meaning of article review

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,104,062 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Article Review

Article Review Writing: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide with Examples

People also read

Learn How to Write an Editorial on Any Topic

Best Tips on How to Avoid Plagiarism

How to Write a Movie Review - Guide & Examples

A Complete Guide on How to Write a Summary for Students

Write Opinion Essay Like a Pro: A Detailed Guide

Evaluation Essay - Definition, Examples, and Writing Tips

How to Write a Thematic Statement - Tips & Examples

How to Write a Bio - Quick Tips, Structure & Examples

How to Write a Synopsis – A Simple Format & Guide

How to Write a Comparative Essay – A Complete Guide

Visual Analysis Essay - A Writing Guide with Format & Sample

List of Common Social Issues Around the World

Writing Character Analysis - Outline, Steps, and Examples

11 Common Types of Plagiarism Explained Through Examples

A Detailed Guide on How to Write a Poem Step by Step

Detailed Guide on Appendix Writing: With Tips and Examples

Struggling to write a review that people actually want to read? Feeling lost in the details and wondering how to make your analysis stand out?

You're not alone!

Many writers find it tough to navigate the world of article reviews, not sure where to start or how to make their reviews really grab attention.

No worries! 

In this blog, we're going to guide you through the process of writing an article review that stands out. We'll also share tips, and examples to make this process easier for you.

Let’s get started.

• 1. What is an Article Review?
• 2. Types of Article Reviews
• 3. Article Review Format
• 4. How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps
• 5. Article Review Outline
• 6. Article Review Examples
• 7. Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

What is an Article Review?

An article review is a critical evaluation and analysis of a piece of writing, typically an academic or journalistic article. 

It goes beyond summarizing the content; it involves an in-depth examination of the author's ideas, arguments, and methodologies. 

The goal is to provide a well-rounded understanding of the article's strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution to the field.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Types of Article Reviews

Article reviews come in various forms, each serving a distinct purpose in the realm of academic or professional discourse. Understanding these types is crucial for tailoring your approach. 

Here are some common types of article reviews:

Journal Article Review

A journal article review involves a thorough evaluation of scholarly articles published in academic journals. 

It requires summarizing the article's key points, methodology, and findings, emphasizing its contributions to the academic field. 

Take a look at the following example to help you understand better.

Example of Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

A research article review focuses on scrutinizing articles with a primary emphasis on research.

This type of review involves evaluating the research design, methodology, results, and their broader implications. 

Discussions on the interpretation of results, limitations, and the article's overall contributions are key. 

Here is a sample for you to get an idea.

Example of Research Article Review

Science Article Review

A science article review specifically addresses articles within scientific disciplines. It includes summarizing scientific concepts, hypotheses, and experimental methods.

The type of review assesses the reliability of the experimental design, and evaluates the author's interpretation of findings. 

Take a look at the following example.

Example of Science Article Review

Critical Review

A critical review involves a balanced critique of a given article. It encompasses providing a comprehensive summary, highlighting key points, and engaging in a critical analysis of strengths and weaknesses. 

To get a clearer idea of a critical review, take a look at this example.

Critical Review Example

Article Review Format

When crafting an article review in either APA or MLA format, it's crucial to adhere to the specific guidelines for citing sources. 

Below are the bibliographical entries for different types of sources in both APA and MLA styles:

How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps

Writing an effective article review involves a systematic approach. Follow this step-by-step process to ensure a comprehensive and well-structured analysis.

Step 1: Understand the Assignment

Before diving into the review, carefully read and understand the assignment guidelines. 

Pay attention to specific requirements, such as word count, formatting style (APA, MLA), and the aspects your instructor wants you to focus on.

Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly

Begin by thoroughly reading the article. Take notes on key points, arguments, and evidence presented by the author. 

Understand the author's main thesis and the context in which the article was written.

Step 3: Create a Summary

Summarize the main points of the article. Highlight the author's key arguments and findings. 

While writing the summary ensure that you capture the essential elements of the article to provide context for your analysis.

Step 4: Identify the Author's Thesis

In this step, pinpoint the author's main thesis or central argument. Understand the purpose of the article and how the author supports their position. 

This will serve as a foundation for your critique.

Step 5: Evaluate the Author's Evidence and Methodology

Examine the evidence provided by the author to support their thesis. Assess the reliability and validity of the methodology used. 

Consider the sources, data collection methods, and any potential biases.

Step 6: Analyze the Author's Writing Style

Evaluate the author's writing style and how effectively they communicate their ideas. 

Consider the clarity of the language, the organization of the content, and the overall persuasiveness of the article.

Step 7: Consider the Article's Contribution

Reflect on the article's contribution to its field of study. Analyze how it fits into the existing literature, its significance, and any potential implications for future research or applications.

Step 8: Write the Introduction

Craft an introduction that includes the article's title, author, publication date, and a brief overview. 

State the purpose of your review and your thesis—the main point you'll be analyzing in your review.

Step 9: Develop the Body of the Review

Organize your review by addressing specific aspects such as the author's thesis, methodology, writing style, and the article's contribution. 

Use clear paragraphs to structure your analysis logically.

Step 10: Conclude with a Summary and Evaluation

Summarize your main points and restate your overall assessment of the article. 

Offer insights into its strengths and weaknesses, and conclude with any recommendations for improvement or suggestions for further research.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Article Review Outline

Creating a well-organized outline is an essential part of writing a coherent and insightful article review.

This outline given below will guide you through the key sections of your review, ensuring that your analysis is comprehensive and logically structured.

Refer to the following template to understand outlining the article review in detail.

Article Review Format Template

Article Review Examples

Examining article review examples can provide valuable insights into the structure, tone, and depth of analysis expected. 

Below are sample article reviews, each illustrating a different approach and focus.

Example of Article Review

Sample of article review assignment pdf

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

Crafting an effective article review involves a combination of critical analysis, clarity, and structure. 

Here are some valuable tips to guide you through the process:

• Start with a Clear Introduction

Kick off your article review by introducing the article's main points and mentioning the publication date, which you can find on the re-title page. Outline the topics you'll cover in your review.

• Concise Summary with Unanswered Questions

Provide a short summary of the article, emphasizing its main ideas. Highlight any lingering questions, known as "unanswered questions," that the article may have triggered. Use a basic article review template to help structure your thoughts.

• Illustrate with Examples

Use examples from the article to illustrate your points. If there are tables or figures in the article, discuss them to make your review more concrete and easily understandable.

• Organize Clearly with a Summary Section

Keep your review straightforward and well-organized. Begin with the start of the article, express your thoughts on what you liked or didn't like, and conclude with a summary section. This follows a basic plan for clarity.

• Constructive Criticism

When providing criticism, be constructive. If there are elements you don't understand, frame them as "unanswered questions." This approach shows engagement and curiosity.

• Smoothly Connect Your Ideas

Ensure your thoughts flow naturally throughout your review. Use simple words and sentences. If you have questions about the article, let them guide your review organically.

• Revise and Check for Clarity

Before finishing, go through your review. Correct any mistakes and ensure it sounds clear. Check if you followed your plan, used simple words, and incorporated the keywords effectively. This makes your review better and more accessible for others.

In conclusion , writing an effective article review involves a thoughtful balance of summarizing key points, and addressing unanswered questions. 

By following a simple and structured approach, you can create a review that not only analyzes the content but also adds value to the reader's understanding.

Remember to organize your thoughts logically, use clear language, and provide examples from the article to support your points. 

Ready to elevate your article reviewing skills? Explore the valuable resources and expert assistance at MyPerfectWords.com. 

Our team of experienced writers is here to help you with article reviews and other school tasks. 

So why wait? Place your " write my essays online " request today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Dr. Barbara is a highly experienced writer and author who holds a Ph.D. degree in public health from an Ivy League school. She has worked in the medical field for many years, conducting extensive research on various health topics. Her writing has been featured in several top-tier publications.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

The Tech Edvocate

• Advertisement
• Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
• Home Page Four
• Home Page Three
• Home Page Two
• Icons [No Sidebar]
• Left Sidbear Page
• Lynch Educational Consulting
• My Speaking Page
• Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
• Newsletter Unsubscription
• Page Example
• Privacy Policy
• Protected Content
• Request a Product Review
• Shortcodes Examples
• Terms and Conditions
• The Edvocate
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• Write For Us
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Assistive Technology
• Child Development Tech
• Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
• EdTech Futures
• EdTech News
• EdTech Policy & Reform
• EdTech Startups & Businesses
• Higher Education EdTech
• Online Learning & eLearning
• Parent & Family Tech
• Personalized Learning
• Product Reviews
• Tech Edvocate Awards
• School Ratings

Transitioning From Undergraduate to Grad Learner: Everything You Need to Know

College textbooks costs: everything you need to know, what is an ahk file, keeping yourself safe in college: everything you need to know, myths about online high schools: everything you need to know, reasons you should study geography: everything you need to know, the vtoman jump 1800 portable power station: the best of the best, key roles of a school superintendent: everything you need to know, is earning a degree online worthwhile and beneficial, why learners cheat: everything you need to know, how to write an article review (with sample reviews)  .

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

3 Ways to Open Winmail.dat Files

How to Braze Aluminum: 9 Steps

3 Simple Ways to Reduce Chlorine in an Aquarium

How to Take a Navy Shower: 8 Steps

How to Become a Muslim: 14 Steps

How to Drive a Bulldozer

How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

Did you know that article reviews are not just academic exercises but also a valuable skill in today's information age? In a world inundated with content, being able to dissect and evaluate articles critically can help you separate the wheat from the chaff. Whether you're a student aiming to excel in your coursework or a professional looking to stay well-informed, mastering the art of writing article reviews is an invaluable skill.

Short Description

In this article, our research paper writing service experts will start by unraveling the concept of article reviews and discussing the various types. You'll also gain insights into the art of formatting your review effectively. To ensure you're well-prepared, we'll take you through the pre-writing process, offering tips on setting the stage for your review. But it doesn't stop there. You'll find a practical example of an article review to help you grasp the concepts in action. To complete your journey, we'll guide you through the post-writing process, equipping you with essential proofreading techniques to ensure your work shines with clarity and precision!

What Is an Article Review: Grasping the Concept 

A review article is a type of professional paper writing that demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.

If you write a scientific review, you have to use database searches to portray the research. Your primary goal is to summarize everything and present a clear understanding of the topic you've been working on.

Writing Involves:

• Summarization, classification, analysis, critiques, and comparison.
• The analysis, evaluation, and comparison require the use of theories, ideas, and research relevant to the subject area of the article.
• It is also worth nothing if a review does not introduce new information, but instead presents a response to another writer's work.
• Check out other samples to gain a better understanding of how to review the article.

Types of Review

When it comes to article reviews, there's more than one way to approach the task. Understanding the various types of reviews is like having a versatile toolkit at your disposal. In this section, we'll walk you through the different dimensions of review types, each offering a unique perspective and purpose. Whether you're dissecting a scholarly article, critiquing a piece of literature, or evaluating a product, you'll discover the diverse landscape of article reviews and how to navigate it effectively.

Journal Article Review

Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.

Research Article Review

Distinguished by its focus on research methodologies, a research article review scrutinizes the techniques used in a study and evaluates them in light of the subsequent analysis and critique. For instance, when reviewing a research article on the effects of a new drug, the reviewer would delve into the methods employed to gather data and assess their reliability.

Science Article Review

In the realm of scientific literature, a science article review encompasses a wide array of subjects. Scientific publications often provide extensive background information, which can be instrumental in conducting a comprehensive analysis. For example, when reviewing an article about the latest breakthroughs in genetics, the reviewer may draw upon the background knowledge provided to facilitate a more in-depth evaluation of the publication.

Need a Hand From Professionals?

Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!

Formatting an Article Review

The format of the article should always adhere to the citation style required by your professor. If you're not sure, seek clarification on the preferred format and ask him to clarify several other pointers to complete the formatting of an article review adequately.

How Many Publications Should You Review?

• In what format should you cite your articles (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)?
• What length should your review be?
• Should you include a summary, critique, or personal opinion in your assignment?
• Do you need to call attention to a theme or central idea within the articles?
• Does your instructor require background information?

