Specifies the number of studies evaluated orselected
Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]
Steps of a systematic review
Formulation of researchable questions | Select answerable questions |
Disclosure of studies | Databases, and key words |
Evaluation of its quality | Quality criteria during selection of studies |
Synthesis | Methods interpretation, and synthesis of outcomes |
It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).
In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.
Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.
While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.
One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.
As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.
A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]
Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question
I | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies |
II | Randomized controlled study | Crross-sectional study in consecutive patients | Initial cohort study | Prospective cohort study |
III | One of the following: Non-randomized experimental study (ie. controlled pre-, and post-test intervention study) Comparative studies with concurrent control groups (observational study) (ie. cohort study, case-control study) | One of the following: Cross-sectional study in non-consecutive case series; diagnostic case-control study | One of the following: Untreated control group patients in a randomized controlled study, integrated cohort study | One of the following: Retrospective cohort study, case-control study (Note: these are most prevalently used types of etiological studies; for other alternatives, and interventional studies see Level III |
IV | Case series | Case series | Case series or cohort studies with patients at different stages of their disease states |
Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.
In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.
Critical reviews, both short (one page) and long (four pages), usually have a similar structure. Check your assignment instructions for formatting and structural specifications. Headings are usually optional for longer reviews and can be helpful for the reader.
The length of an introduction is usually one paragraph for a journal article review and two or three paragraphs for a longer book review. Include a few opening sentences that announce the author(s) and the title, and briefly explain the topic of the text. Present the aim of the text and summarise the main finding or key argument. Conclude the introduction with a brief statement of your evaluation of the text. This can be a positive or negative evaluation or, as is usually the case, a mixed response.
Present a summary of the key points along with a limited number of examples. You can also briefly explain the author’s purpose/intentions throughout the text and you may briefly describe how the text is organised. The summary should only make up about a third of the critical review.
The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable features of the text. Remember to base your discussion on specific criteria. Good reviews also include other sources to support your evaluation (remember to reference).
You can choose how to sequence your critique. Here are some examples to get you started:
This is usually a very short paragraph.
If you have used other sources in you review you should also include a list of references at the end of the review.
The best way to summarise
Paraphrasing means putting it into your own words. Paraphrasing offers an alternative to using direct quotations in your summary (and the critique) and can be an efficient way to integrate your summary notes.
The best way to paraphrase
Essay and assignment writing guide.
Study Hacks Workshops | All the hacks you need! 28 May – 25 Jul 2024
4893 Accesses
3 Altmetric
The review article, often the first effort of the beginning writer, remains a fundamental model for the medical writer. Thus, the aspiring author needs to know who writes, who publishes, and who reads review articles. In addition to the familiar article based on disease diagnosis and therapy, there are some special types: the literature review, systematic review and meta-analysis, and evidence-based clinical review. The chapter ends with a list of mistakes often made in writing review articles.
To write an article of any sort is, to some extent, to reveal ourselves. Hence, even a medical article is, in a sense, something of an autobiography. American surgeon J. Chalmers DaCosta (1863–1938) [ 1 ]
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
DaCosta JC. The trials and triumphs of the surgeon. Philadelphia: Dorrance; 1944. Chapter 2.
Google Scholar
Siwek J, Gourlay ML, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. How to write an evidence-based clinical review article. Am Fam Phys. 2002;65(2):251–8.
Terry N, Joubert D. Undertaking a systematic review: what you need to know. National Institutes of Health. http://nihlibrary.campusguides.com/ld.php?content_id=1380821 . Accessed 23 Mar 2017.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a step-by-step guide. University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology. http://www.ccace.ed.ac.uk/research/software-resources/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analyses . Accessed 23 Mar 2017.
Journal of the American Medical Association. Instructions for authors. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/instructions-for-authors . Accessed 23 Mar 2017.
US Preventive Medicine Task Force. Methods and Processes. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/methods-and-processes . Accessed 23 Mar 2017.
SORT: The strength-of-recommendation taxonomy. Am Fam Phys. 2016;93(8):696–7.
