What questions should I answer in a paper critique? A detailed guide from experience. 🎓

[JohnWitman]

I've now written five paper critiques for my engineering class and finally feel like I know what I'm doing. For anyone just starting, here's a detailed breakdown of the questions to answer, based on the format I found and what my professor actually looks for .

1. What I liked (but go deeper than "good paper"):

• Is the problem worth solving? Why?
• Is the idea novel or an interesting combination of existing ideas?
• Is the evaluation convincing? What evidence stands out?
• What's the most interesting point made?
• What's controversial or debatable?
• For practical work: Is this really going to work? Who would actually use it? What would it take to make it real?

2. What I disliked (be constructive, not just negative):

• What flaws do you perceive? Methodological issues? Weak evidence?
• Are there assumptions that don't hold?
• Is the scope too narrow? Too broad?
• Are there claims not supported by data?
• Important: Don't just say "it's bad." Explain WHY something doesn't work.

3. Future directions (this is where you can be creative):

• What future directions do the authors suggest?
• BUT ALSO: What ideas did YOU come up with while reading?
• Can the same problem have a different solution?
• Can the same solution apply to a different problem?
• Would a bigger evaluation be appropriate?
• Sometimes your critiques of the current work lead directly to ideas for future work .

4. Open questions (think like a researcher):

• What questions are you left with?
• What would you ask in a class discussion?
• What's confusing or difficult to understand?
• Pro tip: Listing several questions forces you to think more deeply. The more you list, the more you engage .

5. Most important for class discussion (be strategic):

• What do you most want to get out of discussion?
• What points would be most valuable to debate with colleagues and the professor?

6. Summary (distill to essence):

• What's your take-away message?
• Sum up the main implication from YOUR perspective.
• This is useful for quick review and forces you to identify the core of the work .

Extra tip from my TA: Don't just answer each question in isolation. Your critique should flow as a coherent piece. Use the questions as a guide, but write in paragraphs, not bullet points.

What my professor actually grades on:

• Depth of analysis (not summary)
• Evidence of critical thinking
• Specific, constructive feedback
• Connection to broader field
• Quality of questions raised

I've gone from totally lost to getting solid B+/A- on these. Progress! Anyone else have tips for paper critiques?

 

[Parker]

Wish I'd had this guide last semester. My first critique was basically a summary with "I liked it" at the end. My professor wrote "this is a book report, not a critique."

Your list covers everything I learned the hard way. The "controversial or debatable" point is key — identifying what's actually being argued, not just what's being reported. That's where critical thinking starts.