When you know the answers to these questions, you may start writing your assignment. Below are examples of MLA and APA formats, as those are the two most common citation styles.

Using the APA Format

Articles appear most commonly in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. If you write an article review in the APA format, you will need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use:

• Web : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
• Journal : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
• Newspaper : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

Using MLA Format

• Web : Last, First Middle Initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
• Newspaper : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print.
• Journal : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.

Enhance your writing effortlessly with EssayPro.com , where you can order an article review or any other writing task. Our team of expert writers specializes in various fields, ensuring your work is not just summarized, but deeply analyzed and professionally presented. Ideal for students and professionals alike, EssayPro offers top-notch writing assistance tailored to your needs. Elevate your writing today with our skilled team at your article review writing service !

The Pre-Writing Process

Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you unsure of where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages from our dissertation services to get you started:

Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow:

• Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
• Define the positive points — identify the strong aspects, ideas, and insightful observations the author has made.
• Find the gaps —- determine whether or not the author has any contradictions, gaps, or inconsistencies in the article and evaluate whether or not he or she used a sufficient amount of arguments and information to support his or her ideas.
• Identify unanswered questions — finally, identify if there are any questions left unanswered after reading the piece.

Step 2: Move on and review the article. Here is a small and simple guide to help you do it right:

• Start off by looking at and assessing the title of the piece, its abstract, introductory part, headings and subheadings, opening sentences in its paragraphs, and its conclusion.
• First, read only the beginning and the ending of the piece (introduction and conclusion). These are the parts where authors include all of their key arguments and points. Therefore, if you start with reading these parts, it will give you a good sense of the author's main points.
• Finally, read the article fully.

These three steps make up most of the prewriting process. After you are done with them, you can move on to writing your own review—and we are going to guide you through the writing process as well.

Outline and Template

As you progress with reading your article, organize your thoughts into coherent sections in an outline. As you read, jot down important facts, contributions, or contradictions. Identify the shortcomings and strengths of your publication. Begin to map your outline accordingly.

If your professor does not want a summary section or a personal critique section, then you must alleviate those parts from your writing. Much like other assignments, an article review must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Thus, you might consider dividing your outline according to these sections as well as subheadings within the body. If you find yourself troubled with the pre-writing and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.

Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:

• Pre-Title Page - Before diving into your review, start with essential details: article type, publication title, and author names with affiliations (position, department, institution, location, and email). Include corresponding author info if needed.
• Running Head - In APA format, use a concise title (under 40 characters) to ensure consistent formatting.
• Summary Page - Optional but useful. Summarize the article in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology, avoiding verbatim text or references.
• Title Page - Include the full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
• Introduction - Set the stage with an engaging overview of the article.
• Body - Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
• Works Cited/References - Properly cite all sources used in your review.
• Optional Suggested Reading Page - If permitted, suggest further readings for in-depth exploration.
• Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor) - Include visuals when requested by your professor for clarity.

Example of an Article Review

You might wonder why we've dedicated a section of this article to discuss an article review sample. Not everyone may realize it, but examining multiple well-constructed examples of review articles is a crucial step in the writing process. In the following section, our essay writing service experts will explain why.

Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:

• To get you introduced to the key works of experts in your field.
• To help you identify the key people engaged in a particular field of science.
• To help you define what significant discoveries and advances were made in your field.
• To help you unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of your field—which contributes to finding fresh solutions.
• To help you find solid references and arguments for your own review.
• To help you generate some ideas about any further field of research.
• To help you gain a better understanding of the area and become an expert in this specific field.
• To get a clear idea of how to write a good review.

View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!

Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?

Steps for Writing an Article Review

Here is a guide with critique paper format on how to write a review paper:

Step 1: Write the Title

First of all, you need to write a title that reflects the main focus of your work. Respectively, the title can be either interrogative, descriptive, or declarative.

Step 2: Cite the Article

Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper. For example, an article citation in the MLA style should look as follows:

Author's last and first name. "The title of the article." Journal's title and issue(publication date): page(s). Print

Abraham John. "The World of Dreams." Virginia Quarterly 60.2(1991): 125-67. Print.

Step 3: Article Identification

After your citation, you need to include the identification of your reviewed article:

• Title of the article
• Title of the journal
• Year of publication

All of this information should be included in the first paragraph of your paper.

The report "Poverty increases school drop-outs" was written by Brian Faith – a Health officer – in 2000.

Step 4: Introduction

Your organization in an assignment like this is of the utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you should outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts coherently.

• If you are wondering how to start an article review, begin with an introduction that mentions the article and your thesis for the review.
• Follow up with a summary of the main points of the article.
• Highlight the positive aspects and facts presented in the publication.
• Critique the publication by identifying gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions.

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Make a summary of the article by revisiting what the author has written about. Note any relevant facts and findings from the article. Include the author's conclusions in this section.

Step 6: Critique It

Present the strengths and weaknesses you have found in the publication. Highlight the knowledge that the author has contributed to the field. Also, write about any gaps and/or contradictions you have found in the article. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge. Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article.

Step 7: Craft a Conclusion

In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study. Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:

• As you read the article, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they used to support that argument.
• While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point. This is best done using direct quotations.
• Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly. Take time to analyze the article adequately.
• Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation, use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article.
• Re-read your piece a day after you finish writing it. This will help you to spot grammar mistakes and to notice any flaws in your organization.
• Use a spell-checker and get a second opinion on your paper.

The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work

Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.

To proofread your paper properly, start by reading it fully and checking the following points:

• Punctuation
• Other mistakes

Afterward, take a moment to check for any unnecessary information in your paper and, if found, consider removing it to streamline your content. Finally, double-check that you've covered at least 3-4 key points in your discussion.

And remember, if you ever need help with proofreading, rewriting your essay, or even want to buy essay , our friendly team is always here to assist you.

Need an Article REVIEW WRITTEN?

Just send us the requirements to your paper and watch one of our writers crafting an original paper for you.

What Is A Review Article?

How to write an article review, how to write an article review in apa format.

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

Related Articles

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Noro Psikiyatr Ars
• v.59(1); 2022

Basics of Writing Review Articles

Almıla erol.

Adjunct Faculty, Psychiatry & Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Evidence-based medicine forms the essence of medical practice in the modern world. No wonder review articles are the mainstay for evidence-based medicine.

Review articles provide a critical summary of the existing literature to explain the current state of scientific evidence on a particular topic. A well-written review article must summarize key research findings, reference must-read articles, describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, depict unanswered questions, and suggest directions for future research ( 1 ).

During the last decades, there has been a great expansion in the range of review methodologies resulting in many new review types ( 2 , 3 ). In an attempt to classify review types, Sutton et al. defined 48 different review types which they categorized into seven review families: traditional reviews, systematic reviews, review of reviews, rapid reviews, qualitative reviews, mixed method reviews and purpose specific reviews (for the full list of review types please see Sutton et al.) ( 2 ). To date, traditional reviews and systematic reviews have been most widely used in the field of medicine.

Traditional reviews usually cover advances in different aspects of a chosen topic and provide assessment of the subject within a broad spectrum. No formal guidance exists for traditional reviews. However, they have become increasingly more comprehensive and systematic since the emergence of systematic reviews. Narrative review, narrative summary, critical review, integrative review, and state of the art review are examples of traditional reviews ( 2 ).

Systematic reviews adopt a specific aim and a well-defined, rigorous methodology to enlighten a particular question. They usually focus on specific study types such as randomized controlled studies, observational studies, etc. They have well-defined reporting standards and guidance. Systematic reviews provide the highest level of evidence in medical sciences, playing an important role in the development of clinical guidelines ( 4 ). Meta-analysis is the most popular example of quantitative systematic review types.

• Review articles summarize the current state of evidence on a particular topic
• Review articles translate the relevance of evidence for readers
• Independent of the review type, all reviews must have a predefined methodology
• The methods utilized for the review should be explained clearly in the review paper
• Review papers should be written in a structured format

Considering the overwhelming number of diverse review types, the initial burden authors face is to choose the review type that matches their purpose best. Despite the continuous rise in the number of review types, there are sources that provide guidance about this issue ( 5 ). Authors are highly recommended to examine and learn about different review methodologies before they decide on their review approach.

International guidelines such as PRISMA ( 6 ), Cochrane ( 7 ), and JBI ( 8 ) provide detailed information about how to conduct reviews starting from the planning and protocol writing phases. The purpose of these international guidelines is to ensure transparent, unbiased, and complete reporting. Although the guidelines are focused on systematic reviews, they can also be used as bases for conducting other types of reviews. PRISMA encourages journal editors and reviewers to use the guideline for evaluation of review papers. PRISMA checklist is available online in different languages including Turkish at www.prisma-statement.org ( 9 ).

No matter what type of review is undertaken, the key points in a review article are to have a predefined methodology which is clearly explained in the text, and to have a structured format. Just like research papers, the most common and convenient practice is to write review papers in “introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRaD)” format accompanied by title, abstract, key words, and references.

The title makes the first introductory and is the most important sentence of the review paper. Like research paper titles, it must be brief, informative, and interesting all at the same time. It must contain the key words or their derivatives to increase the discoverability of the article via search engines. In addition, the type of the review should be accurately stated in the title.

The aim of the introduction is to explain why the review is undertaken and to persuade the readers for its necessity. In the introduction section, the authors must mention the latest developments about the subject of concern and explain why a review is needed. It is a good practice to refer to previous review papers on the subject and state what makes the current review different than the previous ones.

The methods section of the review paper should be written detailed enough to prove its adequacy and make it possible to be reconducted including more recent papers in the future. Explicit scientific methods are required for systematic reviews as defined by international guidelines ( 7 – 9 ). Although no guidelines exist for traditional narrative reviews, they too should have a rational methodology explained clearly. The methods section of every review article should state the key words used for the search, data bases screened, and the time frame chosen for the literature search. It should also explain the inclusion and exclusion criteria used for the selection of papers.

The results section should include a flow chart which shows the number of identified, included, and excluded papers along with the reasons for exclusion, as described in PRISMA flow diagram guidelines ( 9 ). Results section should cite and present characteristics and outcomes of each one of the included studies, providing the necessary information to assess their quality, validity, and contribution. The most relevant information about the included articles should be depicted in literature summary tables. They are an essential part of the review article as they provide information at one glance and make the paper more readable. Literature summary tables must contain information about methods, frameworks, strengths, limitations, and conceptual contribution of each article ( 10 ). Oversized tables must be presented as supplementary files.

Discussion section provides a general interpretation of the results and presents expert opinion. Writing a review article is not only about extracting relevant previous work and analyzing them, but also about making synthesis and drawing conclusions. Therefore, providing an objective interpretation of the results and guiding readers for better understanding of the current evidence should form the central part of the discussion. Wherever there is not enough evidence to make objective conclusions, the lack of evidence should be stated instead. Limitations, biases and gaps of the included literature should be discussed along with the limitations of the review process itself. It is critical to discuss the potential impacts of the results for future research and clinical practice.

In conclusion, reviews are objective attempts to examine the current state of evidence on a particular topic and its impacts. A review paper should explain why the review is undertaken, describe the methodology used, introduce the articles included, and provide expert opinion on the evidence achieved in a structured format. High quality reviews are essential in guiding clinical practice and future research along with policy making.

How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

An article review is an academic assignment that invites you to study a piece of academic research closely. Then, you should present its summary and critically evaluate it using the knowledge you’ve gained in class and during your independent study. If you get such a task at college or university, you shouldn’t confuse it with a response paper, which is a distinct assignment with other purposes (we’ll talk about it in detail below).

In this article, prepared by Custom-Writing experts, you’ll find:

• the intricacies of article review writing;
• the difference between an article review and similar assignments;
• a step-by-step algorithm for review composition;
• a couple of samples to guide you throughout the writing process.

So, if you wish to study our article review example and discover helpful writing tips, keep reading.

❓ What Is an Article Review?

• ✍️ Writing Steps

📑 Article Review Format

🔗 references.

An article review is an academic paper that summarizes and critically evaluates the information presented in your selected article.

The first thing you should note when approaching the task of an article review is that not every article is suitable for this assignment. Let’s have a look at the variety of articles to understand what you can choose from.