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Robert B. Taylor
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Reprints and permissions
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
Taylor, R.B. (2018). How to Write a Review Article. In: Medical Writing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70126-4_6
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70126-4_6
Published : 15 December 2017
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-319-70125-7
Online ISBN : 978-3-319-70126-4
eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)
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
Policies and ethics
It’s been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs case that overturned the federal right to an abortion, and the troubling concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in which he expressed a desire to “revisit” other landmark precedents, including the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, codified nationally by the Obergefell Supreme Court decision, nine years ago Wednesday
Since that ruling, the LGBTQ+ and allied community has done much to protect the fundamental freedom to marry — passing the Respect for Marriage Act in Congress in 2022; sharing their stories this year to mark the 20th anniversary of the first state legalization of same-sex marriages, in Massachusetts; and in California , Hawaii and Colorado launching ballot campaigns to repeal dormant but still-on-the-books anti-marriage constitutional amendments.
The party’s executive board voted Sunday on which measures they would endorse.
May 19, 2024
This winter, I worked with a team at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law to survey nearly 500 married LGBTQ+ people about their relationships. Respondents included couples from every state in the country; on average they had been together for more than 16 years and married for more than nine years. Sixty-two percent married after the court’s 2015 Obergefell marriage decision, although their relationships started before before that. More than 30% of the couples had children and another 25% wanted children in the future.
One finding that jumped out of the data: Almost 80% of married same-sex couples surveyed said they were “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the Obergefell decision being overturned. Around a quarter of them said they’d taken action to shore up their family’s legal protections — pursuing a second-parent adoption, having children earlier than originally planned or marrying on a faster-than-expected timeline — because of concerns about marriage equality being challenged. One respondent said, “We got engaged the day that the Supreme Court ruled on the Dobbs decision and got married one week after.”
World & Nation
The Supreme Court’s historic ruling Friday granting gays and lesbians an equal right to marry nationwide puts an exclamation point on a profound shift in law and public attitudes, and creates the most significant and controversial new constitutional liberty in more than a generation.
June 26, 2015
As we examined the survey results, it became clearer than ever why LGBTQ+ families and same-sex couples are fighting so hard to protect marriage access — and the answer is really quite simple: The freedom to marry has been transformative for them. It has not only granted them hundreds of additional rights and responsibilities, but it has also strengthened their bonds in very real ways.
Nearly every person surveyed (93%) said they married for love; three-quarters added that they married for companionship or legal protections. When asked how marriage changed their lives, 83% reported positive changes in their sense of safety and security, and 75% reported positive changes in terms of life satisfaction. “I feel secure in our relationship in a way I never thought would be possible,” one participant told us. “I love being married.”
I’ve been studying LGBTQ+ people and families for my entire career — and even still, many of the findings of the survey touched and inspired me.
Individual respondents talked about the ways that marriage expanded their personal family networks, granting them (for better and worse!) an additional set of parents, siblings and loved ones. More than 40% relied on each other’s families of origin in times of financial or healthcare crisis, or to help out with childcare. Some told of in-laws who provided financial assistance to buy a house, or cared for them while they were undergoing chemotherapy for cancer.
The legal world may have become inured to wildly rhetorical opinions by Justice Antonin Scalia, but his dissent in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision Friday reaches new heights for its expression of utter contempt for the majority of his colleagues.
And then there was the effect on children. Many respondents explained that their marriage has provided security for their children, and dignity and respect for the family unit. Marriage enabled parents to share child-rearing responsibilities — to take turns being the primary earner (and carrying the health insurance), and spending more time at home with the kids.
The big takeaway from this study is that same-sex couples have a lot on the line when it comes to the freedom to marry — and they’re going to do everything possible to ensure that future political shifts don’t interfere with their lives. As couples across the country continue to speak out, share their stories — and in California, head to the ballot box in November to protect their hard-earned freedoms — it’s clear to me that it’s because they believe wholeheartedly, and with good reason, that their lives depend on it.
Abbie E. Goldberg is an affiliated scholar at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and a psychology professor at Clark University, where she directs the women’s and gender studies.
July 5, 2024
June 9, 2024
June 7, 2024
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
July 4, 2024
Advertisement
Supported by
The case focused on the law firm at the heart of the 2016 scandal, in which leaked documents revealed a vast network of offshore tax havens.
