If the statements of research (conclusions) do match the used scientific method of argumentation (data analysis).

Dear, Dr. Rasha Jasim Al-Karawi

Analyze any work we look at and compare results with scientific facts and previous studies and then evaluate conclusions

Initially I select research paper of my interest area.

first I look any innovations in the paper.

I find possibility in the part of research paper- future scope part.

I will find possibility of betterment of common people from research.

i will check any possibility available for value adding and after added value getting application in real life problem solving.

Following

If the statements of research (conclusions) do match the used scientific method of argumentation (data analysis).

Research Question or Objectives

The statement of the problem, research questions results and discussion.

originality

First I checked is it related to my research area.if yes then I try to find the work done and then try to implement if found interesting otherwise ignored

it solely depends upon your expertise and relevant research

If the work is scientifically groundbreaking.

Good question

I look at implementation, results and conclusions (for comparison )

Waldemar, the problem of "our" generation is that single profession, in a dynamic world so much changing, is not enough for the time of human life.

I agree with Dr Stephens as regards critical analysis of a given research papers.

What do you mainly look at in a research paper to be able to critically analyze it?

I will look into the following sections of a research paper:

If you want, you can refer to the following link to download a template how to critically analyze / review a research paper:

Research Manuscript Review Template - Feel Free to Download

The novelity of the work

I look at the problem statement, the methodology engaged, the results, contribution and the novelty of the study

In order to give the research its scientific value and estimate the effort to achieve it, the analytical view must be comprehensive for all paragraphs, with a focus on linking the title of the research and the objective and analyzing the results and discussion.

Sharing link:

https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.uwc.ac.za/Students/Postgraduate/Documents/Academic%2520Writing%2520Guide.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiJ5fzkvefZAhVIVxQKHTtSAjsQFjABegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3jx24foLKXGT2hqJMpR5Tt

Regards!

Dear,

One expects scientific research to satisfy the following criteria:

(1)  The purpose of the research should be clearly defined and common concepts be used.

(2)  The research procedure used should be described in sufficient detail to permit another researcher to repeat the research for further advancement, keeping the continuity of what has already been attained.

(3)  The procedural design of the research should be carefully planned to yield results that are as objectives as possible.

(4)  The researcher should report with complete frankness, flaws in procedural design and estimate their effects upon the findings.

(5)  The analysis of data should be sufficiently adequate to reveal its significance and the methods of analysis used should be appropriate. The validity and reliability of the data should be checked carefully.

(6)  Conclusions should be confined to those justified by the data of the research and limited to those for which the data provide an adequate basis.

(7)  Greater confidence in research is warranted if the researcher is experienced, has a good reputation in research and is a person of integrity.

In other words, we can state the qualities of a good research as under:

1.  Good Research is Systematic: It means that research is structured with specified steps to be taken in a specified sequence in accordance with the well defined set of rules. Systematic characteristic of the research does not rule out creative thinking but it certainly does reject the use of guessing and intuition arriving at conclusions.

2.  Good Research is Logical: This implies that research is guided by the rules of logical reasoning and the logical process of induction and deduction are of great value in carrying out research. Induction is the process of reasoning from a part to the whole whereas deduction is the process of reasoning from the premise. In fact, logical reasoning makes research more meaningful in the context of decision making.

3.  Good Research is Empirical: It implies that research is related basically to one or more aspects of a real situation and deals with concrete data that provides a basis for external validity to research results.

4.  Good Research is Replicate: This characteristic allows research to be verified by replicating the study and thereby building a sound basis for decisions.

source: http://www.reportbd.com/articles/57/1/Criteria-Qualities-of-Good-Scientific-Research/Page1.html

in my opinion, materials and methods , place of doing the research, and approved by ethics committee and and research council.

Sincerely

Beside to what Dr.Stephen I. Ternyik has said, I look at the abstract to evaluate the work.

Abstract first, and the conclusions if the abstract contains little information about the main findings.

Methods, Results,discussion of findings and conclusion

I agree With Stephen.

First, I identify the internal consistency of the content and form of each of the sections of the publication. Then the consistency and form between the content of all sections of the work, especially, the theoretical, conceptual and semantic agreement between the approach of the problem and the hypothesis.

Then the validity of the conceptual theoretical framework and the scientific evidence of the background on the subject or subject of study.

Finally, the internal validity of the results, where they agree and there is consistency between theoretical framework, research problem, general hypothesis, operational hypothesis, research design, procedures and methodology, and measurement and evaluation instruments.

As an additional point and an extra value, the external validity. That is, the reproducibility of their research by other researchers and the frequent falsification of their results.

i agree with Stephen I. Ternyik

originality and objectives of the paper.