants and adheres to ethical guidelines.

Step 7: Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses

Identify the article's strengths, such as well-designed experiments, comprehensive, relevant literature reviews, or innovative approaches. Also, pinpoint any weaknesses, like gaps in the research, unclear explanations, or insufficient evidence.

Step 8: Offering Constructive Feedback

Provide constructive feedback to the authors, highlighting both positive aspects and areas for improvement for future research. Suggest ways to enhance the research methods, data analysis, or discussion to bolster its overall quality.

Step 9: Presenting Your Critique

Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.

By following these steps on how to critique a journal article, you'll be well-equipped to craft a thoughtful and insightful piece, contributing to the scholarly discourse in your field of study!

Got an Article that Needs Some Serious Critiquing?

Don't sweat it! Our critique maestros are armed with wit, wisdom, and a dash of magic to whip that piece into shape.

An Article Critique: Journal Vs. Research

In the realm of academic writing, the terms 'journal article' and 'research paper' are often used interchangeably, which can lead to confusion about their differences. Understanding the distinctions between critiquing a research article and a journal piece is essential. Let's delve into the key characteristics that set apart a journal article from a research paper and explore how the critique process may differ for each:

Publication Scope:

• Journal Article: Presents focused and concise research findings or new insights within a specific subject area.
• Research Paper: Explores a broader range of topics and can cover extensive research on a particular subject.

Format and Structure:

• Journal Article: Follows a standardized format with sections such as abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Research Paper: May not adhere to a specific format and allows flexibility in organizing content based on the research scope.

Depth of Analysis:

• Journal Article: Provides a more concise and targeted analysis of the research topic or findings.
• Research Paper: Offers a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis, often including extensive literature reviews and data analyses.
• Journal Article: Typically shorter in length, ranging from a few pages to around 10-15 pages.
• Research Paper: Tends to be longer, spanning from 20 to several hundred pages, depending on the research complexity.

Publication Type:

• Journal Article: Published in academic journals after undergoing rigorous peer review.
• Research Paper: May be published as a standalone work or as part of a thesis, dissertation, or academic report.
• Journal Article: Targeted at academics, researchers, and professionals within the specific field of study.
• Research Paper: Can cater to a broader audience, including students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public.
• Journal Article: Primarily aimed at sharing new research findings, contributing to academic discourse, and advancing knowledge in the field.
• Research Paper: Focuses on comprehensive exploration and analysis of a research topic, aiming to make a substantial contribution to the body of knowledge.

Appreciating these differences becomes paramount when engaging in the critique of these two forms of scholarly publications, as they each demand a unique approach and thoughtful consideration of their distinctive attributes. And if you find yourself desiring a flawlessly crafted research article critique example, entrusting the task to professional writers is always an excellent option – you can easily order essay that meets your needs.

Article Critique Example

Our collection of essay samples offers a comprehensive and practical illustration of the critique process, granting you access to valuable insights.

Tips on How to Critique an Article

Critiquing an article requires a keen eye, critical thinking, and a thoughtful approach to evaluating its content. To enhance your article critique skills and provide insightful analyses, consider incorporating these five original and practical tips into your process:

1. Analyze the Author's Bias : Be mindful of potential biases in the article, whether they are political, cultural, or personal. Consider how these biases may influence the author's perspective and the presentation of information. Evaluating the presence of bias enables you to discern the objectivity and credibility of the article's arguments.

2. Examine the Supporting Evidence : Scrutinize the quality and relevance of the evidence used to support the article's claims. Look for well-researched data, credible sources, and up-to-date statistics. Assess how effectively the author integrates evidence to build a compelling case for their arguments.

3. Consider the Audience's Perspective : Put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience and assess how well the article communicates its ideas. Consider whether the language, tone, and level of complexity are appropriate for the target readership. A well-tailored article is more likely to engage and resonate with its audience.

4. Investigate the Research Methodology : If the article involves research or empirical data, delve into the methodology used to gather and analyze the information. Evaluate the soundness of the study design, sample size, and data collection methods. Understanding the research process adds depth to your critique.

5. Discuss the Implications and Application : Consider the broader implications of the article's findings or arguments. Discuss how the insights presented in the article could impact the field of study or have practical applications in real-world scenarios. Identifying the potential consequences of the article's content strengthens your critique's depth and relevance.

Wrapping Up

In a nutshell, article critique is an essential skill that helps us grow as critical thinkers and active participants in academia. Embrace the opportunity to analyze and offer constructive feedback, contributing to a brighter future of knowledge and understanding. Remember, each critique is a chance to engage with new ideas and expand our horizons. So, keep honing your critique skills and enjoy the journey of discovery in the world of academic exploration!

Tired of Ordinary Critiques?

Brace yourself for an extraordinary experience! Our critique geniuses are on standby, ready to unleash their extraordinary skills on your article!

What Steps Need to Be Taken in Writing an Article Critique?

What is the recommended length for an article critique, related articles.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 26 June 2023

GREENER principles for environmentally sustainable computational science

• Loïc Lannelongue   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9135-1345 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Hans-Erik G. Aronson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1702-1671 5 ,
• Alex Bateman 6 ,
• Ewan Birney 6 ,
• Talia Caplan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8990-1435 7 ,
• Martin Juckes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1770-2132 8 ,
• Johanna McEntyre 6 ,
• Andrew D. Morris 5 ,
• Gerry Reilly 5 &
• Michael Inouye 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 9 , 10 , 11  

Nature Computational Science volume  3 ,  pages 514–521 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

7485 Accesses

8 Citations

103 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Computational science
• Environmental impact
• Scientific community

The carbon footprint of scientific computing is substantial, but environmentally sustainable computational science (ESCS) is a nascent field with many opportunities to thrive. To realize the immense green opportunities and continued, yet sustainable, growth of computer science, we must take a coordinated approach to our current challenges, including greater awareness and transparency, improved estimation and wider reporting of environmental impacts. Here, we present a snapshot of where ESCS stands today and introduce the GREENER set of principles, as well as guidance for best practices moving forward.

Similar content being viewed by others

Improving microbial phylogeny with citizen science within a mass-market video game

Roman Sarrazin-Gendron, Parham Ghasemloo Gheidari, … Jérôme Waldispühl

Three million images and morphological profiles of cells treated with matched chemical and genetic perturbations

Srinivas Niranj Chandrasekaran, Beth A. Cimini, … Anne E. Carpenter

An open source knowledge graph ecosystem for the life sciences

Tiffany J. Callahan, Ignacio J. Tripodi, … Lawrence E. Hunter

Scientific research and development have transformed and immeasurably improved the human condition, whether by building instruments to unveil the mysteries of the universe, developing treatments to fight cancer or improving our understanding of the human genome. Yet, science can, and frequently does, impact the environment, and the magnitude of these impacts is not always well understood. Given the connection between climate change and human health, it is becoming increasingly apparent to biomedical researchers in particular, as well as their funders, that the environmental effects of research should be taken into account 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 .