By Leila Miller
Reporting from Mexico City
In a striking verdict for a money-laundering case associated with the Panama Papers scandal, a Panamanian judge on Friday acquitted all 28 defendants, among them former employees of the law firm Mossack Fonseca, the source of the leaked documents that set off a worldwide furor in 2016.
The verdict came eight years after a partnership of media outlets published an explosive investigation into 11.5 million documents leaked from the Panama-based firm. The leak exposed the offshore banking industry, prompted international tax investigations and brought down heads of state.
Among the original 29 defendants were the shuttered firm’s co-founders, Jürgen Mossack, 76, and Ramón Fonseca, who died in May at age 71 while awaiting the verdict. In her 339-page ruling, the judge, Baloísa Marquínez, said that the case against Mr. Fonseca was dropped because of his death.
Prosecutors had alleged that Mossack Fonseca had created shell companies with the purpose of hiding money earned in illicit activities, and that the firm failed to act with due diligence and take the necessary care when reviewing its clients.
In a written statement published Friday evening, Panama’s judicial branch said that the judge had found that electronic evidence presented by prosecutors did not meet chain of custody protocols and had suffered from authentication issues. It also said that the judge had not found sufficient evidence to hold the accused responsible.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
A comprehensive review on liquid electrolyte design for low-temperature lithium/sodium metal batteries.
Lithium/sodium metal batteries (LMBs/SMBs) possess immense potential for various applications due to their high energy density. Nevertheless, the LMBs/SMBs are highly susceptible to the detrimental effects of unstable solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) and dendrites during practical applications, particularly pronounced in low-temperature environments. Furthermore, sluggish ion transportation further compromises the cycling stability of LMBs/SMBs at low temperatures. To achieve stable operation of LMBs/SMBs at low temperatures, researchers have pursed numerous efforts including the electrolyte optimization aimed at creating stable SEI and suppress the metal dendrites under low temperature circumstance. Despite the significant advancements made recently in the liquid electrolyte design, there remains considerable hurdle in the electrolyte engineering for practical low-temperature, high energy density LMBs/SMBs, calling for a profound comprehension of the intricate interplay between the electrochemical reaction kinetics and electrolyte compositions. This review provides a thorough overview of various strategies in optimizing liquid electrolytes covering weakly solvating electrolytes, concentration-designed electrolytes, and solvation structure-designed electrolytes, to address the challenges faced by LMBs/SMBs at low temperatures, including slow reaction kinetics and the difficulties in Li+/Na+ solvation/desolvation. Furthermore, this review discusses future prospects for the advancement of this field, intending to provide valuable insights and support for subsequent research undertakings
Download citation, permissions.
Z. Huang, Z. Xiao, R. Jin, Z. Li, C. Shu, R. Shi, X. Wang, Z. Tang, W. Tang and Y. Wu, Energy Environ. Sci. , 2024, Accepted Manuscript , DOI: 10.1039/D4EE02060J
To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .
If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.
If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .
Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .
Search articles by author.
This article has not yet been cited.
A small brain sample was sliced into 5,000 pieces, and machine learning helped stitch it back together.
A team led by scientists from Harvard and Google has created a 3D, nanoscale-resolution map of a single cubic millimeter of the human brain. Although the map covers just a fraction of the organ—a whole brain is a million times larger—that piece contains roughly 57,000 cells, about 230 millimeters of blood vessels, and nearly 150 million synapses. It is currently the highest-resolution picture of the human brain ever created.
To make a map this finely detailed, the team had to cut the tissue sample into 5,000 slices and scan them with a high-speed electron microscope. Then they used a machine-learning model to help electronically stitch the slices back together and label the features. The raw data set alone took up 1.4 petabytes. “It’s probably the most computer-intensive work in all of neuroscience,” says Michael Hawrylycz, a computational neuroscientist at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, who was not involved in the research. “There is a Herculean amount of work involved.”
Many other brain atlases exist, but most provide much lower-resolution data. At the nanoscale, researchers can trace the brain’s wiring one neuron at a time to the synapses, the places where they connect. “To really understand how the human brain works, how it processes information, how it stores memories, we will ultimately need a map that’s at that resolution,” says Viren Jain, a senior research scientist at Google and coauthor on the paper, published in Science on May 9 . The data set itself and a preprint version of this paper were released in 2021 .
