JohnWitman
New member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2026
- Messages
- 6
After panicking for a week, I finally found a resource that explains how to write a paper critique for engineering/CS courses. Sharing in case others are as lost as I was .
The standard format for paper critiques (from a CS course):
1. What I liked: What's your analysis of the problem, idea, and evaluation? Is this a good idea? What are the most interesting or controversial points? For practical work, ask: would this really work? Who would want it?
2. What I disliked: What flaws do you see? Be specific, not just "I didn't like it."
3. Future directions: Not just what the authors suggest, but what ideas came to YOU while reading? Can the same problem have a different solution? Can the same solution apply to a different problem?
4. Open questions: What questions are you left with? What's confusing? What would you raise in discussion? Taking time to list several forces deeper thinking .
5. Most important for class discussion: What do you most want to discuss with classmates and the professor?
6. Summary: Your take-away message. What's the main implication from your perspective? Useful for quick review .
Alternative option — Tool Experience Report: Some courses let you download the tool from the paper and actually use it. Then you write about: your experience using it, strengths, weaknesses, potential for practical impact, and what you learned that you wouldn't have from reading alone .
Submission tips: Submit early if possible. If you send questions before class, the presenter has time to prepare better answers .
Policies: Reports must be individual work. Late submissions aren't accepted unless you ask for an extension in advance .
This format finally gives me something to work with. I'm going to use these questions as a template for my first critique.
The standard format for paper critiques (from a CS course):
1. What I liked: What's your analysis of the problem, idea, and evaluation? Is this a good idea? What are the most interesting or controversial points? For practical work, ask: would this really work? Who would want it?
2. What I disliked: What flaws do you see? Be specific, not just "I didn't like it."
3. Future directions: Not just what the authors suggest, but what ideas came to YOU while reading? Can the same problem have a different solution? Can the same solution apply to a different problem?
4. Open questions: What questions are you left with? What's confusing? What would you raise in discussion? Taking time to list several forces deeper thinking .
5. Most important for class discussion: What do you most want to discuss with classmates and the professor?
6. Summary: Your take-away message. What's the main implication from your perspective? Useful for quick review .
Alternative option — Tool Experience Report: Some courses let you download the tool from the paper and actually use it. Then you write about: your experience using it, strengths, weaknesses, potential for practical impact, and what you learned that you wouldn't have from reading alone .
Submission tips: Submit early if possible. If you send questions before class, the presenter has time to prepare better answers .
Policies: Reports must be individual work. Late submissions aren't accepted unless you ask for an extension in advance .
This format finally gives me something to work with. I'm going to use these questions as a template for my first critique.