Recent studies have begun to elucidate the environmental impacts of scientific research, with an initial focus on scientific conferences and experimental laboratories 6 . The 2019 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union was estimated to emit 80,000 metric tonnes of CO 2 equivalent (tCO 2 e), equivalent to the average weekly emissions of the city of Edinburgh, UK 7 (CO 2 e, or CO 2 -equivalent, summarizes the global warming impacts of a range of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and is the standard metric for carbon footprints, although its accuracy is sometimes debated 8 ) The annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience was estimated to emit 22,000 tCO 2 e, approximately the annual carbon footprint of 1,000 medium-sized laboratories 9 . The life-cycle impact (including construction and usage) of university buildings has been estimated at ~0.125 tCO 2 e m −2  yr −1 (ref. 10 ), and the yearly carbon footprint of a typical life-science laboratory at ~20 tCO 2 e (ref. 9 ). The Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework (LEAF) is a widely adopted standard to monitor and reduce the carbon footprint of laboratory-based research 11 . Other recent frameworks can help to raise awareness: GES 1point5 12 provides an open-source tool to estimate the carbon footprint of research laboratories and covers buildings, procurement, commuting and travel, and the Environmental Responsibility 5-R Framework provides guidelines for ecologically conscious research 13 .

With the increasing scale of high-performance and cloud computing, the computational sciences are susceptible to having silent and unintended environmental impacts. The sector of information and communication technologies (ICT) was responsible for between 1.8% and 2.8% of global GHG emissions in 2020 14 —more than aviation (1.9% 15 )—and, if unchecked, the ICT carbon footprint could grow exponentially in coming years 14 . Although the environmental impact of experimental ‘wet’ laboratories is more immediately obvious, with their large pieces of equipment and high plastic and reagent usage, the impact of algorithms is less clear and often underestimated. The risks of seeking performance at any cost and the importance of considering energy usage and sustainability when developing new hardware for high-performance computing (HPC) was raised as early as 2007 16 . Since then, continuous improvements have been made by developing new hardware, building lower-energy data centers and implementing more efficient HPC systems 17 , 18 . However, it is only in the past five years that these concerns have reached HPC users, in particular researchers. Notably, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has first taken note of its environmental impacts, in particular those of the very large language models developed 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 . It is unclear, however, to what extent this has led the field towards more sustainable research practices. A small number of studies have also been performed in other fields, including bioinformatics 24 , astronomy and astrophysics 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , particle physics 29 , neuroscience 30 and computational social sciences 31 . Health data science is starting to address the subject, but a recent systematic review found only 25 publications in the field over the past 12 years 32 . In addition to the environmental effects of electricity usage, manufacturing and disposal of hardware, there are also concerns around data centers’ water usage and land footprint 33 . Notably, computational science, in particular AI, has the potential to help fight climate change, for example, by improving the efficiency of wind farms, by facilitating low-carbon urban mobility and by better understanding and anticipating severe weather events 34 .

In this Perspective we highlight the nascent field of environmentally sustainable computational science (ESCS)—what we have learned from the research so far, and what scientists can do to mitigate their environmental impacts. In doing so, we present GREENER (Governance, Responsibility, Estimation, Energy and embodied impacts, New collaborations, Education and Research; Fig. 1 ), a set of principles for how the computational science community could lead the way in sustainable research practices, maximizing computational science’s benefit to both humanity and the environment.

The GREENER principles enable cultural change (blue arrows), which in turn facilitates their implementation (green arrows) and triggers a virtuous circle.

Environmental impacts of the computational sciences

The past three years have seen increased concerns regarding the carbon footprint of computations, and only recently have tools 21 , 35 , 36 , 37 and guidelines 38 been widely available to computational scientists to allow them to estimate their carbon footprint and be more environmentally sustainable.

Most calculators that estimate the carbon footprint of computations are targeted at machine learning tasks and so are primarily suited to Python pipelines, graphics processing units (GPUs) and/or cloud computing 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 . Python libraries have the benefit of integrating well into machine learning pipelines or online calculators for cloud GPUs 21 , 41 . Recently, a flexible online tool, the Green Algorithms calculator 35 , enabled the estimation of the carbon footprint for nearly any computational task, empowering sustainability metrics across fields, hardware, computing platforms and locations.

Some publications, such as ref. 38 , have listed simple actions that computational scientists can take regarding their environmental impact, including estimating the carbon footprint of running algorithms, both a posteriori to acknowledge the impact of a project and before starting as part of a cost–benefit analysis. A 2020 report from The Royal Society formalizes this with the notion of ‘energy proportionality’, meaning the environmental impacts of an innovation must be outweighed by its environmental or societal benefits 34 . It is also important to minimize electronic waste by keeping devices for longer and using second-hand hardware when possible. A 2021 report by the World Health Organization 42 warns of the dramatic effect of e-waste on population health, particularly children. The unregulated informal recycling industry, which handles more than 80% of the 53 million tonnes of e-waste, causes a high level of water, soil and air pollution, often in low- and middle-income countries 43 . The up to 56 million informal waste workers are also exposed to hazardous chemicals such as heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants 42 . Scientists can also choose energy-efficient hardware and computing facilities, while favoring those powered by green energy. Writing efficient code can substantially reduce the carbon footprint as well, and this can be done alongside making hardware requirements and carbon footprints clear when releasing new software. The Green Software Foundation ( https://greensoftware.foundation ) promotes carbon-aware coding to reduce the operational carbon footprint of the softwares used in all aspects of society. There is, however, a rebound effect to making algorithms and hardware more efficient: instead of reducing computing usage, increased efficiency encourages more analyses to be performed, which leads to a revaluation of the cost–benefit but often results in increased carbon footprints. The rebound effect is a key example of why research practice should adapt to technological advances so that they lead to carbon footprint reductions.

GREENER computational science

ESCS is an emerging field, but one that is of rapidly increasing importance given the climate crisis. In the following, our proposed set of principles (Fig. 1 ) outlines the main axes where progress is needed, where opportunities lie and where we believe efforts should be concentrated.

Governance and responsibility

Everyone involved in computational science has a role to play in making the field more sustainable, and many do already, from grassroots movements to large institutions. Individual and institutional responsibility is a necessary step to ensure transparency and reduction of GHG emission. Here we highlight key stakeholders alongside existing initiatives and future opportunities for involvement.

Grassroots initiatives led by graduate students, early career researchers and laboratory technicians have shown great success in tackling the carbon footprint of laboratory work, including Green Labs Netherlands 44 , the Nottingham Technical Sustainability Working Group or the Digital Humanities Climate Coalition 45 . International coalitions such as the Sustainable Research (SuRe) Symposium, initially set up for wet laboratories, have started to address the impact of computing as well. IT teams in HPC centers are naturally key, both in terms of training and ensuring that the appropriate information is logged so that scientists can follow the carbon footprints of their work. Principal investigators can encourage their teams to think about this issue and provide access to suitable training when needed.

Simultaneously, top–down approaches are needed, with funding bodies and journals occupying key positions in both incentivizing carbon-footprint reduction and in promoting transparency. Funding bodies can directly influence the researchers they fund and those applying for funding via their funding policies. They can require estimates of carbon footprints to be included in funding applications as part of ‘environmental impacts statements’. Many funding bodies include sustainability in their guidelines already; see, for example, the UK’s NIHR carbon reduction guidelines 1 , the brief mention of the environment in UKRI’s terms and conditions 46 , and the Wellcome Trust’s carbon-offsetting travel policy 47 .

Although these are important first steps, bolder action is needed to meet the urgency of climate change. For example, UKRI’s digital research infrastructure scoping project 48 , which seeks to provide a roadmap to net zero for its digital infrastructure, sends a clear message that sustainable research includes minimizing the GHG emissions from computation. The project not only raises awareness but will hopefully result in reductions in GHG emissions.