Brain atlases come in many forms. Some reveal how the cells are organized. Others cover gene expression. This one focuses on connections between cells, a field called “connectomics.” The outermost layer of the brain contains roughly 16 billion neurons that link up with each other to form trillions of connections. A single neuron might receive information from hundreds or even thousands of other neurons and send information to a similar number. That makes tracing these connections an exceedingly complex task, even in just a small piece of the brain..
To create this map, the team faced a number of hurdles. The first problem was finding a sample of brain tissue. The brain deteriorates quickly after death, so cadaver tissue doesn’t work. Instead, the team used a piece of tissue removed from a woman with epilepsy during brain surgery that was meant to help control her seizures.
Once the researchers had the sample, they had to carefully preserve it in resin so that it could be cut into slices, each about a thousandth the thickness of a human hair. Then they imaged the sections using a high-speed electron microscope designed specifically for this project.
Next came the computational challenge. “You have all of these wires traversing everywhere in three dimensions, making all kinds of different connections,” Jain says. The team at Google used a machine-learning model to stitch the slices back together, align each one with the next, color-code the wiring, and find the connections. This is harder than it might seem. “If you make a single mistake, then all of the connections attached to that wire are now incorrect,” Jain says.
“The ability to get this deep a reconstruction of any human brain sample is an important advance,” says Seth Ament, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland. The map is “the closest to the ground truth that we can get right now.” But he also cautions that it’s a single brain specimen taken from a single individual.
The map, which is freely available at a web platform called Neuroglancer , is meant to be a resource other researchers can use to make their own discoveries. “Now anybody who’s interested in studying the human cortex in this level of detail can go into the data themselves. They can proofread certain structures to make sure everything is correct, and then publish their own findings,” Jain says. (The preprint has already been cited at least 136 times .)
The team has already identified some surprises. For example, some of the long tendrils that carry signals from one neuron to the next formed “whorls,” spots where they twirled around themselves. Axons typically form a single synapse to transmit information to the next cell. The team identified single axons that formed repeated connections—in some cases, 50 separate synapses. Why that might be isn’t yet clear, but the strong bonds could help facilitate very quick or strong reactions to certain stimuli, Jain says. “It’s a very simple finding about the organization of the human cortex,” he says. But “we didn’t know this before because we didn’t have maps at this resolution.”
The data set was full of surprises, says Jeff Lichtman, a neuroscientist at Harvard University who helped lead the research. “There were just so many things in it that were incompatible with what you would read in a textbook.” The researchers may not have explanations for what they’re seeing, but they have plenty of new questions: “That’s the way science moves forward.”
This grim but revolutionary dna technology is changing how we respond to mass disasters.
After hundreds went missing in Maui’s deadly fires, rapid DNA analysis helped identify victims within just a few hours and bring families some closure more quickly than ever before. But it also previews a dark future marked by increasingly frequent catastrophic events.
If we want our vaccine production process to be more robust and faster, we’ll have to stop relying on chicken eggs.
“Electroceuticals” promised the post-pharma future for medicine. But the exclusive focus on the nervous system is seeming less and less warranted.
BrainBridge is best understood as the first public billboard for a hugely controversial scheme to defeat death.
Get the latest updates from mit technology review.
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.
Thank you for submitting your email!
It looks like something went wrong.
We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Academics hope to publish their research in journals (shown), but their initial submissions are often rejected. Credit: Getty
Like actors and writers, researchers experience their fair share of rejection. Scientists submit their work to journals, hoping that it will be accepted, but many manuscripts are rejected from their authors’ top-choice publication and eventually get accepted by another. A considerable number of submissions don’t ever find a home.
A study 1 sheds light on this process of rejection and resubmission, which it argues can be skewed by the differing attitudes and behaviours of researchers around the world.
After following the fate of some 126,000 rejected manuscripts, the research team found that authors in Western countries are almost 6% more likely than are those based in other parts of the world to successfully publish a paper after it has been rejected. This could be, the authors suggest, because of regional differences in access to ‘procedural knowledge’ of how to deal with rejection — how to interpret negative reviews, revise accordingly and resubmit to a journal that is likely to accept the work. (Many academic journals are based in Western countries.)
