Introduction
There are at least two ways to gain subjectively new knowledge through research articles. The first method is to read them carefully, and the second is to critique them through a scholarly lens. The truth is that when critiquing a research paper, one not only learns new facts about a specific subject but also strengthens one’s theoretical expertise in conducting the research. This paper critically analyzes a recent manuscript by Abu-Rayyash et al., with a particular focus on its methodology.
About the Abstract
Like any other professional academic research article, the one being criticized begins with an abstract. Abu-Rayyash et al. begin their paper by stating the purpose of their study without an introductory sentence that provides a broader context or serves as an attention-catcher (1). As they claim, they are going “to explore the translation strategies that Netflix subtitlers opted for in rendering 1564 English swear words into Arabic” (Abu-Rayyash et al. 1).
Mentioning the purpose of the research in the abstract is considered conventional and expected from writers, while a particular opening sentence is optional (Arono39). It is followed by a detailed description of the methodology and results, so one can say that this textual segment fulfills its purpose. The abstract performs its most basic, obligatory functions. Still, it lacks an introductory sentence, which can confuse those without advanced knowledge in translation studies and linguistics, and may deter them from reading the work.
The primary text segment ends with an inclusive sentence, which is unnecessary but preferable in scholarly writing. There, Abu-Rayyash et al. made one small mistake; they used the “AVT” abbreviation for “audiovisual translation” instead of the entire form (1-2). Although this is an abstract, and the subsequent information segment explains what AVT means, it would still be better to use the complete form of this phrase since it appears for the first time in the whole text. Apart from the two minor omissions discussed, namely the lack of an attention-getter and the use of an abbreviation when the term itself is not mentioned, the abstract part is ideal.
Critique of the Introduction
The article’s authors follow a standard stage design, which means that the first section of the central part of the study is the introduction, consisting of 3 paragraphs. All these meet most of the requirements that academicians pose to researchers regarding the discussed textual section. They define all relevant terms mentioned and use scientific sources to provide explanations. They mostly avoid complex terminology and word structures, refrain from providing unnecessary details, and steer clear of discussing irrelevant problems.
It is clearly seen that Abu-Rayyash and his colleagues are focused on their discussion. Their adherence to the logical principle “from general aspects to specifics” across all three paragraphs proves it (Silveira et al. 347). Abu-Rayyash et al. begin with a mention of audiovisual translation and end the introduction with a declaration of intent to use a corpus-assisted approach to explore methods for authentically translating Netflix content from English to Arabic (2). As one can see, this segment has some strengths, but some flaws cannot be ignored from a scientific writing perspective.
One of the most noticeable weaknesses of the introduction and the entire article is evident in the first paragraph, particularly in the third sentence. It is the frequent use of outdated, irrelevant academic materials. One may notice that in the introduction, there is only one scientifically modern work by Chaume. The others are at least eight years old (Abu-Rayyash et al. 2). The use of auxiliary literary sources that are older than five years in the theoretical part is considered a significant mistake if the topic is not highly specific (Silveira et al. 348). It significantly undermines the quality of the information provided by researchers and readers’ trust in the developed hypotheses, inferences, and the suitability of applied methods and theories.
Another drawback, albeit less critical, is the use of overly long sentences in the first and last paragraphs. It is not grammatically or syntactically beautiful, especially for an opening sentence. Considering that the first drawback is characteristic of all article elements except the abstract, the introduction, as a separate part, is written in high quality.
On the Literature Review
The literature review is the second most significant part of the scholarly article by Abu-Rayyash et al. Again, the authors follow most of the rules of correct writing for this textual element. One of these approaches involves dividing and grouping sources into thematic sequences of paragraphs, organized according to relevant subtopics (Abu-Rayyash et al. 2-4). The authors avoid straightforward descriptions of facts; instead, they integrate and synthesize previous knowledge to support their hypotheses and claims, as expected of researchers in this field.
Moreover, it is worth noting that their list of chosen literature is diverse, encompassing both primary and secondary sources. All selected literary works intersect thematically with a central or at least adjacent research topic. Abu-Rayyash et al. spent considerable time searching and selecting sources, and then seamlessly structured them into a single, meaningful, and unique flow of information.
Some critical and non-critical mistakes are present in the analyzed section of the discussed scholarly article, as is typical for most of its parts. For example, the authors do not question the validity and truthfulness of the findings and inferences used, at least on paper. Another flaw is that they do “not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review” (“Literature Review: Common Mistakes to Avoid” para. 5). Frequent resort to outdated sources has already been discussed in the critique of the introduction.
It is noteworthy that “contrary findings and alternative interpretations” were not given to the readers either (“Literature Review: Common Mistakes to Avoid” para.7). A non-critical error from Abu-Rayyash et al. is to open and close some paragraphs with sentences with quotations. It interrupts the informational and narrative flow for the audience, and “the manuscript should have good flow” (Kim et al. 420). Such a way of writing is acceptable, but it should be avoided.
