SGE 3

Yemima

Part3JournalArticleCritiquewithRubric.docx

Home >Nursing homework help >SGE 3

Part 3: Journal Article Critique

Plant based Meat

Students will be assigned one of the articles:

· Fellet, M. A Fresh Take on Fake Meat. ACS Central Science. 2015, 1, 347-349

· Elzerman, J.E., Hoek, A.C., van Boekel, M.A.J.S., Luning, P.A. Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context. Food Quality and Preference, 2011, 22, 233-240.

Answer the following questions about the article. Use complete sentences in your answers. Submit the answers as a word document in the Assignment in Canvas.

a. Is the article published in a peer-reviewed journal?

b. What is the PlumX metric of this journal?

c. Read the article and identify what the research has done well and what may be wrong with the work or findings. You must justify your response or give your rationale.

d. Describe how the author used quantitative data in the article.

e. In what ways were graphs, formulas or other numeric data used? If numeric or quantitative data was not used, what impact does this have on the findings?

Rubric

	Substantially Exceeds Expectations(5)	Exceeds Expectations (4)	Meets Expectations (3)	Nearly Meets Expectations (2)	Does Not Meet Expectations (1)	No score (0)
Peer-reviewed journal?	Answer is correct and evidence is clear.	Answer is correct but evidence is not clear.	Answer is correct but evidence does not support answer.	Answer is correct but no evidence given.	Answer is incorrect.	Answer not given.
PlumX metric of journal?	PlumX metric is correct and implications clearly explained	PlumX metric is correct and implications generally explained	PlumX metric is correct but no reflection on its merit.	PlumX metric is incorrect but merit of the value is logical	PlumX metric is incorrect and no reflection of its value	PlumX metric given.
What research was done well?	Most of what the authors have done well has been identified; most of what the authors could improve upon has been identified. Rationale is full justified and explained clearly.	Missing a few of the things that were done well/poorly, but most of the things have been identified. Rational is justified and explained clearly.	Missing several of the things that were done well/poorly, but some have been identified. Rationale is not fully justified and/or explained clearly	Most of the things that were done well/poorly are not identified. Rationale is not justified and/or explained clearly	Only one item that was done well/poorly is identified. Rationale is weak.	Research not addressed.
How did author use quantitative data in article?	The use of quantitative data is clearly and accurately described.	The use of quantitative data is accurately described but some confusion in the discussion	The use of quantitative data is described but is lacking in content or clarity.	The use of quantitative data is described but is lacking in content and clarity.	The use of quantitative data is mentioned but no further explanation given.	Use of quantitative data not mentioned.
What ways were graph, formulas or numeric data used? If not used, what impact did that have on findings?	The explanation of the use or absence of graphs, formulas and numeric data clearly and accurately described the impact on the findings.	The explanation of the use or absence of graphs, formulas and numeric data accurately described the impact on the findings but the clarity was lacking.	The explanation of the use or absence of graphs, formulas and numeric data was mostly accurate and clearly described the impact on the findings.	The explanation of the use or absence of graphs, formulas and numeric data did not fully address all the components but was written clearly.	The explanation of the use or absence of graphs, formulas and numeric data was limited and not fully accurate.	No mention of graphs, formulas and/or numeric data.
Total (25)