This might be a really stupid question, but what kinds of things do you write in a reaction paper to several articles? Are you supposed to express your opinion on the subject, summarize what the author said and how it relates to your work? etc etc? Any ideas would be very helpful.

I'd ask my teacher very specific questions if they didn't provide them. You got to give them what they want although it is fun to aggravate them every now and then.

I tend to think of a reaction paper as a generally free form, express what thoughts the articles evoke in you, kind of a thing. Like, did specific critiques come up for you, did you think of tweaks the study in question could have benefited from, something you benefited from learning in your reading of the article, or even specific interpretations/comments of something by the authors' that you hadn't really considered in that light before and which struck you.

I tend to think of a reaction paper as a generally free form, express what thoughts the articles evoke in you, kind of a thing. Like, did specific critiques come up for you, did you think of tweaks the study in question could have benefited from, something you benefited from learning in your reading of the article, or even specific interpretations/comments of something by the authors' that you hadn't really considered in that light before and which struck you.


I agree with Avent. All good ideas. Reaction implies the kinda "what struck you as important" type of vibe. There is no right or wrong answer to these types of essays, so long as you are putting forth some related idea, thought, or concept.

Also, consider the purpose for the paper in the teachers eyes. Are they just checking to see that you read, is the assignment graded, how long does have to be. These factors give you information about how much you need think about the assignment.

If you are really concerned about the assignment, briefly talk to a member of the cohort above you. They probably know how serious the professor takes the assignment. On a personal note, I can tell you that I stressed over reaction papers for a particular class only to find out from an upperclassmen how little, if ever, the writing was actually reviewed by the prof! In the end, I used my time a bit more wisely to work on things of more importance, like my reseach and clinical duties.

I wrote reaction papers involving more than one article during undergrad by amalgamating them and viewing the papers' findings as a representation of the literature in a specific area. Of course, this will only work if the articles are related but I would be surprised if they were not.

You typically start out writing reaction papers about single articles in undergrad to learn how to read critically, but a researcher is most interested in finding gaps in the literature, inconsistencies among findings, strengths and weaknesses of methodology in the area. Such a task requires the evaluation of several articles with respect to each other. So the next logical step is to react to or critique two or more articles side by side as a way of learning how to discern the aforementioned research issues.

But of course listen to your prof. over me.:laugh: