Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
Article review writing format, steps, examples and illustration PDF Compiled by Mohammed Yismaw
2021, Article review writing format, steps, examples and illustration PDF Compiled by Mohammed Yismaw
The purpose of this document is to help students and researchers understand how a review of an academic journal is conducted and reported in different fields of study. Review articles in academic journals that analyze or discuss researches previously published by others, rather than reporting new research results or findings. Summaries and critiques are two ways to write a review of a scientific journal article. Both types of writing ask you first to read and understand an article from the primary literature about your topic. The summary involves briefly but accurately stating the key points of the article for a reader who has not read the original article. The critique begins by summarizing the article and then analyzes and evaluates the author’s research. Summaries and critiques help you learn to synthesize information from different sources and are usually limited to two pages maximum.
Related Papers
Harald von Kortzfleisch , Christoph Kahle
Neue Technologien und Innovationen stellen heutzutage wichtige Schlüsselelemente der Wachstums und Erfolgssicherung von Unternehmen dar. Durch einen in Geschwindigkeit und Intensität immer schneller zunehmenden Wettbewerb nehmen Innovationen eine immer zentralere Rolle im Praxisalltag von Unternehmen ein. Dieser technische Fortschritt treibt auch in der Wissenschaft das Thema des Innovationsmanagements in den letzten Jahrzehnten immer stärker voran und wird dort ausgiebig diskutiert. Die Bedeutung von Innovationen wächst dabei ebenfalls aus der Sicht der Kunden, welche heutzutage viel differenzierter als früher Produkte und Dienste nachfragen und somit Unternehmen vor neue Herausforderungen stellen. Ãberdies stellen Innovationen heute ein entscheidendes Bindeglied zwischen Marktorientierung und erhofften Unternehmenserfolg dar. Seit einigen Jahren lässt sich eine Ãffnung der Unternehmensgrenzen für externe Quellen wie Kunden, Zulieferer, Universitäten oder teilweise auch M...
SSRN Electronic Journal
Helmut Krcmar
Dominic Lindner
Alexandra Waluszewski
Research Policy
Nuria Gonzalez Alvarez
Creativity and Innovation Management
Matti Pihlajamaa
Firms tap into user knowledge to learn about the users’ needs. While users have been recognized as a valuable source of knowledge for innovation, few studies have investigated how their knowledge is integrated into innovation processes in the context of complex products and systems (CoPS). The purpose of this study is to reveal the practices of CoPS manufacturers to facilitate user knowledge utilization for innovation. We investigate two case companies, a medical device manufacturer and an aircraft manufacturer, and report on seven managerial practices for utilizing user knowledge. We adopt the absorptive capacity model in structuring our findings and elaborate three of the model's sub-capabilities (recognition of the value of user knowledge, acquisition of user knowledge, and assimilation/transformation of user knowledge) by proposing that each is associated with a distinct managerial goal and related practices: (1) Sensitizing the organization to the innovation potential of user knowledge, (2) identifying and gaining access to suitable user knowledge, and (3) analyzing and interpreting user knowledge and integrating it into product development. Our study contributes to the innovation management literature by analyzing the capabilities required to utilize user knowledge throughout the CoPS innovation process.
Information & Management
Diffusion of digital technologies into the manufacturing industry has created new opportunities for innovation that firms must address to remain competitive. We investigate the role of customer and user knowledge in the digital innovation processes of three global B2B manufacturing companies. We find that the B2B manufacturing industry's characteristics influence how users and customers may be leveraged. Customers making the purchasing decisions are considered for knowledge about short-term changes in market needs, while users working directly with the products provide long-term guidance for digital innovation. We identify practices for acquiring, distributing, and using customer and user knowledge for digital innovation.
Journal of business market management
Patricia Sandmeier
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation JEMI
Given the rising role of users in innovation processes and the increasing amount of research in this field the aim of this paper is to explore the limits of our understanding of the user innovation (UI) concept. In doing so, the study addresses four basic questions: (1) Why do users create and share innovation? (2) Who is the user-innovator? (3) What type of innovation do users create? (4) How do users innovate? The results of a systematic literature review identified the main research streams on user innovation, together with weaknesses of past research and perspectives for future studies.