Large research institutes are key to managing and expanding centralized data infrastructures and trusted research environments (TREs). For example, EMBL’s European Bioinformatics Institute manages more than 40 data resources 49 , including AlphaFold DB 50 , which contains over 200,000,000 predicted protein structures that can be searched, browsed and retrieved according to the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) 51 . As a consequence, researchers do not need to run the carbon-intensive AlphaFold algorithm for themselves and instead can just query the database. AlphaFold DB was queried programmatically over 700 million times and the web page was accessed 2.4 million times between August 2021 and October 2022. Institutions also have a role in making procurement decisions carefully, taking into account both the manufacturing and operational footprint of hardware purchases. This is critical, as the lifetime footprint of a computational facility is largely determined by the date it is purchased. Facilities could also better balance investment decisions, with a focus on attracting staff based on sustainable and efficient working environments, rather than high-powered hardware 52 .

However, increases in the efficiencies of digital technology alone are unlikely to prove sufficient in ensuring sustainable resource use 53 . Alongside these investments, funding bodies should support a shift towards more positive, inclusive and green research cultures, recognizing that more data or bigger models do not always translate into greater insights and that a ‘fit for purpose’ approach can ultimately be more efficient. Organizations such as Health Data Research UK and the UK Health Data Research Alliance have a key convening role in ensuring that awareness is raised around the climate impact of both infrastructure investment and computational methods.

Journals may incentivize authors to acknowledge and indeed estimate the carbon footprint of the work presented. Some authors already do this voluntarily (for example, refs. 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ), mostly in bioinformatics and machine learning so far, but there is potential to expand it to other areas of computational science. In some instances, showing that a new tool is greener can be an argument in support of a new method 60 .

International societies in charge of organizing annual conferences may help scientists reduce the carbon footprint of presenting their work by offering hybrid options. The COVID-19 pandemic boosted virtual and hybrid meetings, which have a lower carbon footprint while increasing access and diversity 7 , 61 . Burtscher and colleagues found that running the annual meeting of the European Astronomical Society online emitted >3,000-fold less CO 2 e than the in-person meeting (0.582 tCO 2 e compared to 1,855 tCO 2 e) 25 . Institutions are starting to tackle this; for example, the University of Cambridge has released new travel guidelines encouraging virtual meetings whenever feasible and restricting flights to essential travel, while also acknowledging that different career stages have different needs 62 .

Industry partners will also need to be part of the discussion. Acknowledging and reducing computing environmental impact comes with added challenges in industry, such as shareholder interests and/or public relations. While the EU has backed some initiatives helping ICT-reliant companies to address their carbon footprint, such as ICTfootprint.eu, other major stakeholders have expressed skepticism regarding the environmental issues of machine learning models 63 , 64 . Although challenging, tech industry engagement and inclusion is nevertheless essential for tackling GHG emissions.

Estimate and report the energy consumption of algorithms

Estimating and monitoring the carbon footprint of computations is an essential step towards sustainable research as it identifies inefficiencies and opportunities for improvement. User-level metrics are crucial to understanding environmental impacts and promoting personal responsibility. In some HPC situations, particularly in academia, the financial cost of running computations is negligible and scientists may have the impression of unlimited and inconsequential computing capacity. Quantifying the carbon footprint of individual projects helps raise awareness of the true costs of research.

Although progress has been made in estimating energy usage and carbon footprints over the past few years, there are still barriers that prevent the routine estimation of environmental impacts. From task-agnostic, general-purpose calculators 35 and task-specific packages 36 , 37 , 65 to server-side softwares 66 , 67 , each estimation tool is a trade-off between ease of use and accuracy. A recent primer 68 discusses these different options in more detail and provides recommendations as to which approach fits a particular need.

Regardless of the calculator used, for these tools to work effectively and for scientists to have an accurate representation of their energy consumption, it is important to understand the power management for different components. For example, the power usage of processing cores such as central processing units (CPUs) and GPUs is not a readily available metric; instead, thermal design power (meaning, how much heat the chip can be expected to dissipate in a normal setting) is used. Although an acceptable approximation, it has also been shown to substantially underestimate power usage in some situations 69 . The efficiency of data centers is measured by the power usage effectiveness (PUE), which quantifies how much energy is needed for non-computing tasks, mainly cooling (efficient data centers have PUEs close to 1). This metric is widely used, with large cloud providers reporting low PUEs (for example, 1.11 for Google 70 compared to a global average of 1.57 71 ), but discrepancies in how it is calculated can limit PUE interpretation and thus its impact 72 , 73 , 74 . A standard from the International Organization for Standardization is trying to address this 75 . Unfortunately, the PUE of a particular data center, whether cloud or institutional, is rarely publicly documented. Thus, an important step is the data science and infrastructure community making both hardware and data centers’ energy consumption metrics available to their users and the public. Ultimately, tackling unnecessary carbon footprints will require transparency 34 .

Tackling energy and embodied impacts through new collaborations

Minimizing carbon intensity (meaning the carbon footprint of producing electricity) is one of the most immediately impactful ways to reduce GHG emissions. Carbon intensities depend largely on geographical location, with up to three orders of magnitude between the top and bottom performing high-income countries in terms of low carbon energies (from 0.10 gCO 2 e kWh −1 in Iceland to 770 gCO 2 e kWh −1 in Australia 76 ). Changing the carbon intensity of a local state or national government is nearly always impractical as it would necessitate protracted campaigns to change energy policies. An alternative is to relocate computations to low-carbon settings and countries, but, depending on the type of facility or the sensitivity of the data, this may not always be possible. New inter-institutional cooperation may open up opportunities to enable access to low-carbon data centers in real time.

It is, however, essential to recognize and account for inequalities between countries in terms of access to green energy sources. International cooperation is key to providing scientists from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), who frequently only have high-carbon-intensity options available to them, access to low-carbon computing infrastructures for their work. In the longer term, international partnerships between organizations and nations can help build low-carbon computing capacity in LMICs.

Furthermore, the footprint of user devices should not be forgotten. In one estimate, the energy footprint of streaming a video to a laptop is mainly on the laptop (72%), with 23% used in transmission and a mere 5% at the data center 77 . Zero clients (user devices with no compute or storage capacity) can be used in some research use cases and drastically reduce the client-side footprint 78 .

It can be tempting to reduce the environmental impacts of computing to electricity needs, as these are the easiest ones to estimate. However, water usage, ecological impacts and embodied carbon footprints from manufacturing should also be addressed. For example, for personal hardware, such as laptops, 70–80% of the life-cycle impact of these devices comes from manufacturing only 79 , as it involves mining raw materials and assembling the different components, which require water and energy. Moreover, manufacturing often takes place in countries that have a higher carbon intensity for power generation and a slower transition to zero-carbon power 80 . Currently, hardware renewal policies, either for work computers or servers in data centers, are often closely dependent on warranties and financial costs, with environmental costs rarely considered. For hardware used in data centers, regular updates may be both financially and environmentally friendly, as efficiency gains may offset manufacturing impacts. Estimating these environmental impacts will allow HPC teams to know for sure. Reconditioned and remanufactured laptops and servers are available, but growth of this sector is currently limited by negative consumer perception 81 . Major suppliers of hardware are making substantial commitments, such as 100% renewable energy supply by 2030 82 or net zero by 2050 83 .