“Maybe it’s something about being in the right networks and being able to get the right kind of advice at the right time,” says co-author Misha Teplitskiy, a sociologist studying innovation in science and technology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
Teplitskiy and his colleagues worked with data provided by IOP Publishing (IOPP), a company based in Bristol, UK, that publishes more than 90 English-language journals and is owned by the Institute of Physics.
They examined around 203,000 manuscripts that were submitted to 62 of IOPP’s physical-sciences journals between 2018 and 2022. Some 62% were rejected. The researchers scoured a bibliometric database to see whether the same (or similar) work was subsequently published elsewhere. They then sorted these publications by the geographical region of the corresponding author — the researcher who is usually in charge of a study’s publication process — and compared the outcomes for authors from the West (which they define as North America, Europe and Oceania) with those from the rest of the world.
Source: Ref. 1
To compare the fate of rejected papers as fairly as possible, the authors categorized them by quality, using the ratings and comments of the original peer reviewers recorded in the IOPP data. In this way, they could compare ‘like for like’: for example, looking at whether low-quality papers from Western authors had different outcomes from those rated as similar quality but written by authors from other parts of the world.
The analysis — published ahead of peer review as a preprint on the SSRN server 1 — showed that corresponding authors from Western countries are 5.7% more likely to publish a manuscript after rejection than those from other regions. In a process that often takes up to 300 days, they did so 23 days faster, on average. These authors also revised the abstract of their manuscript — a proxy for the overall paper — 5.9% less often, as defined by a computational ‘edit distance’ metric. And, ultimately, they published in journals with 0.8% higher impact factors. This metric reflects how often papers in a journal are cited, but is equated by some with the journal’s reach and prestige.
In a breakdown by country, the team’s analysis showed that around 70% of papers from Asian nations such as China and India were published eventually, compared with 85% from the United States, and close to 90% for many European countries (see ‘Publishing outcomes by country’).
What’s responsible for these differences? It’s hard to be sure, Teplitskiy says, but the results are consistent — at least in part — with the idea that the tacit norms and rules of the publishing process circulate more widely in the West, which leads to a higher likelihood of successful responses by Western scientists to rejections. His team tried to ask the authors of rejected papers about this hypothesis in a follow-up survey, but got few responses.
“People hate surveys in general, but they really don’t like surveys about their rejected papers,” he says.
The way the authors rated and compared papers of similar quality is a good approach, says Honglin Bao, a data scientist at Harvard Business School in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked previously in China: “I think this works.”
The true cost of science’s language barrier for non-native English speakers
Differing procedural knowledge could contribute to the well-known bias in the peer-review system against researchers who are not based in Western countries, Bao says. Another possibility is that cultural factors work against researchers and add to the system’s bias. For example, many journals are written in English, which puts researchers whose first language is not English at a disadvantage , and could contribute to their poorer performance after rejection.
Teplitskiy will now face the possible rejection–resubmission cycle himself. He has submitted the study to the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for peer review, but is realistic about the probable outcome. “I think this paper’s great, but I know the process is noisy,” he says. “We expect that it will bounce around early on and then land somewhere.”
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02142-w
Chen, H., Rider, C. I., Jurgens, D. & Teplitskiy, M. Preprint at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4872023 (2024).
Download references
Reprints and permissions
Spy on millions of sleeping butterflies and more — June’s best science images
News 02 JUL 24
‘It can feel like there’s no way out’ — political scientists face pushback on their work
News Feature 19 JUN 24
How climate change is hitting Europe: three graphics reveal health impacts
News 18 JUN 24
‘All things that wander in the heavens’: how I swapped my ivory tower for the world of science fiction
Career Q&A 04 JUL 24
Give UK science the overhaul it urgently needs
Comment 04 JUL 24
Japan’s scientists demand more money for basic science
News 04 JUL 24
A position as a Staff scientist in Computational Metabolomics is available at the SciLifeLab Metabolomics Platform.
Umeå (Kommun), Västerbotten (SE)
Umeå University (KBC)
APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: August 15th, 2024 Human Technopole (HT) is an interdisciplinary life science research institute, created and supported by...
Human Technopole
IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...
Beijing, China
Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
Jointly sponsored by the Hangzhou Municipal People's Government and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Hangzhou Institute of Advanced Study, UCAS
An exciting opportunity has arisen for a highly motivated Postdoctoral Research Scientist to join Professor Chapman’s Group, to investigate how DNA...