RELATED PAPERS
Gernot Grabher
Journal of Computer‐ …
Petra Schubert , Kathrin Möslein
Mossimo Sesom
Shahab Zare
Arthur Shulman
International Journal of Technology Management
Richard Farr
European Journal of Dental Education
Y.P. CHANDRA
Chandra Yanto
Management Science
John Roberts
Maria Antikainen
Johanna Bragge
intechopen.com
Ivona Vrdoljak Raguz
Service Science
Tuure Tuunanen
Jouni K Juntunen
Benji Decker
Eva Heiskanen
Handbook of Marketing
Jerome Hauser
Service Industries Journal
Christian Kowalkowski
Journal of Engineering Design
Ola Isaksson , Anna Rönnbäck
Journal of Management
Bettina Bastian
International Journal of Innovation Management
Harald von Kortzfleisch
Guido H Baltes
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management
Raimo Lovio
Marco Bertoni , Christian Johansson
Dominik Walcher
Managing Service Quality
Tor W. Andreassen
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Gary Schirr
System Sciences, 2004. …
Ralf Reichwald , Dominik Walcher
Edina Vadovics
Jouni Similä
Luis Cancino Muñoz
Shell Artillery
Ralf Reichwald
Journal of the Academy of …
Ian Wilkinson , Subroto Roy
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2024
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
- BMJ Health Care Inform
- v.28(1); 2021
A step-by-step guide to peer review: a template for patients and novice reviewers
1 General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Charlotte Blease
2 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
3 Harvard Medical School
While relatively novel, patient peer review has the potential to change the healthcare publishing paradigm. It can do this by helping researchers enlarge the pool of people who are welcome to read, understand and participate in healthcare research. Academic journals who are early adopters of patient peer review have already committed to placing a priority on using person-centred language in publicly available abstracts and focusing on translational and practical research.
A wide body of literature has shown that including people with lived experiences in a truly meaningful way can improve the quality and efficiency of health research. Traditionally considered only as ‘subjects’ of research, over the last 10–15 years, patients and care partners have increasingly been invited to contribute to the design and conduct of studies. Established institutions are increasingly recognising the distinctive expertise patients possess—many patients have acquired deep insights about their conditions, symptoms, medical treatments and quality of healthcare delivery. Among some funders, including the views of patients is now a requirement to ensure research proposals are meaningful to persons with the lived experience of illness. Further illustrating these developments, patients are now involved in reviewing and making recommendations as part of funding institutions, setting research agendas and priorities, being funded for and leading their own research and leading or coauthoring scholarly publications, and are now participating in the peer review process for academic journals. 1–5 Patients offer an outsider’s perspective within mainstream healthcare: they have fewer institutional, professional or social allegiances and conflicts of interest—factors recognised as compromising the quality of research. Patient involvement is essential to move away from rhetorical commitments to embrace a truly patient-centred healthcare ecosystem where everyone has a place at the table.
As people with lived health experiences climb a ladder of engagement in patient–researcher partnerships, they may be asked to act as peer reviewers of academic manuscripts. However, many of these individuals do not hold professional training in medicine, healthcare or science and have never encountered the peer review process. Little guidance exists for patients and care partners tasked with reviewing and providing input on manuscripts in search of publication.
In conversation, however, even experienced researchers confess that learning how to peer review is part of a hidden curriculum in academia—a skill outlined by no formal means but rather learnt by mimicry. 6 As such, as they learn the process, novices may pick up bad habits. In the case of peer review, learning is the result of reading large numbers of academic papers, occasional conversations with mentors or commonly “trial by fire” experienced via reviewer comments to their own submissions. Patient reviewers are rarely exposed to these experiences and can be at a loss for where to begin. As a result, some may forgo opportunities to provide valuable and highly insightful feedback on research publications. Although some journals are highly specific about how reviewers should structure their feedback, many publications—including top-tier medical journals—assume that all reviewers will know how to construct responses. Only a few forward-thinking journals actively seeking peer review from people with lived health experiences currently point to review tips designed for experienced professionals. 7
As people with lived health experiences are increasingly invited to participate in peer review, it is essential that they be supported in this process. The peer review template for patients and novice reviewers ( table 1 ) is a series of steps designed to create a workflow for the main components of peer review. A structured workflow can help a reviewer organise their thoughts and create space to engage in critical thinking. The template is a starting point for anyone new to peer review, and it should be modified, adapted and built on for individual preferences and unique journal requirements. Peer reviews are commonly submitted via website portals, which vary widely in design and functionality; as such, reviewers are encouraged to decide how to best use the template on a case-by-case basis. Journals may require reviewers to copy and paste responses from the template into a journal website or upload a clean copy of the template as an attachment. Note: If uploading the review as an attachment, remember to remove the template examples and writing prompts .