Another key consideration is data storage. Scientific datasets are now measured in petabytes (PB). In genomics, the popular UK Biobank cohort 84 is expected to reach 15 PB by 2025 85 , and the first image of a black hole required the collection of 5 PB of data 86 . The carbon footprint of storing data depends on numerous factors, but based on some manufacturers’ estimations, the order of magnitude of the life-cycle footprint of storing 1 TB of data for a year is ~10 kg CO 2 e (refs. 87 , 88 ). This issue is exacerbated by the duplication of such datasets in order for each institution, and sometimes each research group, to have a copy. Centralized and collaborative computing resources (such as TREs) holding both data and computing hardware may help alleviate redundant resources. TRE efforts in the UK span both health (for example, NHS Digital 89 ) and administrative data (for example, the SAIL databank on the UK Secure Research Platform 90 and the Office for National Statistics Secure Research Service 91 ). Large (hyperscale) data centers are expected to be more energy-efficient 92 , but they may also encourage unnecessary increases in the scale of computing (rebound effect).

The importance of dedicated education and research efforts for ESCS

Education is essential to raise awareness with different stakeholders. In lieu of incorporating some aspects into more formal undergraduate programs, integrating sustainability into computational training courses is a tangible first step toward reducing carbon footprints. An example is the ‘Green Computing’ Workshop on Education at the 2022 conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology.

Investing in research that will catalyze innovation in the field of ESCS is a crucial role for funders and institutions to play. Although global data centers’ workloads have increased more than sixfold between 2010 and 2018, their total electricity usage has been approximately stable due to the use of power-efficient hardware 93 , but environmentally sustainable investments will be needed to perpetuate this trend. Initiatives like Wellcome’s Research Sustainability project 94 , which look to highlight key gaps where investment could deliver the next generation of ESCS tools and technology, are key to ensuring that growth in energy demand beyond current efficiency trends can be managed in a sustainable way. Similarly, the UKRI Data and Analytics Research Environments UK program (DARE UK) needs to ensure that sustainability is a key evaluation criterion for funding and infrastructure investments for the next generation of TREs.

Recent studies found that the most widely used programming languages in research, such as R and Python 95 , tend to be the least energy-efficient ones 96 , 97 , and, although it is unlikely that forcing the community to switch to more efficient languages would benefit the environment in the short term (due to inefficient coding for example), this highlights the importance of having trained research software engineers within research groups to ensure that the algorithms used are efficiently implemented. There is also scope to use current tools more efficiently by better understanding and monitoring how coding choices impact carbon footprints. Algorithms also come with high memory requirements, sometimes using more energy than processors 98 . Unfortunately, memory power usage remains poorly optimized, as speed of access is almost always favored over energy efficiency 99 . Providing users and software engineers with the flexibility to opt for energy efficiency would present an opportunity for a reduction in GHG emissions 100 , 101 .

Cultural change

In parallel to the technological reductions in energy usage and carbon footprints, research practices will also need to change to avoid rebound effects 38 . Similar to the aviation industry, there is a tendency to count on technology to solve sustainability concerns without having to change usage 102 (that is, waiting on computing to become zero-carbon rather than acting on how we use it). Cultural change in the computing community to reconsider how we think about computing costs will be necessary. Research strategies at all levels will need to consider environmental impacts and corresponding approaches to carbon footprint minimization. The upcoming extension of the LEAF standard for computational laboratories will provide researchers with tangible tools to do so. Day to day, there is a need to solve trade-offs between the speed of computation, accuracy and GHG emissions, keeping in mind the goal of GHG reduction. These changes in scientific practices are challenging, but, importantly, there are synergies between open computational science and green computing 103 . For example, making code, data and models FAIR so that other scientists avoid unnecessary computations can increase the reach and impact of a project. FAIR practices can result in highly efficient code implementations, reduce the need to retrain models, and reduce unnecessary data generation/storage, thus reducing the overall carbon footprint. As a result, green computing and FAIR practices may both stimulate innovation and reduce financial costs.

Moreover, computational science has downstream effects on carbon footprints in other areas. In the biomedical sciences, developments in machine learning and computer vision impact the speed and scale of medical imaging processing. Discoveries in health data science make their way to clinicians and patients through, for example, connected devices. In each of these cases and many others, environmental impacts propagate through the whole digital health sector 32 . Yet, here too synergies exist. In many cases, such as telemedicine, there may be a net benefit in terms of both carbon and patient care, provided that all impacts have been carefully accounted for. These questions are beginning to be tackled in medicine, such as assessments of the environmental impact of telehealth 104 or studies into ways to sustainably handle large volumes of medical imaging data 105 . For the latter, NHS Digital (the UK’s national provider of information, data and IT systems for health and social care) has released guidelines to this effect 106 . Outside the biomedical field, there are immense but, so far, unrealized opportunities for similar efforts.

The computational sciences have an opportunity to lead the way in sustainability, which may be achieved through the GREENER principles for ESCS (Fig. 1 ): Governance, Responsibility, Estimation, Energy and embodied impacts, New collaborations, Education and Research. This will require more transparency on environmental impacts. Although some tools already exist to estimate carbon footprints, more specialized ones will be needed alongside a clearer understanding of the carbon footprint of hardware and facilities, as well as more systematic monitoring and acknowledgment of carbon footprints. Measurement is a first step, followed by a reduction in GHG emissions. This can be achieved with better training and sensible policies for renewing hardware and storing data. Cooperation, open science and equitable access to low-carbon computing facilities will also be crucial 107 . Computing practices will need to adapt to include carbon footprints in cost–benefit analyses, as well as consider the environmental impacts of downstream applications. The development of sustainable solutions will need particularly careful consideration, as they frequently have the least benefit for populations, often in LMICs, who suffer the most from climate change 22 , 108 . All stakeholders have a role to play, from funding bodies, journals and institutions to HPC teams and early career researchers. There is now a window of time and an immense opportunity to transform computational science into an exemplar of broad societal impact and sustainability.

NIHR Carbon Reduction Guidelines (National Institute for Health and Care Research, 2019); https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/nihr-carbon-reduction-guidelines/21685

NHS Becomes the World’s First National Health System to Commit to Become ‘Carbon Net Zero’, Backed by Clear Deliverables and Milestones (NHS England, 2020); https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/10/nhs-becomes-the-worlds-national-health-system-to-commit-to-become-carbon-net-zero-backed-by-clear-deliverables-and-milestones/

Climate and COVID-19: converging crises. Lancet 397 , 71 (2021).

Marazziti, D. et al. Climate change, environment pollution, COVID-19 pandemic and mental health. Sci. Total Environ. 773 , 145182 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Wellcome Commissions Report on Science’s Environmental Impact (Wellcome, 2022); https://wellcome.org/news/wellcome-commissions-report-sciences-environmental-impact

Towards Climate Sustainability of the Academic System in Europe and Beyond (ALLEA, 2022); https://doi.org/10.26356/climate-sust-acad

Klöwer, M., Hopkins, D., Allen, M. & Higham, J. An analysis of ways to decarbonize conference travel after COVID-19. Nature 583 , 356–359 (2020).

Allen, M. R. et al. A solution to the misrepresentations of CO 2 -equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 1 , 16 (2018).

Nathans, J. & Sterling, P. How scientists can reduce their carbon footprint. eLife 5 , e15928 (2016).

Helmers, E., Chang, C. C. & Dauwels, J. Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide part II: first quantification of complete embodied impacts of two campuses in Germany and Singapore. Sustainability 14 , 3865 (2022).

Marshall-Cook, J. & Farley, M. Sustainable Science and the Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework ( LEAF ) (UCL, 2023).

Mariette, J. et al. An open-source tool to assess the carbon footprint of research. Environ. Res. Infrastruct. Sustain. 2 , 035008 (2022).

Murray, D. S. et al. The environmental responsibility framework: a toolbox for recognizing and promoting ecologically conscious research. Earth’s Future 11 , e2022EF002964 (2023).

