Cardiac Rehabilitation

Cardiac Rehabilitation.

Paper instructions:
Find an article about Cardiac Rehabilitation in a professional journal on the topic read the article, then analyze it and write a review. You will submit a 2-3 page . Your review should include: appropriate article selection, appropriate style, a discussion of major points presented in the article, clearly and articulate writing, a well organized discussion of the major points, and your thoughts, opinions and what you learned from the article. Use the attached Journal Article Review grading rubric as a guide to make sure that you are meeting the expected requirements. A helpful article on How to Review a Journal Article is also attached to assist you.

How to Review a Journal Article:

Suggestions for First-Time Reviewers and Reminders for Seasoned Experts

Guidelines for Reviewing

Here are some things you should consider as you examine a manuscript and write your


Look for the intellectual plot-line of the article. You can do this from first skimming

through the manuscript and then giving it a once-over read. As you do this, ask the major

questions that are central to the review process:

1. What is the purpose of this article?

2. Why is it important to investigate or examine the subject of the article?

3. How are the authors carrying out the task? Are their methods and comments

appropriate and adequate to the task?

4. What do they claim to have found out? Are the findings clearly stated?

5. How does this advance knowledge in the field?

How well do the authors place their findings or comments within the context of ongoing

scholarly inquiry about this topic? Look at the organization of the article. Can you find

answers to the above questions quickly and easily? Can you trace the logic consistently

from the opening paragraphs to the conclusion?

Then go back to the opening paragraphs of the article. Is the groundwork adequately and

clearly laid to guide readers into the topic that is being addressed? Is it clear what the

authors are talking about? Do they make the case that this is an important area for inquiry

or examination?

An early section of many articles is usually a review of the existing literature on this topic.

Do the authors present a convincing line of argument here—or does it appear that they

are just name-dropping (citing sources that may be important, without a clear underlying

logic for how they may be important)? Do the authors focus on ideas, or merely on

discrete facts or findings? Have they given sufficient attention to theory—the cumulative

attempts at prior explanations for the questions they are investigating? In short: How well

do the authors set the stage for the problem or issue that they are reporting?

In the case of a research article, the section presenting research results is surely the heart

of the article—though not its soul (which the reader should find in the opening

paragraphs and in the discussion section). Reviewers might consider four questions here:

1. Does the results section tell a story—taking the reader from the research questions

posed earlier to their answers in the data? Is the logic clear?

2. Are the tables and figures clear and succinct? Can they be read easily for major

findings by themselves, or should there be additional information provided? Are

the authors’ tables consistent with the format of currently accepted norms

regarding data presentation? Are the tables and/or figures necessary?

3. Do the authors present too many tables or figures in the form of undigested

findings? Are all of them necessary in order to tell the story of this research


inquiry; or can some be combined? Remember that tables and figures are very

expensive and can take up a lot of space. Also remember that undigested data

obscure rather than advance the cumulative development of knowledge in a field.

4. Are the results presented both statistically and substantively meaningful? Have the

authors stayed within the bounds of the results their data will support?

The writing style is important. Consider the three guidelines for successful

communication—to be clear, concise, and correct — and whether the authors have

achieved it:

1. Is the writing clear? Do the authors communicate their ideas using direct,

straightforward, and unambiguous words and phrases? Have they avoided jargon

(statistical or conceptual) that would interfere with the communication of their

procedures or ideas? Have they clearly and satisfactorily explained the key

concepts relevant to the article?

2. Is the writing concise? Are too many words or paragraphs or sections used to

present what could be communicated more simply?

3. Is the writing correct? Many writers have only a rudimentary grasp of grammar

and punctuation, and that results in meandering commas, clauses in complex

sentences that are struggling to find their verbs, and adjectives or even nouns that

remain quite ambiguous about their antecedents in the sentence. Does the article

have a foreign accent, i.e., is it clear that a native speaker of English did not write

it? These are not merely technical issues of grammar to be somehow dealt with by

a copy-editor down the line. Rather they involve the successful communication of

a set of ideas to an audience; and this is the basis of scholarship today.

Your evaluation to the editor: Should this paper be (a) rejected for this journal? or (b)

does it show sufficient promise for revision, in ways that you have clearly demonstrated in

your review, to encourage the authors to invest significant time and energy in revision for

this journal? Your bottom-line advice to the editor is crucial. Make a decision; state it

clearly in your remarks to the editor in the space provided. Remember that not all of the

articles submitted to a journal will be published.

Some reasons to reject a manuscript:

1. The issues have already been addressed in prior studies;

2. The data have been collected in such a way as to preclude useful investigation;

3. The manuscript is not ready for publication—it is incomplete, in the improper

format, or error-ridden.

Most rejected articles do find a home in other journals. Don’t tease authors with hopes for

publication in the NECTFL Review if you feel it is not likely.

Good Reviews and Bad Reviews

A good review is supportive, constructive, thoughtful, and fair. It identifies both strengths

and weaknesses, and offers concrete suggestions for improvements. It acknowledges the

reviewer’s biases where appropriate, and justifies the reviewer’s conclusions.


A bad review is superficial, nasty, petty, self-serving, or arrogant. It indulges the reviewer’s

biases with no justification. It focuses exclusively on weaknesses and offers no specific

suggestions for improvement.

Adapted from Information from Reviewers of Foreign Language Annals, a publication of the American

Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). Retrieved from

index.cfm?pageid=5163 on October 25, 2010. Used by permission.

Click here to get this paper done by our professional writers at an affordable price!!

Cardiac Rehabilitation

Posted in Uncategorized