Peer review template for patients and other novice reviewers
It is important to point out that patient reviewers are not alone in facing challenges and a steep learning curve in performing peer review. Many health research agendas and, as a result, publications straddle disciplines, requiring peer reviewers with complementary expertise and training. Some experts may be highly equipped to critique particular aspects of research papers while unsuited to comment on other parts. Curiously, however, it is seldom a requirement that invited peer reviewers admit their own limitations to comment on different dimensions of papers. Relatedly, while we do not suggest that all patient peer reviewers will be equipped to critique every aspect of submitted manuscripts—though some may be fully competent to do so—we suggest that candour about limitations of expertise would also benefit the broader research community.
As novice reviewers gain experience, they may find themselves solicited for a growing number of reviews, much like their more experienced counterparts or mentors. 8 Serving as a patient or care partner reviewer can be a rewarding form of advocacy and will be crucial to harnessing the feedback and expertise of persons with lived health experiences. As we move into a future where online searches for information are a ubiquitous first step in searching for answers to health-related questions, patient and novice reviewers may become the much-needed link between academia and the lay public.
Acknowledgments
LS thanks the experienced and novice reviewers who encouraged her to publish this template.
Twitter: @TheLizArmy, @@crblease
Contributors: Both authors contributed substantially to the manuscript. LS conceived the idea and design and drafted the text. CB refined the idea and critically revised the text.
Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests: The authors have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: LS is a member of the BMJ Patient Advisory Panel, serves as a BMJ patient reviewer and is an ad hoc patient reviewer for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CB is a Keane OpenNotes scholar; both LS and CB work on OpenNotes, a philanthropically funded research initiative focused on improving transparency in healthcare.
Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication.
Not required.
- 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 New
- Train Your Brain
- Explore More
- Support wikiHow
- About wikiHow
- Log in / Sign up
- Education and Communications
- Critical Reviews
How to Write an Article Review
Last Updated: September 8, 2023 Fact Checked
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 13 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 3,090,220 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."
Things You Should Know
- 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. [1] X Research source
Preparing to Write Your Review
- 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.
Writing the Article Review
- 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. [10] 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.
Sample Article Reviews
Expert Q&A
You Might Also Like
- ↑ https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/proofreading/
- ↑ 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
Oct 25, 2023
Vanita Meghrajani
Jul 21, 2016
Featured Articles
Trending Articles
Watch Articles
- Terms of Use
- Privacy Policy
- Do Not Sell or Share My Info
- Not Selling Info
Don’t miss out! Sign up for
wikiHow’s newsletter
The Clinician’s Guide to Medical Writing pp 127–141 Cite as
How to Write a Review Article
3295 Accesses
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .
Buying options
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Day RA. How to publish a scientific paper. 5th ed. Westport, CT: Oryx; 1998:163.
Google Scholar
Siwek J, Gourlay ML, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. How to write an evidence-based clinical review article. Am Fam Phys 2002;65:251–258.
Journal of the American Medical Association. Instructions for authors. JAMA 2004;291:125–131. Available at: http://jama. ama-assn.org/ifora_current/dtl.
Harris RP, Helfand M, Wolff SH, et al. Methods Work Group, Third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. A review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(3 suppl):21–35.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Phys 2004;69:548–556.
Download references
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter.