Freitag, C. et al. The real climate and transformative impact of ICT: a critique of estimates, trends and regulations. Patterns 2 , 100340 (2021).

Ritchie, H. Climate change and flying: what share of global CO 2 emissions come from aviation? Our World in Data (22 October 2022); https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation

Feng, W. & Cameron, K. The Green500 list: encouraging sustainable supercomputing. Computer 40 , 50–55 (2007).

Garg, S. K., Yeo, C. S., Anandasivam, A. & Buyya, R. Environment-conscious scheduling of HPC applications on distributed cloud-oriented data centers. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 71 , 732–749 (2011).

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Katal, A., Dahiya, S. & Choudhury, T. Energy efficiency in cloud computing data centers: a survey on software technologies. Clust. Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-022-03713-0 (2022).

Strubell, E., Ganesh, A. & McCallum, A. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In Proc. 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 3645–3650 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019); https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1355

Schwartz, R., Dodge, J., Smith, N. A. & Etzioni, O. Green AI. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10597 (2019).

Lacoste, A., Luccioni, A., Schmidt, V. & Dandres, T. Quantifying the carbon emissions of machine learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09700 (2019).

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A. & Shmitchell, S. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big? In Proc. 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability and Transparency 610–623 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2021); https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Memmel, E., Menzen, C., Schuurmans, J., Wesel, F. & Batselier, K. Towards Green AI with tensor networks—sustainability and innovation enabled by efficient algorithms. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.12961 (2022).

Grealey, J. et al. The carbon footprint of bioinformatics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 39 , msac034 (2022).

Burtscher, L. et al. The carbon footprint of large astronomy meetings. Nat. Astron. 4 , 823–825 (2020).

Jahnke, K. et al. An astronomical institute’s perspective on meeting the challenges of the climate crisis. Nat. Astron. 4 , 812–815 (2020).

Stevens, A. R. H., Bellstedt, S., Elahi, P. J. & Murphy, M. T. The imperative to reduce carbon emissions in astronomy. Nat. Astron. 4 , 843–851 (2020).

Portegies Zwart, S. The ecological impact of high-performance computing in astrophysics. Nat. Astron. 4 , 819–822 (2020).

Bloom, K. et al. Climate impacts of particle physics. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.12389 (2022).

Aron, A. R. et al. How can neuroscientists respond to the climate emergency? Neuron 106 , 17–20 (2020).

Leslie, D. Don’t ‘ Research Fast and Break Things ’: on the Ethics of Computational Social Science (Zenodo, 2022); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6635569

Samuel, G. & Lucassen, A. M. The environmental sustainability of data-driven health research: a scoping review. Digit. Health 8 , 205520762211112 (2022).

Al Kez, D., Foley, A. M., Laverty, D., Del Rio, D. F. & Sovacool, B. Exploring the sustainability challenges facing digitalization and internet data centers. J. Clean. Prod. 371 , 133633 (2022).

Digital Technology and the Planet—Harnessing Computing to Achieve Net Zero (The Royal Society, 2020); https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/digital-technology-and-the-planet/

Lannelongue, L., Grealey, J. & Inouye, M. Green algorithms: quantifying the carbon footprint of computation. Adv. Sci. 8 , 2100707 (2021).

Henderson, P. et al. Towards the systematic reporting of the energy and carbon footprints of machine learning. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 21 , 10039–10081 (2020).

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Anthony, L. F. W., Kanding, B. & Selvan, R. Carbontracker: tracking and predicting the carbon footprint of training deep learning models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.03051 (2020).

Lannelongue, L., Grealey, J., Bateman, A. & Inouye, M. Ten simple rules to make your computing more environmentally sustainable. PLoS Comput. Biol. 17 , e1009324 (2021).

Valeye, F. Tracarbon. GitHub https://github.com/fvaleye/tracarbon (2022).

Trébaol, T. CUMULATOR—a Tool to Quantify and Report the Carbon Footprint of Machine Learning Computations and Communication in Academia and Healthcare (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 2020).

Cloud Carbon Footprint —An open source tool to measure and analyze cloud carbon emissions. https://www.cloudcarbonfootprint.org/ (2023).

Children and Digital Dumpsites: E-Waste Exposure and Child Health (World Health Organization, 2021); https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341718

Sepúlveda, A. et al. A review of the environmental fate and effects of hazardous substances released from electrical and electronic equipments during recycling: examples from China and India. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 30 , 28–41 (2010).

Franssen, T. & Johnson, H. The Implementation of LEAF at Public Research Organisations in the Biomedical Sciences: a Report on Organisational Dynamics (Zenodo, 2021); https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5771609

DHCC Information, Measurement and Practice Action Group. A Researcher Guide to Writing a Climate Justice Oriented Data Management Plan (Zenodo, 2022); https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6451499

UKRI. UKRI Grant Terms and Conditions (UKRI, 2022); https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/UKRI-050422-FullEconomicCostingGrantTermsConditionsGuidance-Apr2022.pdf

Carbon Offset Policy for Travel—Grant Funding (Wellcome, 2021); https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/guidance/carbon-offset-policy-travel

Juckes, M., Pascoe, C., Woodward, L., Vanderbauwhede, W. & Weiland, M. Interim Report: Complexity, Challenges and Opportunities for Carbon Neutral Digital Research (Zenodo, 2022); https://zenodo.org/record/7016952

Thakur, M. et al. EMBL’s European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) in 2022. Nucleic Acids Res 51 , D9–D17 (2022).

Varadi, M. et al. AlphaFold Protein Structure Database: massively expanding the structural coverage of protein-sequence space with high-accuracy models. Nucleic Acids Res. 50 , D439–D444 (2022).

Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3 , 160018 (2016).

Bichsel, J. Research Computing : The Enabling Role of Information Technology (Educause, 2012); https://library.educause.edu/resources/2012/11/research-computing-the-enabling-role-of-information-technology

Creutzig, F. et al. Digitalization and the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 47 , 479–509 (2022).

Yang, L. & Chen, J. A comprehensive evaluation of microbial differential abundance analysis methods: current status and potential solutions. Microbiome 10 , 130 (2022).

Qin, Y. et al. Combined effects of host genetics and diet on human gut microbiota and incident disease in a single population cohort. Nat. Genet. 54 , 134–142 (2022).

Lannelongue, L. & Inouye, M. Inference Mechanisms and Prediction of Protein-Protein Interactions . Preprint at http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2022.02.07.479382 (2022).

Dubois, F. The Vehicle Routing Problem for Flash Floods Relief Operations (Univ. Paul Sabatier, 2022).

Thiele, L., Cranmer, M., Coulton, W., Ho, S. & Spergel, D. N. Predicting the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich field using modular and equivariant set-based neural networks. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.00026 (2022).

Armstrong, G. et al. Efficient computation of Faith’s phylogenetic diversity with applications in characterizing microbiomes. Genome Res. 31 , 2131–2137 (2021).

Mbatchou, J. et al. Computationally efficient whole-genome regression for quantitative and binary traits. Nat. Genet. 53 , 1097–1103 (2021).

Estien, C. O., Myron, E. B., Oldfield, C. A. & Alwin, A. & Ecological Society of America Student Section Virtual scientific conferences: benefits and how to support underrepresented students. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 102 , e01859 (2021).

University of Cambridge. Guidelines for Sustainable Business Travel (Univ. Cambridge, 2022); https://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/guidelines_for_sustainable_business_travel_approved.pdf

Patterson, D. et al. Carbon emissions and large neural network training. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.10350 (2021).