Popular Vs. Scholarly Articles

In most cases, you’ll be required to review a scholarly, peer-reviewed article – one composed in compliance with rigorous academic standards. Yet, the Web is also full of popular articles that don’t present original scientific value and shouldn’t be selected for a review.

Not sure how to distinguish these two types? Here is a comparative table to help you out.

Article Review vs. Response Paper

Now, let’s consider the difference between an article review and a response paper:

• If you’re assigned to critique a scholarly article , you will need to compose an article review .
• If your subject of analysis is a popular article , you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper .

The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of these two article types. Peer-reviewed, scholarly articles have clear-cut quality criteria, allowing you to conduct and present a structured assessment of the assigned material. Popular magazines have loose or non-existent quality criteria and don’t offer an opportunity for structured evaluation. So, they are only fit for a subjective response, in which you can summarize your reactions and emotions related to the reading material.

All in all, you can structure your response assignments as outlined in the tips below.

✍️ How to Write an Article Review: Step by Step

Here is a tried and tested algorithm for article review writing from our experts. We’ll consider only the critical review variety of this academic assignment. So, let’s get down to the stages you need to cover to get a stellar review.

Read the Article

As with any reviews, reports, and critiques, you must first familiarize yourself with the assigned material. It’s impossible to review something you haven’t read, so set some time for close, careful reading of the article to identify:

• The author’s main points and message.
• The arguments they use to prove their points.
• The methodology they use to approach the subject.

In terms of research type , your article will usually belong to one of three types explained below.

Summarize the Article

Now that you’ve read the text and have a general impression of the content, it’s time to summarize it for your readers. Look into the article’s text closely to determine:

• The thesis statement , or general message of the author.
• Research question, purpose, and context of research.
• Supporting points for the author’s assumptions and claims.
• Major findings and supporting evidence.

As you study the article thoroughly, make notes on the margins or write these elements out on a sheet of paper. You can also apply a different technique: read the text section by section and formulate its gist in one phrase or sentence. Once you’re done, you’ll have a summary skeleton in front of you.

Evaluate the Article

The next step of review is content evaluation. Keep in mind that various research types will require a different set of review questions. Here is a complete list of evaluation points you can include.

Write the Text

After completing the critical review stage, it’s time to compose your article review.

The format of this assignment is standard – you will have an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The introduction should present your article and summarize its content. The body will contain a structured review according to all four dimensions covered in the previous section. The concluding part will typically recap all the main points you’ve identified during your assessment.

It is essential to note that an article review is, first of all, an academic assignment. Therefore, it should follow all rules and conventions of academic composition, such as:

• No contractions . Don’t use short forms, such as “don’t,” “can’t,” “I’ll,” etc. in academic writing. You need to spell out all those words.
• Formal language and style . Avoid conversational phrasing and words that you would naturally use in blog posts or informal communication. For example, don’t use words like “pretty,” “kind of,” and “like.”
• Third-person narrative . Academic reviews should be written from the third-person point of view, avoiding statements like “I think,” “in my opinion,” and so on.
• No conversational forms . You shouldn’t turn to your readers directly in the text by addressing them with the pronoun “you.” It’s vital to keep the narrative neutral and impersonal.
• Proper abbreviation use . Consult the list of correct abbreviations , like “e.g.” or “i.e.,” for use in your academic writing. If you use informal abbreviations like “FYA” or “f.i.,” your professor will reduce the grade.
• Complete sentences . Make sure your sentences contain the subject and the predicate; avoid shortened or sketch-form phrases suitable for a draft only.
• No conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence . Remember the FANBOYS rule – don’t start a sentence with words like “and” or “but.” They often seem the right way to build a coherent narrative, but academic writing rules disfavor such usage.
• No abbreviations or figures at the beginning of a sentence . Never start a sentence with a number — spell it out if you need to use it anyway. Besides, sentences should never begin with abbreviations like “e.g.”

Finally, a vital rule for an article review is properly formatting the citations. We’ll discuss the correct use of citation styles in the following section.

When composing an article review, keep these points in mind:

• Start with a full reference to the reviewed article so the reader can locate it quickly.
• Ensure correct formatting of in-text references.
• Provide a complete list of used external sources on the last page of the review – your bibliographical entries .

You’ll need to understand the rules of your chosen citation style to meet all these requirements. Below, we’ll discuss the two most common referencing styles – APA and MLA.

Article Review in APA

When you need to compose an article review in the APA format , here is the general bibliographical entry format you should use for journal articles on your reference page:

• Author’s last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year of Publication). Name of the article. Name of the Journal, volume (number), pp. #-#. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy

Horigian, V. E., Schmidt, R. D., & Feaster, D. J. (2021). Loneliness, mental health, and substance use among US young adults during COVID-19. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 53 (1), pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2020.1836435

Your in-text citations should follow the author-date format like this:

• If you paraphrase the source and mention the author in the text: According to Horigian et al. (2021), young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic.
• If you paraphrase the source and don’t mention the author in the text: Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al., 2021).
• If you quote the source: As Horigian et al. (2021) point out, there were “elevated levels of loneliness, depression, anxiety, alcohol use, and drug use among young adults during COVID-19” (p. 6).

Note that your in-text citations should include “et al.,” as in the examples above, if your article has 3 or more authors. If you have one or two authors, your in-text citations would look like this:

• One author: “According to Smith (2020), depression is…” or “Depression is … (Smith, 2020).”
• Two authors: “According to Smith and Brown (2020), anxiety means…” or “Anxiety means (Smith & Brown, 2020).”

Finally, in case you have to review a book or a website article, here are the general formats for citing these source types on your APA reference list.

Article Review in MLA

If your assignment requires MLA-format referencing, here’s the general format you should use for citing journal articles on your Works Cited page:

• Author’s last name, First name. “Title of an Article.” Title of the Journal , vol. #, no. #, year, pp. #-#.

Horigian, Viviana E., et al. “Loneliness, Mental Health, and Substance Use Among US Young Adults During COVID-19.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , vol. 53, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-9.

In-text citations in the MLA format follow the author-page citation format and look like this:

• According to Horigian et al., young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (6).
• Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al. 6).

Like in APA, the abbreviation “et al.” is only needed in MLA if your article has 3 or more authors.

If you need to cite a book or a website page, here are the general MLA formats for these types of sources.

✅ Article Review Template

Here is a handy, universal article review template to help you move on with any review assignment. We’ve tried to make it as generic as possible to guide you in the academic process.

📝 Article Review Examples

The theory is good, but practice is even better. Thus, we’ve created three brief examples to show you how to write an article review. You can study the full-text samples by following the links.

📃 Men, Women, & Money  

This article review examines a famous piece, “Men, Women & Money – How the Sexes Differ with Their Finances,” published by Amy Livingston in 2020. The author of this article claims that men generally spend more money than women. She makes this conclusion from a close analysis of gender-specific expenditures across five main categories: food, clothing, cars, entertainment, and general spending patterns. Livingston also looks at men’s approach to saving to argue that counter to the common perception of women’s light-hearted attitude to money, men are those who spend more on average.

📃 When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism

This is a review of Jonathan Heidt’s 2016 article titled “When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism,” written as an advocacy of right-wing populism rising in many Western states. The author illustrates the case with the election of Donald Trump as the US President and the rise of right-wing rhetoric in many Western countries. These examples show how nationalist sentiment represents a reaction to global immigration and a failure of globalization.

📃 Sleep Deprivation  

This is a review of the American Heart Association’s article titled “The Dangers of Sleep Deprivation.” It discusses how the national organization concerned with the American population’s cardiovascular health links the lack of high-quality sleep to far-reaching health consequences. The organization’s experts reveal how a consistent lack of sleep leads to Alzheimer’s disease development, obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc.

✏️ Article Review FAQ

A high-quality article review should summarize the assigned article’s content and offer data-backed reactions and evaluations of its quality in terms of the article’s purpose, methodology, and data used to argue the main points. It should be detailed, comprehensive, objective, and evidence-based.

The purpose of writing a review is to allow students to reflect on research quality and showcase their critical thinking and evaluation skills. Students should exhibit their mastery of close reading of research publications and their unbiased assessment.

The content of your article review will be the same in any format, with the only difference in the assignment’s formatting before submission. Ensure you have a separate title page made according to APA standards and cite sources using the parenthetical author-date referencing format.

You need to take a closer look at various dimensions of an assigned article to compose a valuable review. Study the author’s object of analysis, the purpose of their research, the chosen method, data, and findings. Evaluate all these dimensions critically to see whether the author has achieved the initial goals. Finally, offer improvement recommendations to add a critique aspect to your paper.

• Scientific Article Review: Duke University
• Book and Article Reviews: William & Mary, Writing Resources Center
• Sample Format for Reviewing a Journal Article: Boonshoft School of Medicine
• Research Paper Review – Structure and Format Guidelines: New Jersey Institute of Technology
• Article Review: University of Waterloo
• Article Review: University of South Australia
• How to Write a Journal Article Review: University of Newcastle Library Guides
• Writing Help: The Article Review: Central Michigan University Libraries
• Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article: McLaughlin Library
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

Short essays answer a specific question on the subject. They usually are anywhere between 250 words and 750 words long. A paper with less than 250 words isn’t considered a finished text, so it doesn’t fall under the category of a short essay. Essays of such format are required for...

High school and college students often face challenges when crafting a compare-and-contrast essay. A well-written paper of this kind needs to be structured appropriately to earn you good grades. Knowing how to organize your ideas allows you to present your ideas in a coherent and logical manner This article by...

If you’re a student, you’ve heard about a formal essay: a factual, research-based paper written in 3rd person. Most students have to produce dozens of them during their educational career.  Writing a formal essay may not be the easiest task. But fear not: our custom-writing team is here to guide...

Narrative essays are unlike anything you wrote throughout your academic career. Instead of writing a formal paper, you need to tell a story. Familiar elements such as evidence and arguments are replaced with exposition and character development. The importance of writing an outline for an essay like this is hard...

A précis is a brief synopsis of a written piece. It is used to summarize and analyze a text’s main points. If you need to write a précis for a research paper or the AP Lang exam, you’ve come to the right place. In this comprehensive guide by Custom-Writing.org, you’ll...

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

Do you know how to make your essay stand out? One of the easiest ways is to start your introduction with a catchy hook. A hook is a phrase or a sentence that helps to grab the reader’s attention. After reading this article by Custom-Writing.org, you will be able to...

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information. People who use it in everyday life are open to different opinions. They rely on reason and logic when making conclusions about certain issues. A critical thinking essay shows how your thoughts change as you research your topic. This type...

Process analysis is an explanation of how something works or happens. Want to know more? Read the following article prepared by our custom writing specialists and learn about: process analysis and its typesa process analysis outline tipsfree examples and other tips that might be helpful for your college assignment So,...

A visual analysis essay is an academic paper type that history and art students often deal with. It consists of a detailed description of an image or object. It can also include an interpretation or an argument that is supported by visual evidence. In this article, our custom writing experts...

Want to know how to write a reflection paper for college or school? To do that, you need to connect your personal experiences with theoretical knowledge. Usually, students are asked to reflect on a documentary, a text, or their experience. Sometimes one needs to write a paper about a lesson...

A character analysis is an examination of the personalities and actions of protagonists and antagonists that make up a story. It discusses their role in the story, evaluates their traits, and looks at their conflicts and experiences. You might need to write this assignment in school or college. Like any...

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

• A Research Guide
• Writing Guide
• Article Writing

How To Write an Article Review

• Definition of article review
• Why do students write article reviews
• Types of article review
• Structure and outline
• Step-by-step guide

Article review format

• How to write a good article review
• Article review examples

Definition of article review assignments

Why do students write article reviews.

• Article writing is a deeply analytical process that helps students to correct vague terms when and if they are present. Likewise, when composing an article review or an original assignment, such work provides more clarity regarding using appropriate words. If an article has colloquial language or logical gaps, it is one of those aspects to mention in an article review. It also allows writers to determine whether certain terms must be replaced and edited.
• Article review essay writing helps to clarify scientific questions.
• Writing an article review allows students to see and understand how others approach specific issues and what perspectives should be studied regarding the problems at hand. Once a person reads the review, it makes it easier to get rid of bias.
• Article review assignments also provide students with editing and grammar work to help with more accurate papers.
• Most importantly, an article review is a way to encourage better work and provide critical analysis with due criticism and evaluation of the original article.