Oxford, Oxfordshire
University of Oxford, Radcliffe Department of Medicine
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
3. Identify the article. Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.
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. ... Your custom essay must contain these constituent ...
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 ...
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 ...
Here is a basic, detailed outline for an article review you should be aware of as a pre-writing process if you are wondering how to write an article review. Introduction. Introduce the article that you are reviewing (author name, publication date, title, etc.) Now provide an overview of the article's main topic.
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.
What is an Article Review? In simple terms, an article review essay is like a summary and evaluation of another professional or expert's work. It may also be referred to as a literature review that includes an outline of the most recent research on the subject, or a critical review that focuses on a specific article with smaller scope.
An article review is more than a mere summary; it is a thoughtful analysis and critique that goes beyond the surface of the title. ... Writing an Article Review in 7 Steps. Use our essay writer service or move on to understanding how to write a review paper covering everything from creating the title to summarizing key points. This step-by-step ...
For an article review, your task is to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. You are being asked to make judgments, positive or negative, about the content of the article. The criteria you follow to do this will vary based upon your particular academic discipline and the parameters of your ...
A journal article review is written for a reader who is knowledgeable in the discipline and is interested not just in the coverage and content of the article being reviewed, but also in your critical assessment of the ideas and argument that are being presented by the author.
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 ...
A well-structured essay not only guides the reader through your arguments but also enhances the impact of your analysis. To achieve this, a review essay should be clear, concise, focused, and analytical. Clear and Concise Communication: The hallmark of a good review essay is its clarity.
Read each section of a text carefully and write down two things: 1) the main point or idea, and 2) its function in the text. In other words, write down what each section says and what it does. This will help you to see how the author develops their argument and uses evidence for support.
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. ...
An article review is a critical evaluation of an article. To write an article review, you select and read an article carefully, and summarize the author's main ideas and research findings. ... Use the article provided by your professor or search for academic essays on the required topic. Select 3-5 articles to choose from. To find articles ...
Don't: Be discouraged if your outline keeps changing as you get further into the writing process. Writing and structuring your review should be iterative as you continue to refine, read more papers, and start to actually get words down on the page. Don't: Summarize the results and rehash the discussion of papers you are citing.
A review article is a type of professional essay writing. So you need to study its subject carefully. Use multiple sources and highlight the main arguments. Then form your own opinion on the given topic. In conclusion of your article review, you should bring new arguments for or against the author's opinion.
A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.
Course Number Instructor's Name Your Name The titles of the readings under review. Part 1 (about 1-2 pages) • state a question you wish to answer or a theme you wish to address using the readings. • state your answer to the question or conclusion about the theme. • give a road-map for how you are going to make that argument. Part 2 ...
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic. ...
Summarising and paraphrasing are essential skills for academic writing and in particular, the critical review. To summarise means to reduce a text to its main points and its most important ideas. The length of your summary for a critical review should only be about one quarter to one third of the whole critical review. The best way to summarise.
The literature review is written to present the state of the art . Sometimes the authors use the phrases literature review or state of the art in the title. If not, you can usually recognize a literature review by the general title and the absence of the words such as study of, clinical trial, or effects of.
It's been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs case that overturned the federal right to an abortion, and the troubling concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in ...
'It's not a political essay, it's a medical one': Dr. Sanjay Gupta calls for Biden to undergo cognitive testing
The Panama Papers investigation began with a message from an anonymous whistle-blower to Süddeutsche Zeitung, a German newspaper, asking if it was interested in data.
This review provides a thorough overview of various strategies in optimizing liquid electrolytes covering weakly solvating electrolytes, concentration-designed electrolytes, and solvation structure-designed electrolytes, to address the challenges faced by LMBs/SMBs at low temperatures, including slow reaction kinetics and the difficulties in ...
Princess Anne being injured by a horse and the start of a trial over an alleged Holly Willoughby kidnap plot are among Tuesday's front page stories.
A massive suite of papers offers a high-res view of the human and non-human primate brain. Many other brain atlases exist, but most provide much lower-resolution data.
The analysis — published ahead of peer review as a preprint on the SSRN server 1 — showed that corresponding authors from Western countries are 5.7% more likely to publish a manuscript after ...