Criticizing the Methodology and Applied Software
Strengths
Methodology is the most crucial element of a research paper after objectives and results, and the most comprehensive one. It is a multi-stage, specifically targeted process of intellectual activity developed by a group of people for extracting and analyzing data. It requires considerable knowledge and effort from the experimenters, and it appears that Abu-Rayyash and other authors have accomplished this task.
The mixed model was chosen as a framework, which was the right decision since the data with which they work has both qualitative and quantitative properties. The selection of variables and selection criteria takes into account all the nuances of the thesis and research questions. Each stage of applying analytical methods and techniques is described in detail, including all nuances (Abu-Rayyash et al. 4-6). The textual content is accompanied by tables that are necessary in the context of this article. The data researchers worked with is multifaceted, so readers need visuals to understand it better, and these academicians considered this. All requirements for a well-designed and practical methodology were met.
Flaws
Apart from outdated sources and the error already mentioned, the methods section contains no critical flaws that would ruin the entire research design or undermine the importance of subsequent parts. According to Silveira et al., illogical and inconsistent narration, unclear descriptions, definitions, and classifications, as well as insufficient explanations of statistical analysis, are common mistakes that render final inferences less valid and credible (347). Unfortunately, the authors again resort to using quotations in opening and closing sentences.
About the Software
Scholars decided to use only one software package for faster data collection, analysis, and systematization, namely Sketch Engine. According to Çyfeku, this type of computer program has been widely used in all subfields of linguistics for its convenience and high compatibility with traditional methods of language learning (1445). They could use this in conjunction with AntConc or similar software to obtain more diverse findings or perform comparative analyses. However, these were not the researchers’ primary or even secondary goals, so there is no oversight in this regard. To conclude, it is not easy to offer any advice to Abu-Rayyash et al. regarding the methodology, as it was carried out almost flawlessly.
Analysis and Results from the Critical Viewpoint
The analysis and results section occupies the most space in the authors’ manuscript. It is also the most visually impressive part of the article, featuring unique tables and charts. In this section of content, there are no weaknesses to be found.
The analytical part is consistent with the methodology, research questions, and thesis, and contributes to the development of new knowledge. As experts advise, the authors began with a short paragraph, reported on “data collection, recruitment, and/or participants,” systematically described the findings, and provided summarizing and illustrative visuals (Sriram, para. 4). Notably, not a single paragraph starts with a quote and only ends with these.
About the Three Final Paragraphs
The conclusion of the manuscript by Abu-Rayyash et al. consists of three relatively small paragraphs that take up about half the page. It successfully fulfills its two central functions: to restate the purpose statement and summarize the entire previous text. A slight drawback is the use of three academic sources (Abu-Rayyash et al. 11). As in the abstract, one should generally not place anyone’s inferences and knowledge in this section.
Conclusion
This work serves as a critique of the academic article developed by Abu-Rayyash et al. A critical approach was applied to all major elements of the manuscript, from abstract to conclusion. It can be said that the discussed paper, although not without minor shortcomings, presents interesting and well-structured scientific content with unique insights.
The authors achieved this result by following a standard research design and developing a consistent methodology. The intellectual efforts made by scientists there and in other parts of the scholarly paper have fully paid off, and new, valid, and credible knowledge has emerged. One can confidently say that these individuals will achieve more in linguistics, both individually and collectively.
Works Cited
Abu-Rayyash, Hussein, et al. “Strategies of Translating Swear Words into Arabic: A Case Study of a Parallel Corpus of Netflix English-Arabic Movie Subtitles.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 10, no. 1, 2023, pp. 1–13.
Arono, Arono. “Abstract Thesis Analysis in Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching Fields.” 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences and Teacher Profession (ICETeP 2018), Bengkulu, Indonesia, 2018.
Çyfeku, Juliana. “Corpus Linguistics And Technology Integration In SLA; Generating Language Tasks Through Sketch Engine.” Journal of Positive School Psychology, vol. 6, no. 9, 2022, pp. 1445–1458. Journal of Positive School Psychology.
Kim, Sung Deuk, et al. A Guide to the Scientific Career: Virtues, Communication, Research, and Academic Writing. Edited by Shoja, Mohammadali, et al., Wiley-Blackwell, 2019.
“Literature Review: Common Mistakes to Avoid.” Khalifa University, 2023.
Sriram, Ramya. “How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper.” Kolabtree Blog, 2020.
Silveira, Erika Aparecida, et al. “Guide for Scientific Writing: How to Avoid Common Mistakes in a Scientific Article.” Journal of Human Growth and Development, vol. 32, no. 3, 2022, pp. 341–352.