Types of article review tasks

• Original Research Article Review. The original research article review is close to what is often seen as the literature review. An author must explore the author’s hypothesis and some background studies with due analysis to outline scientific methods. It’s one of the most challenging tasks to write as one must interpret the findings and talk about future implications. This type of work can also get lengthy and be up to 6,000 words in subjects like History or Sociology.
• Critical Analysis. As the name implies, it critically evaluates the author’s work and can be up to 3,000 words.
• Literature Review. It stands for the review of secondary literature sources. As a rule, such reviews do not present much new data and only evaluate the importance of sources and information that supports the author’s arguments.
• Systematic Review. This case stands for research questions and articles that require a deeper synthesis of available facts or certain evidence. The purpose here is to define and evaluate the quality of the data obtained by the author.
• Meta-Analysis Reviews. Once again, it is a systematic review focusing on a specific topic, the literature issues. You must provide a special quantitative estimate for exposure and intervention.
• Clinical Trial Reviews. It means that one must provide a study related to an investigation offered by the author. It can relate to a drug or talk about a sample group of people, thus bringing it into the field of a defined population or a group of participants.
• Perspective or Opinion Article Review. This is where one poses an opinion, meaning things can get biased toward a certain opinion. In writing a good review, a student can look for perspectives and evaluate the importance of the original article. Likewise, posing an opinion is one of the obligatory aspects.

Article review structure and outline

Article review structure.

• Title page.
• An article introduction presenting the main subject and/or a problem.
• Brief article summary.
• Critical article evaluation and/or a summary.
• Conclusion with the moral lesson and discussion on the findings’ pros/cons.
• Bibliography with relevant citations.

Article review outline

• You provide an evaluation and summary of the author’s article.
• Your audience can receive sufficient knowledge regarding the subject.
• You have made points about the strongest arguments of the author.
• You have criticized the author’s work and explained how it contributes to the scientific field.
• You conclude your article review with your original thoughts and opinions without turning to additional research unless the grading rubric required it.

Step-by-step writing guide

Step 1: learn about the article’s agenda., step 2: summarize the main article ideas, step 3: organization aspect of the review, step 4: article preview and take notes, step 5: paraphrasing and analysis, step 6: final evaluation.

• An introduction. The topic of your study must be mentioned here in the first sentence. Indicate what your article contains and talk about the author’s background. Provide an order of the subjects you plan to discuss to explain what your readers expect. The introduction should provide the author’s claims and the main arguments that result in your thesis statement. When writing an introduction, you must determine the main argument.
• Body paragraphs. This is where you provide an evaluation with a summary and write about the author’s work.
• Conclusion. Speak of your reasons for providing a review and talk about whether you could support your thesis and what you have learned.
• Works Cited page. Refer to your grading rubric to identify what citation style must be used.

How to write a good article review?

• Do not write the statements in the first person. It is recommended to use the third person instead by turning to a formal academic tone.
• Your introduction with the information about the original article should take from 10 to 25% of your assignment’s volume.
• An introduction must end with a strong thesis and make an assumption or research the author’s main claim. A typical thesis to start an article review for an assignment may look this way:
• Write down all the important points and share your findings. It will help to show that you have done your homework correctly.
• Discuss how the article supports the claims and whether it provides good evidence.
• Always provide background information about the author.
• Use direct quotes to support your claims by turning to the original article.
• Read your summary twice to evaluate whether it follows the main thesis.
• Talk about the contributions of the author to the academic community.
• Provide reasons for whether you support the author’s view or not. Why or why not?
• Summarize all the important points in a conclusion part.

Why choose article review examples?

• Wright State University’s Journal Article Review Example .
• University of Illinois Springfield’s Article How-to Review Guide .
• UC Merced Library’s Article Review Sample
• Identify recent and important changes in your field of study.
• Determine who works in a specific field of science and why.
• Narrow things down and identify essential information to help you start with research.
• Use obtained information in school debates, and references work.
• Generate new ideas and conduct lab experiments.
• Write an article review through the lens of personal experience and expertise.

Receive paper in 3 Hours!

• Choose the number of pages.
• Select your deadline.
• Complete your order.

Number of Pages

550 words (double spaced)

Deadline: 10 days left

By clicking "Log In", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

Sign Up for your FREE account

How to Write an Article Review: Tips, Outline, Format, & Examples

• Icon Calendar 15 May 2024
• Icon Page 5804 words
• Icon Clock 26 min read

This guideline is about how to write an article review, pointing out what students should do to produce high-standard texts, such as preparing themselves, setting the stage, and perfecting the documents by revising and editing words, sentences, and paragraphs to eliminate grammatical and formatting flaws and logical inconsistencies. Basically, an article review presents a constructive analysis of the literature. In this case, scholars use summary, classification, investigation, and appraisal when reviewing scholarly sources. Moreover, such papers help people to identify knowledge gaps in a source and recommend new research areas. In turn, target groups are experts in specific fields, novice researchers, and decision-makers. Other vital information includes a sample outline and an example of an article review paper, the dos and don’ts, and essential tips for writing this type of text. Therefore, reading this guideline prepares one to write an outstanding article review paper that meets the instructor’s expectations and satisfies the rules of academic writing.

General Aspects of How to Write an Outstanding Article Review Paper & Example

Students are individually responsible for excellent academic performance. Anyone in college must develop a mindset that promotes this noble goal. Writing is an activity that helps individuals in a learning institution to convert ideas into text, enhancing intellectual creativity. There are various types of papers that students write as part of ongoing or end-year assessments. Writing different types of essays requires learners to review and apply what they have learned in class or private study to produce a logical document. Therefore, individuals must always endeavor to learn more because no one knows when such knowledge may prove valuable. This article outlines essential details that college students should read, comprehend, and utilize when writing an article review paper. Thus, reading this guideline equips one with valid knowledge that proves fundamental when writing this type of academic text.

Definition of What Is an Article Review and Its Meaning

An article review is a document that examines a literary text and summarizes it by addressing the most critical elements, such as the topic and its background, and its relevance. Ideally, scholars review articles to address specific issues that stand out, such as the author’s controversial or erroneous arguments. Students may need to start writing an article review to demonstrate critical thinking because such a task requires one to state what is in the text and evaluate it and its significance. Therefore, when reviewing an article, it means that one must use intellectual creativity to interrogate the author’s ideas and presume their intention. However, an article review differs from academic texts, like an argumentative essay, a research proposal or research paper, and reports, because students use an author’s content as subject material.

Choose Wr1ter Team for reliable, plagiarism-free papers that meet your specific requirements.

Unique Structure Features of an Article Review

One reason why an article review differs from other scholarly texts is its set of unique features. The first is that it is based on an existing document. While writers begin other academic texts, like essays from scratch, students start writing their papers by reviewing the assigned source, or they search for it on their own. The second feature is a summary since writers focus on reading the article and highlighting the essential details, like the topic, thesis statement, and central ideas. The third unique feature is evaluation, while the purpose of an article review is not to report what the text says but evaluate its content from the reviewer’s perspective. In this case, people must know the topical area to assess the source. The fourth and most critical feature is significance because an article review must communicate the relevance of the text. In turn, students must incorporate all these four elements when writing an article review.

🔹 Title of an Article Review

An excellent article review must have a unique title. For example, an essay title should be informative, while the heading should include essential terms and indicate that the text is under review. In this case, the title of any article review paper should influence the audience to read the text. For instance, a compelling title should include a message about the review materials, and readers should understand the author’s goal. Thus, an article review must have a clear and relevant title.

🔹 Overview Paragraph or Introduction

The first paragraph of an article review must provide the background information on the source under investigation, like any college essay introduction presents a brief overview of the paper. In this case, the introductory section should include the title of the source under review and its authors, following the title case rule. Then, the introduction must describe the focus of the source, develops a knowledge question, and clarifies the organization of the text under evaluation. Along these lines, this paragraph must have a narrow focus on the relevant source. Therefore, the overview paragraph section must provide appropriate background information on the corresponding source and develop a research question.

🔹 Body of an Article Review or Its Content

The body of an article review must be relevant to the assigned source. For example, paragraph writing should present the material and method used in the source under consideration. In this case, some sections that people may consider when writing their papers reveal the data sources, research strategies, and selection criteria. Besides, the material and method sections should entail the number of studies included and statistical approaches used to analyze data. Thus, body paragraphs should cover the strategies used to gather and analyze data in the source under analysis.

🔹 Conclusion or Final Paragraph

Being the last section of an article review, the conclusion paragraph should answer the research question presented in the introductory paragraph and what the author intends to share. For instance, the conclusion should reveal the implication of the findings. Besides, this part of the paper should identify the interpretations by the author and unresolved knowledge questions. Thus, the ending paragraph must justify the research question identified in the introduction.

🔹 Reference List and Illustrations (Optional)

An excellent article review should contain a reference list to avoid plagiarism and illustrations that are optional. For example, the reference list should include the full bibliographic information of the evaluated sources to acknowledge credible sources. In turn, illustrations may help students to visualize the analyzed sources. For instance, a compelling article review paper may include concept maps. In turn, this method may help to show a clear relationship between perceptions and theories used by authors. Thus, this type of paper should acknowledge reliable sources and may include illustrations to enhance a better understanding of central concepts.

Possible Formatting Examples of Sources for an Article Review

Because an article review is a scholarly document, students must incorporate citations to indicate ideas they have borrowed from other scholars. There are four primary formatting styles: APA, MLA, Harvard, and Chicago/Turabian. Each style has unique features that make it distinct, although some of them have several similarities. When writing an article review, students should adopt the style their instructor explicitly specified. However, without such specifications, one should choose a style they have used before because they grasp the unique elements that the text should emphasize. These elements should appear in all formatting styles and include the author’s name, the source’s title, the date or year of publication, and the publisher’s name. All headings are in the title case for level one, two, and three headings across all the styles.

📕 APA (American Psychological Association) Formatting Style for an Article Review

The APA style is among the most common formatting styles for most academic texts. When using this style, students should focus on three aspects: outline, in-text citations, and References. The outline is the overall appearance of a document. Although most academic texts have a three-part outline (introduction, body, conclusion), writers use headings and subheadings to organize their work logically. Rules for APA headings require students to bold and center the first-level headings, bold and flush left the second-level headings, and bold, italicize, and flush left the third-level headings. In-text citations should capture the author’s surname, year of publication, and paragraph or page number. Essential details for entries in the References page are the author’s surname, publication year in brackets, source’s title italicized in sentence case, and the publisher. The following examples for a review show APA References entries and corresponding in-text citations:

Web article ‘References’ entry:

Paluch, J., & Herrera, J. (2023, February 21). Homeless populations are rising around California . Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/

In-text citation at the end of a sentence:

(Paluch & Herrera, 2023, para. 2).

Scholarly or scientific article under review:

Somerville, P. (2013). Understanding homelessness. Housing, Theory, and Society , 30 (4), 384-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2012.756096

News article under review:

Kang, J. C. (2023, July 2). What does California’s homeless population actually look like. The New Yorker . https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-does-californias-homeless-population-actually-look-like

📕 MLA (Modern Language Association) Formatting Style for an Article Review

Students should focus on the most critical features when adopting the MLA style to write an article review. They are the outline, in-text citations, and Works Cited. Concerning MLA format heading, writers should ensure the first level is in the title case, bolded, and flushed left; the second is in the title case, bolded, italicized, and flushed left; and the third is bolded and centered in the title case. For in-text citations, students should capture the author’s name and the paragraph or page number. However, for entries on the works cited page, one should provide more details, including the author’s name, the article in the title case, the publisher in italics, and the publication year. The following examples for a review show Works Cited entries for various sources:

Web article ‘Works Cited’ entry:

Paluch, Jennifer, and Joseph Herrera. “Homeless Populations Are Rising Around California.” Public Policy Institute of California , 2023, https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/

(Paluch and Herrera para. 2).

Somerville, Peter. “Understanding Homelessness.” Housing, Theory, and Society, vol. 30, no. 4, 2013, pp. 384-415, https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2012.756096.

Kang, Jay Caspian. “What Does California’s Homeless Population Actually Look Like.” The New Yorker , 2023. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-does-californias-homeless-population-actually-look-like

📕 Harvard Formatting Style for an Article Review

The Harvard formatting style resembles the APA style in some aspects. When using this style, an article reviewer should focus on the outline, in-text citations, and the References List. Regarding the outline, writers should bold and center the first-level headings and write it in the title case. They should equally bold the second-level headings and write them in the title case but flush it left. Lastly, students should indent and bold the third-level headings but write them in sentence case. They should begin writing after the period. In-text citations should have the name of the author, publication year, and page or paragraph number. The essential details for entries in the References List are the author’s name, the publication year, the source, and the publisher. Such entries for a review should appear differently for various sources as follows:

Web article ‘References List’ entry:

Paluch, J and Herrera, J 2023, ‘Homeless populations are rising around California,’ Public Policy Institute of California . Available from: <https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/>. [13 August 2023].

(Paluch & Herrera 2023, para. 2).

Somerville, P 2013, ‘Understanding homelessness,’ Housing, Theory, and Society , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 384-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2012.756096.

Kang, JC 2023, ‘What does California’s homeless population actually look like,’ The New Yorker . Available from: < https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-does-californias-homeless-population-actually-look-like>. [13 August 2023].

📕 Chicago/Turabian Formatting Style for an Article Review

The Chicago/Turabian formatting style is similar to the MLA style in some aspects. When writing an article review, students should focus on the outline, in-text citations, and the Bibliography. Regarding the outline, they should center and bold the first-level headings and write them in the title case. They should also center and write the second-level headings in the title case without the boldface. Finally, writers should bold and flush left the third-level headings and ensure they are in the title case. In-text citations should appear in the footnotes, while the most critical elements for Bibliography entries are the author’s name, the source’s title, the publisher, and the publication year. These entries for a review should read as follows for various sources:

Web article ‘Bibliography’ entry:

Paluch, Jennifer, and Joseph Herrera. “Homeless Populations Are Rising Around California.” Public Policy Institute of California , 2023, https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/.

In-text citation appears in the footnote as:

Jennifer Paluch and Joseph Herrera, “Homeless Populations Increasing in California,” Public Policy Institute of California , 2023, par. 6, https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/.

Kang, Jay Caspian. “What Does California’s Homeless Population Actually Look Like.” The New Yorker , 2023. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-does-californias-homeless-population-actually-look-like.

Enhance your academic performance with our top-notch, plagiarism-free papers.

Common Types of Article Reviews

Article reviews come in different forms precisely because different sources are emerging across multiple platforms daily. The common platforms include the Web, online publications, news outlets, and online databases. Therefore, when reviewing an article, students should consider the platform upon which it exists because such details must appear when formatting the paper.

The Web is the most robust platform for scholarly and other types of documents. Ideally, anyone who writes an article can post it on this platform because of fewer rules or limitations, such as the need for a standard text. As such, students can access all types of documents on the Web, including articles addressing various societal issues like homelessness. Bloggers view the Web as the ideal place to spread ideas because of the enormous traffic of people that visit it daily. When reviewing articles from the Web, students should understand that such documents can be academically valid or invalid depending on the author. The best way to determine an article’s intellectual validity is to consider the author’s credentials. What they write must be valid if they are scholars, such as architects, physicians, or software engineers.

Online Publications

Online publications for a review include journals and magazines that provide professionals with a good place to share ideas and review them. Almost every profession has an online journal or magazine where individuals in the trade and those interested in it can exchange thoughts regarding various issues. For example, the scientific community has New Scientist , Architectural Digest , and Tech Briefs , which are online magazines where people interested in essay topics in science, architecture, and engineering can find intellectually nourishing articles. As such, writings on these online platforms are academically valid because the authors are professionals with experience in diverse fields. When reviewing such articles, students should not be casual but intellectually alert because those who consume their work may want to know how they appraise or critique a text by a professional.

Online News Outlets

With the Internet becoming the most accessible educational platform in the world in contemporary society, news organizations have developed online outlets to keep the public informed at all times. The advantage of these outlets for a review is that the public can read about breaking news before the mainstream broadcast and print media can communicate. Although news articles are not scholarly, they are academically valid because they undergo editing by professional journalists. Generally, these reading materials are about emerging issues across diverse fields, including politics, economy, society, and international relations. Therefore, when reviewing news articles, students should consider their topical area and mention how the author addresses or fails to include the most critical details, such as the pressing needs of the public if the source is about politics.

Online Databases

Online databases are the primary reservoirs of research knowledge because they hold various research studies and credible sources. Like online publications that are professionally based, these platforms are discipline-based. In other words, each online database is unique because it contains reliable articles within a specific field of study, such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science, law, and linguistics. Therefore, when reviewing research articles, students should find out the database they belong. However, since most researches exist in different databases, writers should focus on the journal that publishes the article. As previously stated, the journal’s name should appear in the citation at the end of the document. Examples of online databases where students can access research articles for a review include JSTOR, EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and others. Since most of these databases require students to have access credentials, most scholars use Google Scholar to find specific articles for their reviews.

Examples of Topics for Writing an Article Review

Based on the preceding sections, students can review articles from various platforms. The most important thing to note is that each platform specializes in a particular discipline, such as sociology or political science. Typically, instructors specify the assigned article students should review. However, they may sometimes choose reading materials themselves. The following are possible examples of topics for writing an article review paper that students can choose because they are based on articles.

• Review a research article, “Sex Differences Across Developmental Domains in Children With a Familial Risk of Severe Mental Disorders,” authored by Birgitte Klee Burton and colleagues, and explain the significance of the life continuum.
• What does Daniel Warton see as the real problem in American Politics in the article “‘Ripe for Political Violence’: US Election Officials Are Quitting at an Alarming Rate.”
• What does Chika Anekwe prescribe for physical fitness in the article “Can Fitness Counter Fatness.”
• What is Medha Mehta’s main message in the article “Hard Work Is the Key to Success…Or Is It Not?”
• Write an article review for “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of Value Systems in the Public Domain” by Udo Pesch.

Outline Sample Template for Writing a Good Article Review Paper

I. introduction section of an article review.

• Introduce the article and rationale for the review. Students should state why the article’s topic is essential, such as addressing a social issue.
• Clearly define what the review will discuss. Writers outline the order in which they will review each aspect of the article, such as the title, author, content, and significance.
• State the thesis. People communicate their main focus in reviewing the article, such as critiquing it.

II. Body Paragraphs Section

For each of the body paragraphs, students should incorporate:

• A topic sentence: The student communicates an idea that supports the thesis.
• Evidence: The student includes quotes or paraphrases information in the article, following the referencing rules.
• Evaluation: The student evaluates the information from the assigned article to make an argument, such as critique the author.
• A concluding sentence: It is a statement that summarizes the student’s thinking about the article under review.
• Transition: This sentence concludes the paragraph with a statement establishing a logical flow to the next paragraph or section.

III. Conclusion Section

• Remind the reader of the purpose of the review by rewording the thesis statement.
• Briefly mention the main points as they appear in body paragraphs, following their order.
• Make a final remark about the article under review that is intellectually stimulating.

Example of an Article Review Paper

Topic: Write an article review for “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of Value Systems in the Public Domain” by Udo Pesch

I. Introduction Sample for an Article Review

Udo Pesch’s article, “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of Value Systems in the Public Domain,” emphasizes the significance of the interplay between accountability and value systems in public administrators’ decision-making process. The researcher’s primary focus is whether society should hold public administrators accountable and responsible for their decisions. In this respect, Pesch’s article considers the various influences that impact public administrators’ decisions.

II. Example of the First Body Paragraph Review

From the start, Pesch points out that accountability in decision-making is a challenging matter in public administration. The article under review clarifies that codes of ethics are essential accountability systems in organizations because they define expected behaviors. As such, these explicit ethical systems influence people’s actions in the workplace and even elsewhere. However, the author cautions that differences between one’s moral values and the terms of the ethical codes can trigger conflict often characterized by a blatant failure to follow policies. In turn, public administrators’ motivations and inability to perceive the consequences of their decisions are the primary factors that complicate accountability.

III. Example of the Second Body Paragraph Review

The social context is another factor influencing public administrators’ sense of accountability. According to Pesch, diverse ethical domains in the social environment prescribe “their own standards of good and bad behavior.” In this respect, individuals operate in a social setting without clearly understanding what attitudes, behaviors, and actions they should demonstrate. This lack of clarity about ethical standards explains why many administrators make bad decisions or refuse to submit to accountability frameworks for reviewing them. Ideally, people feel trapped in a system that demands more without moral support. For example, while top leadership understands what they must do to be accountable, those at lower levels do not. This gap occurs because organizations invest heavily in top leadership, such as training seminars, but view lower cadre employees as the support base.

IV. Example of the Third Body Paragraph Review

In commenting about the context that makes accountability a complicated matter in public administration, Pesch blames the lack of universal moral codes as why this is the norm. According to the article, public administrators often violate codes of ethics because they do not believe a universal moral code demands civil servants “to live up to integrity standards.” For most administrators, laws and organizational procedures are perfect for holding individuals accountable. The author argues that acknowledging that civil servants have a sense of responsibility is the most effective approach in designing accountability frameworks like codes of ethics under review. However, this is not the case in most contexts because these accountability systems do not address the potential differences between authorized rules and universal principles of good behavior.

V. Conclusion Sample of an Article Review

Overall, Pesch’s article systematically addresses the issues that complicate the sense of accountability in public administration. The source identifies people’s moral values, ethical codes, and the social environment as the principal factors influencing civil servants’ sense of accountability. Pesch is adamant that codes of ethics are insufficient to motivate civil servants to be accountable and responsible because there is no universal understanding of ethical or moral behavior.

4 Easy Steps for Writing an Article Review Paper

Academic activities can be time-consuming and mentally challenging. While the former is easy to manage because one can be flexible, the latter is complicated and has little room for maneuver. Writing falls in this latter category because producing an article review is a complex process requiring students to grasp technical details. Notably, from times when an instructor tells students they need to write this type of text to when they submit completed work, several things must happen to ensure the final product is of high standard. The technical details one should focus on fall within four stages of writing: preparation, stage set-up, actual writing, and wrap-up. While some steps are simple, others are complex and require students’ utmost focus.

Step 1: Preparation

Like any vital activity or process, writing an article review should begin with preparation. In this initial step of writing, students should choose their article to review if the instructor has not explicitly specified what the class should use. One needs to select a good source from an online database if the requirement is to review a research article. The next task is to generate ideas through brainstorming sessions with classmates or peers. This activity should happen with the audience of an assigned source in mind. Writers need to review an article in a manner that makes sense to those who will consume their work. As such, students should produce an intellectually stimulating document. When writing an article review, people should know why they are writing it: appraise, critique, or summarize.

Step 2: Stage Set-Up

The next step of writing an article review paper is to set up the stage, meaning making the necessary arrangements to initiate the writing process. Students should search for a good article on the relevant platform while writing an article review. In essence, one should use the article’s title as the keyword to browse the Web or search online databases. However, if students choose their sources, they should use the study area, such as sociology or psychology, as their keywords. The next activity is to read articles available online while noting essential information, such as the author’s name and credentials, the topical area, the thesis, key concepts, and central arguments. Students also should create a clear essay outline comprising three main sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. Lastly, they should undertake expanded research to critique the chosen article under review.

Step 3: The Writing Process

The third step is to initiate the actual writing of an article review, where one puts ideas into paper. In this stage, article reviewers should focus on producing an initial draft by translating all the ideas they have generated into text. Since some ideas may need to be more for the length of an article review paper, students should search for more sources to generate additional points of discussion or analysis. However, deleting some sources may be necessary if the ideas are too many for a single article. Students can also replace sources if they find new ones with better, convincing content. A possible outcome of adding or deleting sources is the alteration of the outline. For example, one may add new body paragraphs to accommodate more ideas. Students should focus on their outlines when writing the first draft because it determines whether an article review document meets essential requirements.

Writing an Introduction for an Article Review Paper

The introduction is the first part of an article review. When writing this section, students should focus on three things: introducing the title and author(s), clarifying the primary focus of the evaluation, and creating a clear thesis. The first element concerns the source’s title under review and who wrote it, while the second concerns what the text is about, such as appraising, critiquing, or summarizing the article under review. The third element is where students state their focus emphatically to establish the ground for the ideas in body paragraphs. As a result, when writing the introduction of their article review paper, students should know their goal is to analyze an existing text and inform readers how they intend to accomplish this task.

Writing Body Paragraphs for an Article Review Paper

The body of an article review paper is the most comprehensive section because it comprises the ideas that writers use to analyze an existing document. In this respect, its main feature is body paragraphs, which may be two or more depending on the requirements of the paper’s length. While all body paragraphs capture different content, they have a uniform outline. The first element is the topic sentence, which means words that students use to open the section. This sentence must emphasize a central idea that reminds readers about the thesis. The next element is evidence from the source, such as a quote, since people need to include author’s statements, arguments, or other evidence for analysis. The third element is the evaluation of the evidence, which is the point at which students review articles. The final elements are a concluding sentence and a transition, and they help readers to connect to the next paragraph or section.

Writing a Conclusion Part for an Article Review

Every academic text must have a final paragraph, the stage at which writers complete the writing process. In this stage, writers should summarize their work by restating the thesis using different words and emphasizing the main points in body paragraphs. The last element is a final remark that allows writers to judge the chosen reading material using their own words. Students must understand that they must refrain from introducing new ideas at this stage. Therefore, when writing this part, one should focus on reminding readers of what they have read, emphasizing the most critical aspects of the article under review.

Step 4: Wrap Up

The last activity in writing any document is to wrap it up by ensuring its content follows a logical order. Students should wrap up article review papers by perfecting the initial draft. The primary focus at this stage is eliminating all flaws that might affect the article review paper’s quality, such as missing citations and punctuation or inconsistent arguments and ideas. Ideally, students perfect their documents by revising sections that seem illogical and editing sections to ensure they align with the initial outline. The greatest focus should be on body paragraphs because that is where students execute their objectives. Some details one should confirm include topic sentences, correct citing, concluding sentences, transition, and formatting. Formatting is critical because citations are a crucial feature of body paragraphs. In turn, students should cite all information from the source and other documents, following APA, MLA, Harvard, or Chicago/Turabian paper formats.

20 Tips for Writing an Article Review Paper

Based on the preceding sections, writing an article review paper is complex and technical. As such, students need to learn how to simplify the process because writing this type of text is a norm in college education. Generally, students should choose a source of interest that is less complicated in terms of language, identify and summarize the central ideas of the text, appraise and critique the document, and comment on the source’s significance for the area of study.

10 ‘Things to Do’ When Writing an Article Review Are:

•  choose a well-defined topic,
• thoroughly search the literature to find the right article,
• create an outline,
• develop a thesis,
• formulate the topic sentences,
• extract information (evidence) from the article (quotes),
• evaluate the information,
• create a first draft,
• perfect the draft to create a final paper,
• proofread the final document.

10 ‘Not to Do Things’ Are:

• do not choose an easy topic,
• do not pick articles that are not academically stimulating,
• do not skip writing the outline,
• do not generate ideas not backed by evidence,
• do not assume what the article says,
• do not be rigid in accommodating new ideas,
• do not consider sources that are not scholarly,
• do not simply summarize the article,
• do not ignore formatting rules,
• do not use informal language.

Summing Up on How to Write a Perfect Article Review Paper

An article review analyzes specific literature and targets experts in particular fields, novice researchers, and decision-makers. Basically, such papers should have a unique structure that helps to communicate important concepts. In this case, the acceptable structure of article reviews contains a compelling title, introduction, relevant body paragraphs, conclusion, and references. As a result, students should learn essential tips for producing a high-standard article review paper:

• The first tip is to choose a topic one has studied in class or private study. Doing so helps in idea generation because students have previous knowledge in their heads.
• The second tip is to choose an article one can support using scholarly sources. The best approach is to focus on online publications and databases because they contain scholarly articles.
• The third tip is to follow the standard outline: introduction, body, and conclusion.
• The fourth tip is to generate ideas using evidence from the article under review. One must understand that an article review can be done without creating new knowledge.
• The fifth tip is to consult widely through research to ensure the content is intellectually engaging.
• Other tips include incorporating expert opinion into the body paragraphs, creating logical sentences, correcting grammatical and formatting errors, and eliminating the illogical flow of ideas and thoughts.

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

• Published: 02 October 2017
• Volume 46 , pages 1–5, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Robert W. Palmatier 1 ,
• Mark B. Houston 2 &
• John Hulland 3  

232k Accesses

442 Citations

65 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ).

In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ).

Purpose of review papers

In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS.

The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to

Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic.

Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge.

Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).

Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.

Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.

Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions.

Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate.

The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas.

This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization.

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.

As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target.

Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS .

The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published.

Domain-based review papers

Domain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings.

Theory-based review papers

Theory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory.

Method-based review papers

Method-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective.

Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal.

Process and structure for review papers

In this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here.

Systematic literature review process

Some review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact.

In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review.

Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work.

Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan.

Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2.

Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing.

Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice.

A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis.

Structure of systematic review papers

There is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute.

Depth and rigor

Systematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention.

Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant).

Replicability

Processes for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail.

We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field.

Helpful format

Because such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table.

In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers.

Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.

Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615.

Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y .

Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.

Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.

Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217.

Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

Robert W. Palmatier

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Mark B. Houston

Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

John Hulland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Palmatier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2017

Issue Date : January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students.

How to Write Critical Reviews

When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.

Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

Understanding the Assignment

To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.

Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.

Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!

Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.

Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.

Write the introduction

Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.

If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.

Explain relationships

For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.

Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.

In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.

Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).

As you write, consider the following questions:

• Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
• Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
• What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
• What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?

Provide an overview

In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.

Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.

The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.

• What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
• How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?

Write the body

The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.

Organize using a logical plan

Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:

• First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
• Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

• What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
• What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
• Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
• Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
• Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.

Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.

And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.

Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.

Write the conclusion

You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.

You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.

Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.

Consider the following questions:

• Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
• How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
• How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
• What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

• SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an  Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just  Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.  

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

critic’s notebook

A Shock of Red for a Royal Portrait

A new portrait of King Charles III is bathed in symbolism.

By Vanessa Friedman

Royal portraits, as a rule, tend to be fairly staid, predictable affairs. Full of symbolism, sure, but generally symbolism of the traditional, establishment kind: symbols of state, of office, of pomp and lineage.

Which is why the new official portrait of King Charles III by Jonathan Yeo, the first since the king’s coronation, has created such a controversy.

A larger-than-life (7.5 foot-by-5.5 foot) canvas, the portrait shows the king standing in his Welsh Guards uniform, hands on the hilt of his sword, a half-smile on his face, with a butterfly hovering just over his right shoulder. His entire body is bathed in a sea of crimson, so his face appears to be floating.

Though the butterfly was apparently the key piece of semiology — meant, Mr. Yeo told the BBC , to represent Charles’s metamorphosis from prince to sovereign and his longstanding love of the environment — it was the painting’s primary color that almost instantaneously gave new meaning to the idea of “seeing red.” It was practically begging for interpretation.

“To me it gives the message the monarchy is going up in flames or the king is burning in hell,” one commentator wrote under the royal family’s Instagram post when the portrait was unveiled.

“It looks like he’s bathing in blood,” another wrote. Someone else raised the idea of “colonial bloodshed.” There were comparisons to the devil. And so on. There was even a mention of the Tampax affair , a reference to an infamous comment by Charles revealed when his phone was hacked during the demise of his marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales.

It turns out that red is a trigger color for almost everyone — especially given the somewhat meta endeavor that is royal portraiture: a representation of a representation, made for posterity.

In his interview with the BBC, Mr. Yeo noted that when the king first saw the painting, he was “initially mildly surprised by the strong color,” which may be an understatement. Mr. Yeo said his goal was to produce a more modern royal portrait, reflecting Charles’s desire to be a more modern monarch, reducing the number of working royals and scaling back the pageantry of the coronation (all things being relative).

Still, the choice of shade seems particularly fraught given the … well, firestorm the king has endured since his ascension to the throne.

Consider, for example, the continued falling out with his second son, Prince Harry, and the publication of Harry’s memoir, with its allegations of royal racism ; the related calls for an end to the monarchy; Charles’s cancer diagnosis; and the furor over the mystery about Catherine, Princess of Wales , whose own cancer diagnosis was revealed only after increasingly unhinged speculation about her disappearance from public life.

Queen Camilla, who has been through her own ring of flames, reportedly told the artist, “You’ve got him.”

It’s hard to imagine Mr. Yeo didn’t anticipate some of the reaction to the portrait, especially in the context of his past work, including portraits of Prince Philip, the king’s father, and Queen Camilla, which are more traditional depictions. Indeed, the last time a royal portraitist attempted a more abstract, contemporary interpretation of their subject — a 1998 portrait of Queen Elizabeth II by Justin Mortimer, which depicted the queen against a neon yellow background with a splash of yellow bisecting her neck — it produced a similar public outcry. The Daily Mail accused the artist of cutting off the queen’s head.

The portrait of King Charles will remain on display at the Philip Mould Gallery until mid-June, when it will move to Drapers’ Hall in London. (It was commissioned by the Worshipful Company of Drapers, a medieval guild turned philanthropy, to reside among hundreds of other, more orthodox royal portraits.)

In that setting, Mr. Yeo’s work may be especially telling: reflective of not just a monarch, but also the evolution of the role itself, the conflicts around the job and a king captured forevermore in what very much looks like the hot seat.

Vanessa Friedman has been the fashion director and chief fashion critic for The Times since 2014. More about Vanessa Friedman

• International
• Today’s Paper
• Premium Stories
• ⏪ Election Rewind
• Express Shorts
• Health & Wellness
• Brand Solutions

Why Supreme Court allowed a review of its 2022 judgment on ‘shamlat deh’ land rights

The supreme court has allowed for the review of its own 2022 judgment on ‘shamlat deh’ land, essentially land contributed to by multiple landowners to serve the “common purposes” of village’s people. here is why.

Protecting the rights of village landowners in Haryana, the Supreme Court allowed a review of a 2022 judgment where a Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian allowed gram panchayats to acquire shamlat deh land.

Shamlat deh is essentially village common land, created by multiple landowners contributing an equal portion of their individual land holdings to serve the “common purposes” of village’s people. The apex court in 2022 had upheld a 1992 amendment to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (henceforth, the Punjab Act) which allows gram panchayats to manage and control shamlat deh land as “lands reserved for the common purposes of a village”.

A Bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta reopened the challenge to the 1992 amendment on May 17 this year, after observing that the 2022 decision disregarded an important and relevant Constitution Bench decision in the case of Bhagat Ram vs State of Punjab (1967).

Here is a story of the dispute — and what the apex court ’s judgments on the matter, over the years .

Bhagat Ram: clarifying the meaning of land acquisition under Article 31A

In 1967, a five-judge Bench was deciding the validity of a land consolidation scheme for the village of Dolike Sunderpur, which proposed to reserve lands “for common purposes” and divert the income of these lands to the panchayat.

Landowners challenged the scheme arguing that it violates the second proviso of Article 31A which prevents the government from acquiring land from a person, if the size of the land is below the “ceiling limit” (which changes based on the state and the applicable law), unless the state pays compensation “not be less than the market value” for the land. The state of Punjab, on the other hand, argued that reserving lands for the income of the panchayat does not qualify as land acquisition as the income would be used to benefit the village community.

Earlier on the same day, the five-judge Bench decided the case of Ajit Singh v State of Punjab (1967), carving out the difference between land being acquired by the state, and the modification or extinguishment of land rights under Article 31A. When land is acquired, the state is the beneficiary, which is not the case when land rights are modified or extinguished (unless the rights are transferred to the State after the rights of the land-holder are extinguished), the Bench ruled.

Applying this logic in Bhagat Ra m, the SC held that the beneficiary of the land consolidation scheme was the panchayat, and thus, also the state. The court held that the panchayat was effectively acquiring the land by reserving its income. The court also observed that the panchayat’s income can only be used for the village community’s benefit, regardless. Thus, accepting the state’s argument would “defeat the object” of the second proviso of Article 31A, the Bench ruled.

