Como escrever RESENHA CRÍTICA de ARTIGO CIENTÍFICO – Exemplo com passo a passo no WORD

Critical Review of a Scientific Article

Introduction to the Critical Review Process

• The video introduces a step-by-step guide on how to write a critical review of a scientific article, emphasizing the importance of understanding the structure before reading the article.

• The presenter selects an article for review and discusses setting up the document in Word according to ABNT standards, including page layout adjustments.

Document Formatting Guidelines

• Instructions are provided for configuring margins (3 cm left, 2 cm bottom and right), ensuring compliance with academic formatting requirements.

• Recommended fonts include Times New Roman or Arial at size 12, which are commonly used in academic works despite not being strictly mandated by ABNT.

• The spacing should be set to single spacing for the body text while maintaining specific formatting for references and headers.

Structuring the Review

• The critical review consists of two main parts: a descriptive summary of the article followed by a critical evaluation. Titles like "Introduction" or "Methodology" are typically omitted in this format.

• A continuous text format is encouraged unless specified otherwise by instructors; initial setup includes adding institutional logos and header information.

Reference Formatting

• Proper citation begins with authors' last names followed by initials, formatted according to ABNT guidelines. This includes details such as publication title, journal name, volume number, pages, and publication date.

• If available, city names should be included in citations; however, if absent from the journal's information, it can be skipped.

Writing the Initial Paragraph

• The first paragraph should provide an overview of both the article and its authors. It’s suggested to mention each author's qualifications briefly.

• An example introduction is given that outlines what will be analyzed in terms of both description and critique while mentioning all authors involved.

Article Structure and Objectives

Introduction to Authors and Article Title

• The authors' credentials should be researched online, including their titles and affiliated institutions for credibility.

• Present the article's title clearly after listing the authors. This sets a formal tone for the discussion.

Article Organization

• The article is divided into several sections, which can be identified by reviewing specific pages (e.g., introduction on page 271). Each section serves a distinct purpose in the overall structure.

• Key sections include:

• Introduction: Overview of the topic.

• Theoretical Framework: Divided into subsections discussing organizational competencies.

• Methodology: Details how research was conducted.

• Results Analysis: Findings presented on page 279.

• Conclusions: Summarizes insights on page 283. This organization aids in understanding the flow of information throughout the article.

Objective of the Study

• The objective is typically found in the introduction, often starting with an infinitive verb (e.g., "to evaluate"). In this case, it aims to assess organizational competencies within a federal public organization. This clarity helps frame the study's intent effectively.

Justification for Research

• Justification explains why this study is necessary and its contributions to existing literature, highlighting gaps that previous studies have not addressed adequately (e.g., need for empirical investigations). This context enhances understanding of its relevance.

• Authors note that prior research predominantly utilized qualitative methods from management perspectives; this study diverges by incorporating various viewpoints beyond just managers'. Thus, it fills a critical gap in research about mapping organizational experiences in public sectors.

Contribution of the Study

How to Write a Review Article

Overview of Writing a Review

• The review should be written in your own words, summarizing the authors' ideas from the original article. It is essential to maintain originality while reflecting the core concepts.

• A typical review is shorter than the original article, usually around four to five pages unless specified otherwise by an instructor. Focus on highlighting key ideas rather than detailing every paragraph.

Structuring Your Review

• Begin by summarizing the main ideas and theoretical references used in the article. Identify and mark important information that will be included in your text.

• Introduce sections by referencing how authors define concepts within their theoretical framework, mentioning which previous works they are building upon.

Citing Authors and Concepts

• When discussing theoretical references, cite significant authors mentioned in the article along with their publication years to provide context for their contributions.

• Conclude each subsection with a summary of what authors assert, transitioning smoothly into subsequent sections of your review.

Discussing Methodology

• After addressing theoretical frameworks, outline the research methodology used in the study. Include details about participants and data collection procedures.

• If it’s a bibliographic review, simply state that it was based on literature research without introducing new information.

Analyzing Results and Discussions

• Transition into discussing results and findings from the article. Highlight key discoveries made through data analysis as you summarize this section.

• Emphasize that results typically form a substantial part of your review; write them clearly using your own understanding while maintaining fidelity to what was presented in the original work.

Writing a Critical Review of an Article

Structuring the Summary and Conclusion

• Begin by developing paragraphs based on the text, culminating in a summary of results that includes contributions from various authors.

• Highlight the study's contributions and suggestions for future research in the conclusion section, emphasizing their importance.

• Ensure to mention any limitations noted by the authors within your conclusion, as well as suggestions for further studies.

• Clearly articulate how findings can be utilized in diagnostics and summarize key contributions alongside limitations.

Crafting a Critical Review

• Transition into writing a critical review after summarizing the article; this is essential for distinguishing between a mere summary and a critical analysis.

• Identify both positive and negative aspects of the study, ensuring to provide balanced feedback on its strengths and weaknesses.

Analyzing Positive Aspects

• Use phrases like "the authors effectively analyzed data" to highlight strengths such as methodology or presentation of results through tables or graphs.

• Acknowledge clarity in conclusions drawn by authors, reinforcing understanding of their findings.

Addressing Areas for Improvement

• If applicable, point out areas where the article could improve; begin with "it is worth noting some points that could be better developed."

• Discuss specific interpretations that may lack clarity or depth, providing constructive criticism on how these could be enhanced.

Comparative Analysis (if required)

• Note that while comparative analysis with other articles may not always be necessary, it can enrich your critique if requested by an instructor.

• When comparing studies, identify unique contributions made by each article to deepen understanding of the topic at hand.

Recommendation for Article Reading

Final Recommendations for Target Audience

• The speaker emphasizes the importance of making a final recommendation regarding the article, regardless of whether comparisons with other authors are made.

• It is suggested that the article should be recommended specifically to undergraduate and graduate students in administration, as well as educators in management fields.

• The recommendation aims to identify who would benefit from reading the scientific article based on its content and insights.

• The speaker encourages clarity in articulating which audience segments would find value in the article's findings and discussions.