Patterson, D. et al. The carbon footprint of machine learning training will plateau, then shrink. Computer 55 , 18–28 (2022).

Neuroimaging Pipeline Carbon Tracker Toolboxes (OHBM SEA-SIG, 2023); https://ohbm-environment.org/carbon-tracker-toolboxes/

Lannelongue, L. Green Algorithms for High Performance Computing (GitHub, 2022); https://github.com/Llannelongue/GreenAlgorithms4HPC

Carbon Footprint Reporting—Customer Carbon Footprint Tool (Amazon Web Services, 2023); https://aws.amazon.com/aws-cost-management/aws-customer-carbon-footprint-tool/

Lannelongue, L. & Inouye, M. Carbon footprint estimation for computational research. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 3 , 9 (2023).

Cutress, I. Why Intel Processors Draw More Power Than Expected : TDP and Turbo Explained (Anandtech, 2018); https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo

Efficiency. Google Data Centers https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/efficiency/

Uptime Institute Releases 2021 Global Data Center Survey (Facility Executive, 2021); https://facilityexecutive.com/2021/09/uptime-institute-releases-2021-global-data-center-survey/

Zoie, R. C., Mihaela, R. D. & Alexandru, S. An analysis of the power usage effectiveness metric in data centers. In Proc. 2017 5th International Symposium on Electrical and Electronics Engineering ( ISEEE ) 1–6 (IEEE, 2017); https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEEE.2017.8170650

Yuventi, J. & Mehdizadeh, R. A critical analysis of power usage effectiveness and its use in communicating data center energy consumption. Energy Build. 64 , 90–94 (2013).

Avelar, V., Azevedo, D. & French, A. (eds) PUE: A Comprehensive Examination of the Metric White Paper No. 49 (Green Grid, 2012).

Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) (ISO/IEC); https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:30134:-2:ed-1:v1:en

2022 Country Specific Electricity Grid Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors (Carbon Footprint, 2023); https://www.carbonfootprint.com/docs/2023_02_emissions_factors_sources_for_2022_electricity_v10.pdf

Kamiya, G. The Carbon Footprint of Streaming Video: Fact-Checking the Headlines—Analysis (IEA, 2020); https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines

Rot, A., Chrobak, P. & Sobinska, M. Optimisation of the use of IT infrastructure resources in an institution of higher education: a case study. In Proc. 2019 9th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies ( ACIT ) 171–174 (IEEE, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1109/ACITT.2019.8780018

Clément, L.-P. P.-V. P., Jacquemotte, Q. E. S. & Hilty, L. M. Sources of variation in life cycle assessments of smartphones and tablet computers. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 84 , 106416 (2020).

Kamal, K. Y. The silicon age: trends in semiconductor devices industry. JESTR 15 , 110–115 (2022).

Gåvertsson, I., Milios, L. & Dalhammar, C. Quality labelling for re-used ICT equipment to support consumer choice in the circular economy. J. Consum. Policy 43 , 353–377 (2020).

Intel Corporate Responsibility Report 2021–2022 (Intel, 2022); https://csrreportbuilder.intel.com/pdfbuilder/pdfs/CSR-2021-22-Full-Report.pdf

TSMC Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TSMC, 2020); https://esg.tsmc.com/download/file/TSMC_TCFD_Report_E.pdf

Bycroft, C. et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 562 , 203–209 (2018).

UK Biobank Creates Cloud-Based Health Data Analysis Platform to Unleash the Imaginations of the World’s Best Scientific Minds (UK Biobank, 2020); https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/learn-more-about-uk-biobank/news/uk-biobank-creates-cloud-based-health-data-analysis-platform-to-unleash-the-imaginations-of-the-world-s-best-scientific-minds

Jackson, K. A picture is worth a petabyte of data. Science Node (5 June 2019).

Nguyen, B. H. et al. Architecting datacenters for sustainability: greener data storage using synthetic DNA. In Proc. Electronics Goes Green 2020 (ed. Schneider-Ramelow, F.) 105 (Fraunhofer, 2020).

Seagate Product Sustainability (Seagate, 2023); https://www.seagate.com/gb/en/global-citizenship/product-sustainability/

Madden, S. & Pollard, C. Principles and Best Practices for Trusted Research Environments (NHS England, 2021); https://transform.england.nhs.uk/blogs/principles-and-practice-for-trusted-research-environments/

Jones, K. H., Ford, D. V., Thompson, S. & Lyons, R. A profile of the SAIL Databank on the UK secure research platform. Int. J. Popul. Data Sci. 4 , 1134 (2020).

Google Scholar  

About the Secure Research Service (Office for National Statistics); https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/statistics/requestingstatistics/secureresearchservice/aboutthesecureresearchservice

Shehabi, A. et al. United States Data Center Energy Usage Report Report no. LBNL-1005775, 1372902 (Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 2016); http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1372902/

Masanet, E., Shehabi, A., Lei, N., Smith, S. & Koomey, J. Recalibrating global data center energy-use estimates. Science 367 , 984–986 (2020).

Caplan, T. Help Us Advance Environmentally Sustainable Research (Wellcome, 2022); https://medium.com/wellcome-data/help-us-advance-environmentally-sustainable-research-3c11fe2a8298

Choueiry, G. Programming Languages Popularity in 12,086 Research Papers (Quantifying Health, 2023); https://quantifyinghealth.com/programming-languages-popularity-in-research/

Pereira, R. et al. Ranking programming languages by energy efficiency. Sci. Comput. Program. 205 , 102609 (2021).

Lin, Y. & Danielsson, J. Choosing a Numerical Programming Language for Economic Research: Julia, MATLAB, Python or R (Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2022); https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/choosing-numerical-programming-language-economic-research-julia-matlab-python-or-r

Appuswamy, R., Olma, M. & Ailamaki, A. Scaling the memory power wall with DRAM-aware data management. In Proc. 11th International Workshop on Data Management on New Hardware 1–9 (ACM, 2015); https://doi.org/10.1145/2771937.2771947

Guo, B., Yu, J., Yang, D., Leng, H. & Liao, B. Energy-efficient database systems: a systematic survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 55 , 111 (2022).

Karyakin, A. & Salem, K. An analysis of memory power consumption in database systems. In Proc. 13th International Workshop on Data Management on New Hardware—DAMON ’ 17 1–9 (ACM Press, 2017); https://doi.org/10.1145/3076113.3076117

Karyakin, A. & Salem, K. DimmStore: memory power optimization for database systems. Proc. VLDB Endow. 12 , 1499–1512 (2019).

Caset, F., Boussauw, K. & Storme, T. Meet & fly: sustainable transport academics and the elephant in the room. J. Transp. Geogr. 70 , 64–67 (2018).

Govaart, G. H., Hofmann, S. M. & Medawar, E. The sustainability argument for open science. Collabra Psychol. 8 , 35903 (2022).

Cockrell, H. C. et al. Environmental impact of telehealth use for pediatric surgery. J. Pediatr. Surg. 57 , 865–869 (2022).

Alshqaqeeq, F., McGuire, C., Overcash, M., Ali, K. & Twomey, J. Choosing radiology imaging modalities to meet patient needs with lower environmental impact. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155 , 104657 (2020).