The state of Punjab had also argued that even if the land was being acquired, this was done before Article 31A came into force through the 17th constitutional amendment of 1964, and thus, the second provisio would not apply.

However, the apex court noted that possession and control of the land was not transferred as the scheme had been stayed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Under Section 24 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (henceforth, the Consolidation Act), the scheme will only be “deemed to have come into force” after the possession is transferred.

Jai Singh: Does shamlat land belong to the landowners or the Panchayat?

In 2003 a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court decided a challenge to the 1992 amendment to the Punjab Act which vested control of shamlat deh  land in Haryana with the gram panchayat. This amendment was challenged by several village landowners in Haryana in the case of Jai Singh vs State of Haryana .

The court gave partial relief to the petitioners by distinguishing between land that has been reserved for common purposes under the Consolidation Act (which will be vested with the gram panchayat) and that which has been contributed by individual “proprietors” but has not been reserved for common purposes in the scheme created under the Consolidation Act.

The High Court held that control over lands contributed not a part of the consolidation scheme — bachat or surplus land — could not vest with the panchayat as a part of the consolidation scheme. Relying on the SC’s decision in Bhagat Ram , the High Court held that the state and the gram panchayat could not acquire land that is not reserved under the consolidation scheme without providing compensation, as this violates the second proviso of Article 31A.

The state of Haryana challenged this decision at the Supreme Court, where it was decided by a Bench comprising Justices Gupta and Ramasubramanian in 2022. The Bench overruled the 2003 decision, finding that there was no requirement to pay compensation since the amendment to the Punjab Act was passed after Article 31 had been omitted following the forty-fourth constitutional amendment.

The Bench also held that the management and control of the land was vested in the panchayat the moment it was assigned as a first step before executing the consolidation scheme, and could then be utilised at any point in time. Further, the requirement in the second proviso of Article 31A did not apply as the panchayat was merely managing the land — not acquiring it — on behalf of the land-holders.

Karnail Singh: SC allows review of 2022 judgment

The Bench of Justices Gavai and Mehta, in Karnail Singh vs State of Haryana (2024), found that the 2022 decision only made a “cursory reference” to the Constitution Bench’s decision in Bhagat Ram by saying that “There is no dispute about the said proposition in the present appeals”.

As the 2003 High Court judgment that was being appealed heavily relied on Bhagat Ram , Justices Gavai and Mehta stated that the “least that was expected of this Court” was to explain why the High Court was wrong. Instead “there is not even a whisper about the Constitution Bench judgment in Bhagat Ram”.

The Bench in Karnail Singh then held that the 2022 decision vesting control of the land in the panchayat once the land is assigned was “totally contrary” to the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram , which had “held that the management and control does not vest in the Panchayat…till possession has changed” and that land-holders would still have rights over their holdings until such time.

The apex court held that a smaller bench ignoring a Constitution Bench decision was a “material error manifest on the face of the order”, which is the bar that is set for allowing a Supreme Court judgment to be reviewed. Consequently, the Bench recalled the 2022 decision and directed the challenge to the 2003 High Court decision to be heard once again, beginning on August 7.

• Explained Law
• Express Explained
• land rights
• The Supreme Court of India

IMD issues yellow alert for thunderstorms and lightning in West Bengal from Sunday, with heatwave alerts for West Midnapore and West Burdwan. Orange alerts for rain, thunderstorms, lightning, and gusty winds in Nadia, Murshidabad, Birbhum, and East Burdwan on Monday. Kolkata recorded 37.4 degrees Celsius with partly cloudy sky and possibility of rain.

More Explained

Best of Express

EXPRESS OPINION

May 19: Latest News

• 01 Search on for boy who drowned in Poicha
• 02 Communal, personal attacks indicate mandate going against BJP: Sharad Pawar
• 03 Manthan at Cannes – Amul model is India’s gift to the world: GCMMF MD Jayen Mehta
• 04 ‘Ice cream man of India’ Raghunandan Kamath dies at 70
• 05 Thailand Open: Satwik-Chirag banking on ‘a special bond’ with Bangkok as they reach yet another final
• Elections 2024
• Political Pulse
• Entertainment
• Movie Review
• Newsletters
• Web Stories

• Readout of Ambassador Katherine Tai’s Meeting With Peru’s Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism Elizabeth Galdo Marín
• Ambassador Tai to Travel to Phoenix, Arizona
• The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Small Business Administration, and Department of Commerce Convene the Third USMCA Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Dialogue
• ICYMI: U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai Delivers Remarks on Her Actions to Increase China Tariffs

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai to Take Further Action on China Tariffs After Releasing Statutory Four-Year Review

• USTR Invites Public Participation in Stakeholder Listening Session During Fifth United States-Kenya Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiating Round
• USMCA Rapid Response Labor Mechanism Panel Releases Determination Regarding Grupo México Mine; Biden-Harris Administration Will Continue Seeking to Enforce USMCA Labor Obligations and Advance Workers’ Rights
• Ambassador Tai to Travel to Arequipa, Peru
• Week Ahead Guidance for the Week of May 13 to May 17, 2024
• United States and Kenya to Hold Fifth Negotiating Round Under their Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership
• Ambassador Tai to Travel to Los Angeles, California
• United States and the Philippines Hold Agriculture and Labor Working Group Meetings Under the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement
• Readout of the U.S.-Iraq Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) Council Meeting
• USTR Announces Neil Beck as Acting Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for WTO and Multilateral Affairs
• Week Ahead Guidance for the Week of May 6 to May 10, 2024
• Statement from Ambassador Katherine Tai in Recognition of International Workers’ Day
• Readout of Negotiating Round Under the U.S.-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade
• Statement from Ambassador Katherine Tai Celebrating Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
• Policy Offices
• Press Office
• Press Releases

May 14, 2024

WASHINGTON – U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai today released the following statement concerning the statutory review of the tariff actions in the Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation: “After thorough review of the statutory report on Section 301 tariffs, and having considered my advice, President Biden is directing me to take further action to encourage the elimination of the People’s Republic of China’s unfair technology transfer-related policies and practices that continue to burden U.S. commerce and harm American workers and businesses,” said Ambassador Katherine Tai.    “As the President recognizes in his memorandum, while the tariffs have been effective in encouraging the PRC to take some steps to address the issues identified in the Section 301 investigation, further action is required.   “In light of President Biden’s direction, I will be proposing modifications to the China tariffs under Section 301 to confront the PRC’s unfair policies and practices. From the beginning of the Biden-Harris Administration, I have been committed to using every lever of my office to promote American jobs and investments, and these recommendations are no different. Today, we serve our statutory goal to stop the PRC’s harmful technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices, including its cyber intrusions and cyber theft. I take this charge seriously, and I will continue to work with my partners across sectors to ensure any action complements the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to expand opportunities for American workers and manufacturers.”   The Section 301 statute directs that the four-year review includes a consideration of: the effectiveness of the tariff actions in achieving the objective of the investigation; other actions that could be taken; and the overall effects of the tariff actions on the U.S. economy. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) Report  addresses the statutory elements of the review, suggests modifications to strengthen the actions, and makes certain recommendations.   To encourage further elimination of the PRC’s technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices, Ambassador Tai has recommended that products from the PRC currently subject to Section 301 tariffs should remain. Additionally, in light of the increased burden on U.S. commerce, President Biden is directing Ambassador Tai to take action to add or increase tariffs for certain products. As the Report details, Ambassador Tai will propose the following modifications in strategic sectors:

The Report also makes recommendations for: (1) establishing an exclusion process targeting machinery used in domestic manufacturing, including proposals for 19 exclusions for certain solar manufacturing equipment; (2) allocating additional funds to United States Customs and Border Protection for greater enforcement of Section 301 actions; (3) greater collaboration and cooperation between private companies and government authorities to combat state-sponsored technology theft; and (4) continuing to assess approaches to support diversification of supply chains to enhance our own supply chain resilience.   President Biden is also directing Ambassador Tai to establish an exclusion process for machinery used in domestic manufacturing and to prioritize, in particular, exclusions for certain solar manufacturing equipment.   Next week, USTR will issue a Federal Register notice announcing procedures for interested persons to comment on the proposed modifications and information concerning an exclusion process for machinery used in domestic manufacturing.    Background     In May 2022, USTR commenced the statutory four-year review process by notifying representatives of domestic industries that benefit from the tariff actions of the possible termination of those actions and of the opportunity for the representatives to request continuation.  In September 2022, USTR announced that because requests for continuation were received, the tariff actions had not terminated and USTR would conduct a review of the tariff actions.  USTR opened a docket on November 15, 2022, for interested persons to submit comments with respect to a number of considerations concerning the review.  USTR received nearly 1,500 comments.   As part of the statutory review process, throughout 2023 and early 2024, USTR and the Section 301 Committee (a staff-level body of the USTR-led, interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee) held numerous meetings with agency experts concerning the review and the comments received.    Specifically, the Report concludes: 

• The Section 301 actions have been effective in encouraging the PRC to take steps toward eliminating some of its technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices and have reduced some of the exposure of U.S. persons and businesses to these technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices.  
• The PRC has not eliminated many of its technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices, which continue to impose a burden or restriction on U.S. commerce. Instead of pursuing fundamental reform, the PRC has persisted, and in some cases become aggressive, including through cyber intrusions and cybertheft, in its attempts to acquire and absorb foreign technology, which further burden or restrict U.S. commerce.  
• Economic analyses generally find that tariffs (particularly PRC retaliation) have had small negative effects on U.S. aggregate economic welfare, positive impacts on U.S. production in the 10 sectors most directly affected by the tariffs, and minimal impacts on economy-wide prices and employment.  
• Negative effects on the United States are particularly associated with retaliatory tariffs that the PRC has applied to U.S. exports.  
• Critically, these analyses examine the tariff actions as isolated policy measures without reference to the policy landscape that may be reinforcing or undermining the effects of the tariffs.  
• Economic analyses, including the principal U.S. Government analysis published by the U.S. International Trade Commission, generally find that the Section 301 tariffs have contributed to reducing U.S. imports of goods from the PRC and increasing imports from alternate sources, including U.S. allies and partners, thereby potentially supporting U.S. supply chain diversification and resilience. 

• 600 17th Street NW
• Washington, DC 20508

• Reports and Publications
• Fact Sheets
• Speeches and Remarks
• Blog and Op-Eds
• The White House Plan to Beat COVID-19
• Free Trade Agreements
• Organization
• Advisory Committees
• USTR.gov/open
• Privacy & Legal
• FOIA & Privacy Act
• Attorney Jobs

Mean Mug Wings & Things

Updated by business owner 2 months ago

People also searched for

outdoor seating

dine-in restaurants

covered outdoor seating

restaurants

Location & Hours

Suggest an edit

3780 W Broad St

Columbus, OH 43228

You Might Also Consider

Torchy’s Tacos

Ebenezer B. said "Mannnnnn. Let me start by saying this was my first experience with Torchys taco, and it won't be my last. The service and ambiance were great, good for dinning in. The tacos were close to amazing. The chicken was so tender paired…" read more

in Breakfast & Brunch, Mexican, Tacos

Michael W. said "I'm generally not one to write reviews, but since this place is new to C-bus, I thought they could use the support. Say what you will about the servers and the uniforms. In my opinion, the ladies are choosing to work here, so who am…" read more

in Beer Bar, Sports Bars, New American

Amenities and More

13 More Attributes

About the Business

We are a small start up restaurant. Many items on our menu are house made. Everything is always made to order. We have appetizers, wings, burgers, salads and other sandwiches. Come give us a shot! You won't be disappointed! …

Ask the Community

Ask a question

Yelp users haven’t asked any questions yet about Mean Mug Wings & Things .

Recommended Reviews

• 1 star rating Not good
• 2 star rating Could’ve been better
• 3 star rating OK
• 4 star rating Good
• 5 star rating Great

Select your rating

Overall rating

Great wings and sauces, especially that Jalapeño kicker sauce, WOW. Highly recommend this place.

