Viewing others' points of view is helpfull here

كتاب النقد الادبي ستانلي هايمن

One basic thing is the importance of knowing about the most influential critical reception of one author Your job would consist of reading them and summing up their research the comparing it to your own input. Draw conclusions from the data.

The guidance/illustrations as per the following publications may further help:

• Atkins, C. and Sampson, J. (2002) Critical appraisal guidelines for single case study research, in Wrycza, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information Systems, Information Systems and the Future of the Digital Economy, ECIS 2002, Gdansk, Poland, June 6-8, 2002, pp. 100-108.
• Cottrell, S. (2005) Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Lipman, M. (1988) Critical Thinking - What Can It Be?, Educational Leadership, 46, 1, pp. 38-43.
• Oxman, A. D. and Guyatt, G. H. (1988) Guidelines for reading literature reviews, Canadian Medical Association journal, 138, 8, pp. 697-703.
• Roever, L., Resende, E. S., Diniz, A. L. D., Penha-Silva, N., Biondi-Zoccai, G., Casella-Filho, A., Dourado, P. M. M. and Chagas, A. C. P. (2015) Editorial: Critical analysis of clinical research articles : a guide for evaluation, Evidence Based Medicine and Practice, 2, 1, pp. e116.
• Young, J. M. and Solomon, M. i. J. (2009) How to critically appraise an article, Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 6, 2, pp. 82-91.

This YouTube video may be useful - it's basic but comprehensive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOX6PAFMy3Y You might also find this blogpost on how to record notes and keep track of your reading valuable: https://www.zdmarriott.com/post/flailing-in-the-dark-getting-a-grip-as-an-early-stage-phd-student

Critically analyzing and writing a review of different journal papers (not entire papers, but ) foregrounding points that add depth to the central debate of your own research saves time & energy. Critically reading many journals on your topic or data in many cases also helps finding the research gap that you can fill.

You need to start off by asking some questions. What topic are you pursuing within the field of manufacturing? Why does this interest you? Within that area, what are the latest developments? Who's theory is being quoted most often? Why has that theory captured attention? Do you agree with it? If not, what other theories and/or processes are being overlooked? What improvements does this create? What are the negative factors?

A literature review is all about landscape and how your ideas contribute to that landscape. The Royal Literary Fund provides a useful guide: https://www.rlf.org.uk/resources/the-structure-of-a-literature-review/

I believe that you need to have some idea firstly how you would interprete a given work. From there, read secondary literature and ask yourself: a.) what is the main argument? b.) what examples are brought forward? c.) is there a particular theory applied? If you have understood the secondary literature, then you determine if your own idea builds up on arguments already made, contradicts them, adds to them, etcetera. You need to know how you situate yourself towards existing interpretations, your task is to add your own critical voice to those of others.

This is not such a simple question as it appears. Some writers like T.S. Eliot have so much written about them it's hard to imagine what is left to be analysed. Criticism in my opinion has to start with a very close reading of the text being studied. You need to know and 'love' what you are examining this way you will make sometimes original observations and gain insights which will help give value to your research. Without this grounding in the nuances of the text you will find it difficult to deal with all the contrasting opinions about a particular author's work. Also it has to be admitted that the forming of theories is no less subjective than the creative text being investigated. In this case the police 'literary theory' is as corrupt as the criminals 'the creative texts'. Literary theory is not a solid wall of defence you can throw the text against. The wall itself is always uneven and contains serious contradictions as a student might find between a postcolonial reading and psychological reading of a piece. This takes me a back to an earlier question on Researchgate about anti-imperialist poetics. Is T.S. Eliot an anti-imperialist or an imperialist writer? You'll find enormous disparity between different critics. You need to have read the text in question closely enough to put forth your own critical view which is the essential ingredient in any analysing.

Hello.

You can make a critical bibliography, starting from the definition of the general objective or hypothesis of your writing (thesis, paper, or whatever), and from that, establish the key concepts of your work.

The review would be based on the searches you do using these concepts. By reviewing the Abstracts you can define if they are relevant, or not, to your paper.

It is a slow but efficient method to discriminate in a large volume of bibliography.

You need to choose a theoretical vantage point relevant to your topic. Then conduct the analysis in the light of the chosen vantage point.

I agree with a thorough reading of the source material. I have first hand experience of being swamped by secondary sources, having spent years of my life trawling through Shakespeare scholarship. Whilst I agree that the writer's viewpoint will always have aspects of originality because we all have different nuances to approach, etc, writing without showing consideration for existing literary theory and literary criticism shows evidence of massive conceitedness on the part of the writer and bad scholarship. Landscape is essential to establish how scholarship contributes to any field, and demonstrating awareness of what is already out there, even if you think it is unhelpful, contradictory, or inaccurate, shows due diligence has been satisfied. Research methodology has to be conducted ethically, and I would always recommend doing searches for commentary on an author's work, no matter how recent or unlikely it is to have courted widespread attention. A text will usually be reviewed somewhere, but if you can't find evidence of it, at least you can say what processes you carried out that lead to that conclusion.