(2005). How to Write a Review Article. In: The Clinician’s Guide to Medical Writing. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-27024-8_6
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-27024-8_6
Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN : 978-0-387-22249-3
Online ISBN : 978-0-387-27024-1
eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)
Share this chapter
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
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
Article Review
Article reviews are an essential part of academic article writing , providing an opportunity to evaluate and analyze published research. A well-written review can help readers understand the simple subject matter and determine the value of the article. In this article, we’ll cover what is an article review, provide step-by-step guidance on how to write one, and answer some common questions.
1. Journal Article Review Form
Size: 84 KB
2. Article Review & Critique
Size: 420 KB
3. Formal Article Review
Size: 188 KB
4. Article Review Guideline
Size: 157 KB
5. Book and Article Reviews
Size: 284 KB
6. Format for Review Article
Size: 71 KB
7. Scientific Article Review
Size: 258 KB
8. Critical Reviews of Journal Articles
Size: 50 KB
9. Research Experience Article Review
Size: 31 KB
10. Review for Article Psychological Bulletin
11. Article Format Guide Review
Size: 449 KB
12. Value Of Review Article
Size: 51 KB
13. Articles for Peer-Review Publications
Size: 181 KB
14. Law Review Article Selection Process
15. Creative Article Review
Size: 46 KB
16. Club Article Review
Size: 77 KB
17. Review of Research Articles
Size: 152 KB
What is an Article Review
An article review is a critical assessment of a scholarly article or research paper. It involves analyzing the content, methodology, and findings of the article and providing an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. The review typically includes a summary of the article’s main points, an evaluation of its contribution to the subject, and suggestions for improvement.
How to Write an Article Review
Writing an article review can be a challenging task, but it’s an essential skill for students and researchers alike. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you write an effective article review:
Choose the article to review
Select an article that is relevant to your subject and interests you. Make sure the article is recent, reputable, and published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Read the article carefully
Read the article thoroughly and take notes as you go. Pay attention to the author’s thesis statement, research question, methodology, and findings.
Identify the main points and key arguments
Determine the main points and arguments of the article. Look for evidence that supports the author’s thesis statement.
Evaluate the article’s methodology and research design
Evaluate the methodology and research design used in the article. Determine if the research methods were appropriate and effective in answering the research question.
Assess the article’s strengths and weaknesses
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Evaluate the quality of the evidence presented and the logic of the arguments made.
Write a summary of the article
Summarize the article in your own words. Include the main points, key arguments, and findings of the article.
Write the main body of the review
In the main body of the review, analyze and evaluate the article. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article and provide evidence to support your claims.
Conclude with a final evaluation and recommendations for improvement
Conclude your review with a final evaluation conclusion of the article. Highlight its strengths and weaknesses and provide recommendations for improvement.
Proofread and edit the review
After completing your review, proofread and edit it carefully. Check for spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Make sure your review is clear, concise, and well-organized.
What is the difference between an article review and a literature review?
A literature review is a comprehensive analysis of published research on a particular subject, while an article review focuses specifically on one article.
Can I use first-person sentences in an article review?
It depends on the guidelines given by your instructor or the publication you are submitting the review to. Generally, using the third person is more appropriate for academic writing sentences .
Should I include the abstract of the article in my review?
Yes, including a brief summary of the article’s abstract is usually a good idea.
How long should an article review be?
The length of an article review varies depending on the subject and the publication requirements. Generally, a review should be between 500 and 1000 words.
Writing an effective article review requires careful analysis, evaluation, and critique of the article. By following our step-by-step guide, you can develop the skills to write a comprehensive and insightful review that provides valuable information to readers. Whether you’re reviewing an academic article, book or manuscript , or any other subject, the tips and techniques outlined here will help you write an effective article review.
AI Generator
Text prompt
- Instructive
- Professional
10 Examples of Public speaking
20 Examples of Gas lighting
Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024
Regions & Countries
Political typology quiz.
Notice: Beginning April 18th community groups will be temporarily unavailable for extended maintenance. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Where do you fit in the political typology?
Are you a faith and flag conservative progressive left or somewhere in between.
Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if it isn’t exactly right.