Jalapeño kicker wings

Business owner information

Business Owner

Apr 15, 2024

Thank you so much for your review! We appreciate your business and hope to have you back soon.

Went back to Mean Mugs last night for the second time. The first time we went we didn't receive all of our order and lived too far to go back for the rest of it . They made everything right this time and replaced our missing items and gave us 6 free wings. The food was on point very good ! My son especially liked the lemon pepper wings! Glad we found this place excellent food and great customer service !

Thank you so much for your review. We are terribly sorry for the missing items. We appreciate that you are well to give us another shot!

Tried them today for the first time and they were really good! We ordered a lot of different things because we wanted to try a little bit of everything . The only bad thing was when we got home they forgot our buffalo wings ranch and pretzels. I called them and they said we can make those for you really quick but I told him we were too far away to make another trip back. He said the next time you order let us know and we'll replace it and give you 6 free wings we'll make it right . We will go back!

Forno Kitchen + Bar

5.4 miles away from Mean Mug Wings & Things

Bethany K. said "Just like anyone and everyone else, I was expecting a 'hipster/snobby' vibe - based on exterior and location alone.... and just like most of the reviewers, I was wrong. I had made reservations, just in case, but it didn't look like…" read more

in Cocktail Bars, Breakfast & Brunch, Pizza

Mitchell’s Ocean Club

Michelle S. said "Let me start off with the first bad experience we had in the beginning. We made reservations for 8 for 9pm and then needed to add just one more person. The front desk was completely rude and said they can't accommodate one more…" read more

in New American, Steakhouses, Seafood

People Also Viewed

Wings & More

Slapping Wings

Roadhouse Wings & Grille

Steph’s Way

Justice Wings

Royal Burger

Wings Over Columbus

Best of Columbus

Things to do in Columbus

Other Places Nearby

Find more Burgers near Mean Mug Wings & Things

Find more Chicken Wings near Mean Mug Wings & Things

Find more Sandwich Shops near Mean Mug Wings & Things

Browse Nearby

Things to Do

Thrift Stores

Dining in Columbus

Search for Reservations

Book a Table in Columbus

Related Articles

Yelp's 11 Outrageous Burgers

Trusted Reviews is supported by its audience. If you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a commission. Learn more.

Winners and Losers: Canon confirms flagship EOS R1 as Sony Xperia 1 VI loses its 4K display

It’s Sunday again, meaning it’s time for us to name our winner and loser of the week here at Trusted Reviews. 

This week was all about AI as OpenAI announced the latest version of ChatGPT with real-time translation and Google showcased its Gemini AI assistant in Android 15 . 

We also heard polarising news from Apple, as the company revealed that eye-tracking would be coming to the iPhone and iPad in iOS 18. While the feature sounds pretty uncanny, it’s actually designed as an accessibility feature to help people with physical disabilities navigate the interface. 

Speaking of accessibility, Microsoft unveiled a new modular Xbox controller this week designed to address accessibility needs with more than 100 million different custom configurations. 

Keep reading to discover who we named our winner and loser this week.  

Winner: Canon 

Canon is our winner this week after the company officially confirmed that a flagship camera was on its way . 

The EOS R1 has long been rumoured as the flagship of the EOS R mirrorless system, with one Canon exec going as far as to mention it last year. However, this is the first time Canon itself has officially confirmed the camera’s existence. 

According to the popular camera brand, the EOS R1 will be aimed at professionals in need of top-class performance, high durability and the latest cutting-edge technology. This includes photographers and videographers working in sports, news reports, and video production. 

The EOS R1 will be powered by a new image processing system, consisting of a new CMOS sensor, the Digic X, and a newly developed image processor Digic Accelerator. This combination will allow the R1 to process large volumes of data at high speeds and improve subject recognition and subject tracking, with new features that sound especially useful for sports photography. 

The image quality will also see a jump with an image noise reduction function soon available in-camera. 

So, when can you get your hands on the EOS R1? Canon says it’s aiming for a 2024 launch for the flagship camera, meaning we should hear more before the end of the year. 

Loser: Sony 

This week’s loser is Sony as the company announced its own flagship in the form of the Sony Xperia 1 VI . 

While the phone is packed with upgrades, one major downgrade is the display. Sony has ditched the 4K screen that made it unique. 

The Xperia 1 VI swaps out Sony’s signature 4K resolution and 21:9 aspect ratio for an FHD+ display with a more common 19.5:9 aspect ratio. This means you can no longer expect the latest films to fill the screen perfectly, making the change a definite disappointment for cinema fans. 

Of course, the display isn’t all a step backwards for the Xperia line. The display is Sony’s first LTPO screen, meaning it’ll be more energy-efficient than its predecessors. The brightness has also been increased by 50%, while Sony’s ‘Powered by Bravia’ AI image adjustment technology uses machine learning to reproduce the image quality of Sony’s popular TVs. 

Film fans can also rest assured knowing the 3.5mm headphone jack isn’t going anywhere with a new Premium Audio Circuit, while the stereo speakers have received an upgrade too. 

Other upgrades can be found in the camera, battery, chipset, and vapour chamber cooling system. For these reasons, you shouldn’t expect the phone to see a price dip – even with the unfortunate screen downgrade.

You might like…

Ctrl+Alt+Del: Google is ruining its search engine with AI Overview

Fast Charge: 4K was overkill, but the Xperia 1 VI goes too far the other way

Google finally showed me a vision for AI I’m comfortable with

Using the Google Pixel 8a has made me worried about the Pixel 9

Sound & Vision: The new Sonos app looks great, but it’s a mess

Winners and Losers: iPad gets even better while Xbox shutters studios

Hannah joined Trusted Reviews as a staff writer in 2019 after graduating with a degree in English from Royal Holloway, University of London. She’s also worked and studied in the US, holding positions …

Why trust our journalism?

Founded in 2003, Trusted Reviews exists to give our readers thorough, unbiased and independent advice on what to buy.

Today, we have millions of users a month from around the world, and assess more than 1,000 products a year.

Editorial independence

Editorial independence means being able to give an unbiased verdict about a product or company, with the avoidance of conflicts of interest. To ensure this is possible, every member of the editorial staff follows a clear code of conduct.

Professional conduct

We also expect our journalists to follow clear ethical standards in their work. Our staff members must strive for honesty and accuracy in everything they do. We follow the IPSO Editors’ code of practice to underpin these standards.

Sign up to our newsletter

Get the best of Trusted Reviews delivered right to your inbox.

Justice Clarence Thomas calls criticism of him ‘nastiness’ and ‘lies’

Justice Thomas offered some of his most extensive comments since news broke last year of travel and real estate deals paid for by businessman Harlan Crow.

POINT CLEAR, ALA. — After facing harsh questions about his judicial decisions and acceptance of lavish gifts from a billionaire, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas forcefully pushed back at his critics Friday — saying he and his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, have endured “nastiness” and “lies.”

Thomas targeted the maelstrom he has faced in Washington, offering some of his most extensive comments since news broke last year of travel and real estate deals paid for by Republican donor Harlan Crow, and since he has faced calls to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election because of his wife’s involvement with efforts to block Joe Biden’s victory.

“What you are going to find, especially in Washington, is that people are going to pride themselves on being awful,” Thomas said during the hour-long conversation with U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a former clerk of his, at a judicial conference on the Gulf Coast, hundreds of miles from the nation’s capital. “It’s a hideous place.”

The justice went on to say that he maintains his positivity in work and life despite the tribulations. Still, he told his audience that he wished he had remained a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and that he “had no interest in public life” but felt called to it by God. He did not address any recent decisions by the court.

Thomas’s remarks were markedly different in tone from an earlier public appearance Friday by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said consistency, transparency and mutual respect are the keys to improving public trust in the judiciary at a time when support for the Supreme Court has dropped.

In a conversation in Austin with Chief Judge Priscilla Richman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, Kavanaugh acknowledged the polarization in the country over political and legal issues, especially since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the legal right to an abortion established decades earlier by Roe v. Wade .

He said judges and Supreme Court justices must clearly explain their interpretation of the law and apply those legal principles in a uniform fashion. “Individual decisions don’t have to be popular. … The losing party has to respect the decision,” Kavanaugh said at the 5th Circuit Judicial Conference.

“Consistency builds respect,” he continued. “It’s showing up every day in the courtroom and trying to be respectful to the parties, to write your opinion in a way that’s clear and understandable, to get out when you’re speaking and try to explain, to the bar, the judicial process, to try to be transparent and to be impartial as a judge.”

The two talks were part of a flurry of public appearances by members of the high court, which finished oral arguments for this term in late April and now is working on decisions for all the cases in which it has not yet ruled .

On Saturday morning, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. delivered the commencement address at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio. Dressed in a black cap and gown, Alito received a standing ovation from hundreds of students and their families after he was introduced as the author of the court’s majority opinion that eliminated the nationwide right to abortion.

In a speech that quoted from Shakespeare and the comedian Rodney Dangerfield, Alito urged the graduates of the Catholic university to “go boldly and engage the world.” He warned that they may soon find themselves “in a job or community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm,” he said, adding that “there may be times when it’s necessary for you to speak up.”

Supreme Court 2024 major cases

The court is poised to hand down numerous rulings on contentious issues before the current term ends in late June or early July. They include access to the abortion pill mifepristone , whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for election interference, and the scope of the powers of federal agencies.

Kavanaugh’s hour-long question-and-answer session with Richman also touched on the high court’s emergency docket, which in recent years has become a hotbed for highly consequential cases such as Texas’s immigration law — known as S.B. 4 — that expands the state’s role in enforcing border security.

In March, with the legal challenge to the statute’s constitutionality still pending, the Supreme Court declined to take emergency action to keep the law from taking effect. Hours later, the 5th Circuit issued an order blocking its enforcement while the appeal continues.

Kavanaugh said Friday that he understands that the court’s caseload has an effect on American life, far beyond academic and legal circles. In his remarks, Thomas also said the court will have to address the emergency docket.

“Real lives are being affected. Real people are being hurt or helped. You can’t lose sight of that,” Kavanaugh said. “It’s polarized. I get it. I’m part of the system. I understand. I see it.”

The justices’ public appearances come at a challenging moment for the court, amid tepid approval ratings, controversies over ethics and lavish gifts to justices.

A Marquette University Law School poll from February found 40 percent of respondents approved of the work the Supreme Court is doing, while 60 percent disapprove. Gallup’s ongoing opinion surveys show the court’s ratings by the public remain mired at near-record lows.

The spotlight on Thomas has been particularly glaring over his relationship with Crow. In a previous statement, an attorney for Thomas has said he is “confident there has been no willful ethics transgression, and any prior reporting errors were strictly inadvertent.”

In an interview Wednesday, Vice President Harris told the New York Times that she was alarmed by the current court and Thomas in particular.

“This court has shown itself to be an activist court,” Harris said. “I worry about fundamental freedoms across the board.”

In one of his last major speeches, shortly after a draft of the decision overturning Roe was leaked to the media, Thomas lamented the damage that incident caused to the court and likened it to infidelity. He offered a similar refrain Friday, waxing nostalgic about his early days as a justice. He has served on the high court since 1991.

“It would be inconceivable that anyone would leak in the court or do anything to intentionally harm one another,” Thomas said of that period on the court.

Kavanaugh did not address the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which led to the overturning of Roe. Instead, he cited the 5-4 decision in Texas v. Johnson in 1989, which upheld flag-burning as speech protected by the First Amendment, in acknowledging that the high court sometimes issues unpopular decisions.

After the leak of the Dobbs draft, a man with a gun and a knife was detained by police near Kavanaugh’s Maryland home and charged with attempted murder. Nicholas John Roske of Simi Valley, Calif., was upset by the leaked draft as well as the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Tex., according to an affidavit.

Kavanaugh called the heightened security measures that are now in place for the justices “night and day” from when he clerked for then-Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the early 1990s.

“It’s a huge adjustment for your family,” Kavanaugh said. Referring to his two teenage daughters, he added: “You pray that there’s not a long-term impact on them.”

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett have been making joint appearances in recent months, showing a more congenial side to relations between justices despite the deep ideological divisions on the bench.

Raji reported from Austin. Marimow reported from Washington.