Sustainability Annual Report 2020–2021 (NHS, 2021); https://digital.nhs.uk/about-nhs-digital/corporate-information-and-documents/sustainability/sustainability-reports/sustainability-annual-report-2020-21

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (UNESCO, 2021); https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation

Samuel, G. & Richie, C. Reimagining research ethics to include environmental sustainability: a principled approach, including a case study of data-driven health research. J. Med. Ethics https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108489 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

L.L. was supported by the University of Cambridge MRC DTP (MR/S502443/1) and the BHF program grant (RG/18/13/33946). M.I. was supported by the Munz Chair of Cardiovascular Prediction and Prevention and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014; NIHR203312). M.I. was also supported by the UK Economic and Social Research 878 Council (ES/T013192/1). This work was supported by core funding from the British Heart Foundation (RG/13/13/30194; RG/18/13/33946) and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014; NIHR203312). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This work was also supported by Health Data Research UK, which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland) and the British Heart Foundation and Wellcome.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Cambridge Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Loïc Lannelongue & Michael Inouye

British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Heart and Lung Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Health Data Research UK Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Health Data Research (HDR) UK, London, UK

Hans-Erik G. Aronson, Andrew D. Morris & Gerry Reilly

European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK

Alex Bateman, Ewan Birney & Johanna McEntyre

Wellcome Trust, London, UK

Talia Caplan

RAL Space, Science and Technology Facilities Council, Harwell Campus, Didcot, UK

Martin Juckes

Cambridge Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Michael Inouye

British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

L.L. conceived and coordinated the manuscript. M.I. organized and edited the manuscript. All authors contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loïc Lannelongue .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Computational Science thanks Bernabe Dorronsoro and Kirk Cameron for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Kaitlin McCardle and Ananya Rastogi, in collaboration with the Nature Computational Science team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lannelongue, L., Aronson, HE.G., Bateman, A. et al. GREENER principles for environmentally sustainable computational science. Nat Comput Sci 3 , 514–521 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-023-00461-y

Download citation

Received : 06 November 2022

Accepted : 09 May 2023

Published : 26 June 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-023-00461-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Prioritize environmental sustainability in use of ai and data science methods.

• Caroline Jay
• David Topping

Nature Geoscience (2024)

A holistic approach to environmentally sustainable computing

• Andrea Pazienza
• Giovanni Baselli
• Maria Vittoria Trussoni

Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering (2024)

The carbon footprint of computational research

Nature Computational Science (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

6 Common Leadership Styles — and How to Decide Which to Use When

• Rebecca Knight

Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances call for different approaches.

Research suggests that the most effective leaders adapt their style to different circumstances — be it a change in setting, a shift in organizational dynamics, or a turn in the business cycle. But what if you feel like you’re not equipped to take on a new and different leadership style — let alone more than one? In this article, the author outlines the six leadership styles Daniel Goleman first introduced in his 2000 HBR article, “Leadership That Gets Results,” and explains when to use each one. The good news is that personality is not destiny. Even if you’re naturally introverted or you tend to be driven by data and analysis rather than emotion, you can still learn how to adapt different leadership styles to organize, motivate, and direct your team.

Much has been written about common leadership styles and how to identify the right style for you, whether it’s transactional or transformational, bureaucratic or laissez-faire. But according to Daniel Goleman, a psychologist best known for his work on emotional intelligence, “Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches.”

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center

Evidence Review of the Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination and Intramuscular Vaccine Administration

Vaccines are a public health success story, as they have prevented or lessened the effects of many infectious diseases. To address concerns around potential vaccine injuries, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which provide compensation to those who assert that they were injured by routine vaccines or medical countermeasures, respectively. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have contributed to the scientific basis for VICP compensation decisions for decades.

HRSA asked the National Academies to convene an expert committee to review the epidemiological, clinical, and biological evidence about the relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and specific adverse events, as well as intramuscular administration of vaccines and shoulder injuries. This report outlines the committee findings and conclusions.

Read Full Description

• Digital Resource: Evidence Review of the Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination
• Digital Resource: Evidence Review of Shoulder Injuries from Intramuscular Administration of Vaccines
• Press Release

Recent News

NAS Launches Science and Innovation Fund for Ukraine

Science Academies Issue Statements to Inform G7 Talks

Supporting Family Caregivers in STEMM

A Vision for High-Quality Preschool for All

• Load More...

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What the data says about Americans’ views of climate change

A recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has underscored the need for international action to avoid increasingly severe climate impacts in the years to come. Steps outlined in the report, and by climate experts, include major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from sectors such as energy production and transportation.

But how do Americans feel about climate change, and what steps do they think the United States should take to address it? Here are eight charts that illustrate Americans’ views on the issue, based on recent Pew Research Center surveys.

Pew Research Center published this collection of survey findings as part of its ongoing work to understand attitudes about climate change and energy issues. The most recent survey was conducted May 30-June 4, 2023, among 10,329 U.S. adults. Earlier findings have been previously published, and methodological information, including the sample sizes and field dates, can be found by following the links in the text.

Everyone who took part in the June 2023 survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its methodology .

A majority of Americans support prioritizing the development of renewable energy sources. Two-thirds of U.S. adults say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas, according to a survey conducted in June 2023.

In a previous Center survey conducted in 2022, nearly the same share of Americans (69%) favored the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050 , a goal outlined by President Joe Biden at the outset of his administration. Carbon neutrality means releasing no more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is removed.

Nine-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the U.S. should prioritize developing alternative energy sources to address America’s energy supply. Among Republicans and Republican leaners, 42% support developing alternative energy sources, while 58% say the country should prioritize expanding exploration and production of oil, coal and natural gas.

There are important differences by age within the GOP. Two-thirds of Republicans under age 30 (67%) prioritize the development of alternative energy sources. By contrast, 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older prioritize expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas.

Americans are reluctant to phase out fossil fuels altogether, but younger adults are more open to it. Overall, about three-in-ten adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal and natural gas. More than twice as many (68%) say the country should use a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels and renewables.

While the public is generally reluctant to phase out fossil fuels altogether, younger adults are more supportive of this idea. Among Americans ages 18 to 29, 48% say the U.S. should exclusively use renewables, compared with 52% who say the U.S. should use a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels.

There are age differences within both political parties on this question. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, 58% of those ages 18 to 29 favor phasing out fossil fuels entirely, compared with 42% of Democrats 65 and older. Republicans of all age groups back continuing to use a mix of energy sources, including oil, coal and natural gas. However, about three-in-ten (29%) Republicans ages 18 to 29 say the U.S. should phase out fossil fuels altogether, compared with fewer than one-in-ten Republicans 50 and older.

There are multiple potential routes to carbon neutrality in the U.S. All involve major reductions to carbon emissions in sectors such as energy and transportation by increasing the use of things like wind and solar power and electric vehicles. There are also ways to potentially remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it, such as capturing it directly from the air or using trees and algae to facilitate carbon sequestration.

The public supports the federal government incentivizing wind and solar energy production. In many sectors, including energy and transportation, federal incentives and regulations significantly influence investment and development.

Two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.

Views are more mixed on how the federal government should approach other activities that would reduce carbon emissions. On balance, more Americans think the government should encourage than discourage the use of electric vehicles and nuclear power production, though sizable shares say it should not exert an influence either way.

When it comes to oil and gas drilling, Americans’ views are also closely divided: 34% think the government should encourage drilling, while 30% say it should discourage this and 35% say it should do neither. Coal mining is the one activity included in the survey where public sentiment is negative on balance: More say the federal government should discourage than encourage coal mining (39% vs. 21%), while 39% say it should do neither.