About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
- What are the article's shortcomings and limitations? - Are all important aspects and issues of its domain covered? - Examine and comment the logic given in the article Suggested Format of an article review uous information. Illustrative Example for article review Article Reviewed: Matthias, M., Sascha, V., & Jonathan, L. (2014).
Ev en better you might. consider doing an argument map (see Chapter 9, Critical thinking). Step 5: Put the article aside and think about what you have read. Good critical review. writing requires ...
Actions to Take. 1. Skim the article without taking notes: Read the abstract. The abstract will tell you the major findings of the article and why they matter. Read first for the "big picture.". Note any terms or techniques you need to define. Jot down any questions or parts you don't understand.
Include this information when writing up the method for your review. 5 Look for previous reviews on the topic. Use them as a springboard for your own review, critiquing the earlier reviews, adding more recently published material, and pos-sibly exploring a different perspective. Exploit their refer-ences as another entry point into the literature.
Here is a sample extract from a critical review of an article. In this brochure only the introduction and conclusion are included. We thank Suwandi Tijia for allowing us to use his critical review in this resource. Title Introduction Introduces the author and topic area. Presents the aim/purpose of the article Key findings Reviewer's ...
with the instructions for contributors, for example, with regards to formatting or language level, and will send it back to the author if changes are needed. The handling Editor will make the decision on whether to send the paper to peer review, based on its fit for the journal and apparent academic quality.
Please follow the below specifications when writing a Review, a Technical Review or a Roadmap article for Nature Reviews. Preferred file format is Microsoft Word (.docx, .doc or .rtf), LaTeX ...
discussion. In a research based article, summarise each section of the article. The purpose of the critique is to express your judgments and comments about the writing you are reviewing. It consists of personal judgments, comments and opinions. Ask yourself the following questions about the article. Argument
When drawing up an initial outline, consider any unique features of the article type that you're develop-ing and always refer to the journal's guidelines on word, page and reference limits. Most review articles are between 4000 and 6000 words in length and as a rule of thumb, 8090% of the text should be within. -.
texts on the same topic. The type of texts you may be asked to review could include books, articles, reports, websites, or films. 1. Purpose 2. Structure 3. Writing style 4. Example 1. Purpose To summarise and evaluate a text, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses. 2. Structure of a critical review • Review of a single text: o Introduction
Write the literature review in the past tense; the research has already been completed. The article cannot "do", "find", or "say" anything. The authors are the people who conducted the study. The above format is a guideline. It may be necessary to change the verbs or to expand an idea. Sample format, Page 2 of 2.
Basically, the conclusion section of a review article should provide a summary of key findings from the main body of the manuscript. In this section, the author needs to revisit the critical points of the paper as well as highlight the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the inferences drawn in the article review.
The following two sample papers were published in annotated form in the Publication Manual and are reproduced here as PDFs for your ease of use. The annotations draw attention to content and formatting and provide the relevant sections of the Publication Manual (7th ed.) to consult for more information.. Student sample paper with annotations (PDF, 4.95MB)
WRITING PROMPTS: 1. Summarise what the paper is about in two to three sentences: Example: "This is an interview study of 53 people living with metastatic cancer about their perspective on physicians' use of the computer during follow-up visits. The findings are similar to other studies the authors cite (basically, most patients don't seem to mind when doctors are using the computer).
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. 4.
There is no strict rule, but a short literature review generally requires about 7-12 research articles and is about 10-15 pages long, although this may change depending on if the assignment is limited to a certain number of studies or a page limit. There are three main steps: (1) selecting a research topic, (2) collecting and reading the ...
review paper is not an original publication.1 I understand the "nonoriginal" viewpoint, especially if held by a research scien-tist. It is true that review papers add no new data to the litera-ture. However, I believe that review articles are original in that they bring new thinking to the literature. They provide us
Review Article. published specifically, material, systematic that to summarize reporting a of secondary or analysis. literature. understanding Literature a summary literature re-presents previously published original experimental papers that meet Systematic believe are the best and most relevant publications. determine an objective list of ...
An article review is a critical assessment of a scholarly article or research paper. It involves analyzing the content, methodology, and findings of the article and providing an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. The review typically includes a summary of the article's main points, an evaluation of its contribution to the subject ...
Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That's OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if ...