Critical Review of Published Research Article (approx XXXXXXXXXXwords) Your task in this assignment is to undertake a critical review of a research article. The paper number selected for you (see...

Critical Review of Published Research Article (approx. 2000-3000 words) Your task in this assignment is to undertake a critical review of a research article. The paper number selected for you (see above) is from the recent Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) held in Adelaide in early December 2015.You can also find a link to the program, full proceedings and individual papers here. Each paper has an individual paper number and your allocated paper is paper number: 133. You can also look at the ACIS Programs and Proceedings webpage: https://acis2015.unisa.edu.au/programs/ Your critical review should follow the guidance provided by Allen Lee in his article, which you should have already obtained or can obtain now: Lee, AS 1995, ‘Reviewing a manuscript for publication’, Journal of Operations Management, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 87-92. Professor Lee’s article includes 15 actionable activities all of which you need to address in your review. Lee’s article provides guidance about addressing the actions and illustrates the actions with sample comments. Some of the actions are obvious and even trivial (e.g. 15 is “Date your review”). Below is some further guidance about each action and in some cases an estimate of expected effort involved. Your report should be structured in this way so that the 15 activities are easily identifiable for the marking process. Use the numbered actions as a header and put your response to each of the actions under that header. 1. Start out with your own summary of the manuscript This should be at least 500 words so it is clear that you have actually read the paper. 2. Let us know what your expertise does and does not cover For example, sometimes the topic is tangential to our research interest or the research approach is one with which we are unfamiliar (e.g. statistical technique used), etc (perhaps 100-200 words at most). 3. Give actionable advice In your approach to giving advice provide feedback with specific suggestions for any change. 4. Convince us by arguing from the authors’ perspective Do not simply disagree with the paper’s approach. Put yourself “in the place” of the author and argue with them from their perspective. This does not mean you have to agree with them but you should try to see their position. 5. Provide general and specific comments The amount of material here will depend on the actual paper being reviewed. General comments might be about the extent of the introduction and if it is helpful to contextualise the paper. There might be comments about use of theory, models, precision about construct and variable development, etc. Specific comments might be about simple corrections of English expression, spelling, etc. 6. Explain the manuscript’s strengths This should be at least 500 words.