Americans see room for multiple actors – including corporations and the federal government – to do more to address the impacts of climate change. Two-thirds of adults say large businesses and corporations are doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change. Far fewer say they are doing about the right amount (21%) or too much (10%).

Majorities also say their state elected officials (58%) and the energy industry (55%) are doing too little to address climate change, according to a March 2023 survey.

In a separate Center survey conducted in June 2023, a similar share of Americans (56%) said the federal government should do more to reduce the effects of global climate change.

When it comes to their own efforts, about half of Americans (51%) think they are doing about the right amount as an individual to help reduce the effects of climate change, according to the March 2023 survey. However, about four-in-ten (43%) say they are doing too little.

Democrats and Republicans have grown further apart over the last decade in their assessments of the threat posed by climate change. Overall, a majority of U.S. adults (54%) describe climate change as a major threat to the country’s well-being. This share is down slightly from 2020 but remains higher than in the early 2010s.

Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats (78%) describe climate change as a major threat to the country’s well-being, up from about six-in-ten (58%) a decade ago. By contrast, about one-in-four Republicans (23%) consider climate change a major threat, a share that’s almost identical to 10 years ago.

Concern over climate change has also risen internationally, as shown by separate Pew Research Center polling across 19 countries in 2022. People in many advanced economies express higher levels of concern than Americans . For instance, 81% of French adults and 73% of Germans describe climate change as a major threat.

Climate change is a lower priority for Americans than other national issues. While a majority of adults view climate change as a major threat, it is a lower priority than issues such as strengthening the economy and reducing health care costs.

Overall, 37% of Americans say addressing climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress in 2023, and another 34% say it’s an important but lower priority. This ranks climate change 17th out of 21 national issues included in a Center survey from January.

As with views of the threat that climate change poses, there’s a striking contrast between how Republicans and Democrats prioritize the issue. For Democrats, it falls in the top half of priority issues, and 59% call it a top priority. By comparison, among Republicans, it ranks second to last, and just 13% describe it as a top priority.

Our analyses have found that partisan gaps on climate change are often widest on questions – such as this one – that measure the salience or importance of the issue. The gaps are more modest when it comes to some specific climate policies. For example, majorities of Republicans and Democrats alike say they would favor a proposal to provide a tax credit to businesses for developing technologies for carbon capture and storage.

Perceptions of local climate impacts vary by Americans’ political affiliation and whether they believe that climate change is a serious problem. A majority of Americans (61%) say that global climate change is affecting their local community either a great deal or some. About four-in-ten (39%) see little or no impact in their own community.

The perception that the effects of climate change are happening close to home is one factor that could drive public concern and calls for action on the issue. But perceptions are tied more strongly to people’s beliefs about climate change – and their partisan affiliation – than to local conditions.

For example, Americans living in the Pacific region – California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and Alaska – are more likely than those in other areas of the country to say that climate change is having a great deal of impact locally. But only Democrats in the Pacific region are more likely to say they are seeing effects of climate change where they live. Republicans in this region are no more likely than Republicans in other areas to say that climate change is affecting their local community.

Our previous surveys show that nearly all Democrats believe climate change is at least a somewhat serious problem, and a large majority believe that humans play a role in it. Republicans are much less likely to hold these beliefs, but views within the GOP do vary significantly by age and ideology. Younger Republicans and those who describe their views as moderate or liberal are much more likely than older and more conservative Republicans to describe climate change as at least a somewhat serious problem and to say human activity plays a role.

Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to report experiencing extreme weather events in their area over the past year – such as intense storms and floods, long periods of hot weather or droughts – and to see these events as connected with climate change.

About three-quarters of Americans support U.S. participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. Americans offer broad support for international engagement on climate change: 74% say they support U.S. participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.

Still, there’s little consensus on how current U.S. efforts stack up against those of other large economies. About one-in-three Americans (36%) think the U.S. is doing more than other large economies to reduce the effects of global climate change, while 30% say the U.S. is doing less than other large economies and 32% think it is doing about as much as others. The U.S. is the second-largest carbon dioxide emitter , contributing about 13.5% of the global total.

When asked what they think the right balance of responsibility is, a majority of Americans (56%) say the U.S. should do about as much as other large economies to reduce the effects of climate change, while 27% think it should do more than others.

A previous Center survey found that while Americans favor international cooperation on climate change in general terms, their support has its limits. In January 2022 , 59% of Americans said that the U.S. does not have a responsibility to provide financial assistance to developing countries to help them build renewable energy sources.

In recent years, the UN conference on climate change has grappled with how wealthier nations should assist developing countries in dealing with climate change. The most recent convening in fall 2022, known as COP27, established a “loss and damage” fund for vulnerable countries impacted by climate change.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published April 22, 2022. Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its methodology .

• Climate, Energy & Environment
• Environment & Climate
• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues

How Republicans view climate change and energy issues

How americans view future harms from climate change in their community and around the u.s., americans continue to have doubts about climate scientists’ understanding of climate change, growing share of americans favor more nuclear power, why some americans do not see urgency on climate change, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Biden administration agrees to provide $6.4 billion to Samsung for making computer chips in Texas

The White House is seen as dusk falls, Sunday, April 14, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

FILE - The logo of the Samsung Electronics Co. is seen during a media tour at Samsung Electronics’ headquarters in Suwon, South Korea, June 13, 2023. The Biden administration has reached an agreement to provide up to $6.4 billion in direct funding for Samsung Electronics to develop a computer chip manufacturing and research cluster in Texas. The funding announced Monday, April 15, 20204, by the Commerce Department is part of a total investment in the cluster that, with private money, is expected to exceed $40 billion. (AP Photo/Lee Jin-man, File)

FILE - President Joe Biden speaks about an agreement to provide Intel with up to $8.5 billion in direct funding and $11 billion in loans for computer chip plants in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico and Oregon, at the Intel Ocotillo Campus, March 20, 2024, in Chandler, Ariz. The Biden administration has reached an agreement to provide up to $6.4 billion in direct funding for Samsung Electronics to develop a computer chip manufacturing and research cluster in Texas. The government has previously announced terms to support other chipmakers, including Intel and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., in projects that are spread across the country. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration has reached an agreement to provide up to $6.4 billion in direct funding for Samsung Electronics to develop a computer chip manufacturing and research cluster in Texas.

The funding announced Monday by the Commerce Department is part of a total investment in the cluster that, with private money, is expected to exceed $40 billion. The government support comes from the CHIPS and Science Act , which President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022 with the goal of reviving the production of advanced computer chips domestically.

“The proposed project will propel Texas into a state of the art semiconductor ecosystem,” Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said on a call with reporters. “It puts us on track to hit our goal of producing 20% of the world’s leading edge chips in the United States by the end of the decade.”

Raimondo said she expects the project will create at least 17,000 construction jobs and more than 4,500 manufacturing jobs.

Samsung’s cluster in Taylor, Texas, would include two factories that would make four- and two-nanometer chips. Also, there would be a factory dedicated to research and development, as well as a facility for the packaging that surrounds chip components.

The first factory is expected to be operational in 2026, with the second being operational in 2027, according to the government.

The funding also would expand an existing Samsung facility in Austin, Texas.

Lael Brainard, director of the White House National Economic Council, said Samsung will be able to manufacture chips in Austin directly for the Defense Department as a result. Access to advanced technology has become a major national security concern amid competition between the U.S. and China.

In addition to the $6.4 billion, Samsung has indicated it also will claim an investment tax credit from the U.S. Treasury Department.

The government has previously announced terms to support other chipmakers including Intel and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. in projects spread across the country.