how to write conclusion for article review

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• CME Reviews
• Best of 2021 collection
• Abbreviated Breast MRI Virtual Collection
• Contrast-enhanced Mammography Collection
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Accepted Papers Resource Guide
• About Journal of Breast Imaging
• About the Society of Breast Imaging
• Guidelines for Reviewers
• Resources for Reviewers and Authors
• Editorial Board
• Advertising Disclaimer
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• Introduction
• Selection of a Topic
• Scientific Literature Search and Analysis
• Structure of a Scientific Review Article
• Tips for Success
• Acknowledgments
• Conflict of Interest Statement
• < Previous

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Manisha Bahl, A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article, Journal of Breast Imaging , Volume 5, Issue 4, July/August 2023, Pages 480–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

• narrative discourse

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2631-6129
• Print ISSN 2631-6110
• Copyright © 2024 Society of Breast Imaging
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• 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 3,104,922 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

• Good Writing
• Revising & Rewriting
• Nonfiction Writing
• Academic Writing
• Travel Writing
• Literary Agents
• Getting Published
• Fiction Writing
• Self-Publishing
• Marketing & Selling Books
• Building a Blog
• Making Money Blogging
• Boosting Blog Traffic
• Online Writing
• eZine Writing
• Making Money Online
• Non-Fiction Writing
• Magazine Writing
• Pitching Query Letters
• Working With Editors
• Professional Writers
• Newspaper Writing
• Making Money Writing
• Running a Writing Business

How to End Your Article: 5 Ways to Write a Powerful Conclusion

• April 28, 2024
• 13 Comments

A good article ends with a conclusion that surprises the reader, yet makes sense. Writing an ending that summarizes your ideas is difficult, but not impossible.

Endings are important. So important, in fact, that some writers say a strong ending is more important than a strong beginning. I disagree. If you don’t hook your reader from the start, she’ll never get to the end.

Nevertheless, ending your article on a high note gives it power to stick with the reader forever. Or a really long time. In this article, you won’t find a “one size fits all” tip on how to end your article because it doesn’t exist. You will, however, find the five most effective ways to write a conclusion.

“It is always important to know when something has reached its end,” writes Paulo Coelho in The Zahir: A Novel of Obsession . “Closing circles, shutting doors, finishing chapters, it doesn’t matter what we call it; what matters is to leave in the past those moments in life that are over.”

Sometimes the ending practically writes itself. Other times you have to wrestle that ending to the ground. Either way, you must be alert. Writing a great conclusion is easier when you have a variety of tools and techniques to choose from. Who goes into battle empty-handed? These five tips for ending your article will help you find the right way to say “The End” without coming out and saying…The End.

Whether you’re writing an article for a national magazine or blogging a little blurb, keep the ending at the back of your mind. What impression do you want to leave the readers with? How do you want them to feel, what do you want them to do? As you research, write and revise your article, stay alert to possible endings. Play with different ideas.

5 Powerful Ways to End Your Article

Some writers say the conclusion of an article could work just as well as the introduction – with a slight modification. I think it depends on your article, writing style, and audience.

Your conclusion rounds out the article, ties up the loose ends. It’s not an afterthought. To be powerful, a strong ending has to develop naturally from the article, essay, or chapter. The conclusion has to both surprise readers and make them feel like they should’ve known it was coming all along.

1. End with a quotation that looks back or looks forward

You don’t necessarily want to add anything too new to the end of your article, but you can include a surprising twist. Readers want the same, but different. So do editors and publishers. So, give your reader more of what you’ve been doing in the article — ending with a little poke in the ribs.

“…don’t make the surprise so foreign that it seems out of place and doesn’t tie into the article. If the quote or surprising statement seems out of place, then you only leave the reader confused, and you have lost the value of what you have built throughout the article,” writes Roger Palms in Effective Magazine Writing: Let Your Words Reach the World .

2. Invite the reader to go in a different direction

The most powerful ending neatly wraps up the article  and gives the reader something new to think about. This is difficult for most writers – even seasoned freelancers. Imagine your ending as a fork in the road. Where do you want readers to go? Write two or three different endings, then take a break. Have a nap, visit another world. Now how does the ending feel? Maybe it needs more work, or maybe one of your conclusions does the job.

The bad news is there is no one perfect way to write a powerful ending to your article. This is also the good news! If there was one perfect way to end it, then all writers would use that conclusion. And it would lose its power. You need to find the right ending for your article.

3. Finish with a dollop of something different

“If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on a wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off,” says Paula LaRocque, author of The Book on Writing: The Ultimate Guide to Writing Well . “If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.”

This type of conclusion might involve weaving in (not tacking on) a whole new anecdote, or including a new bit of information that adds to the story you introduced in the lead or body of the article. Many professional freelance writers like to end with a relevant story, a little vignette, something that gives the reader a feeling that the essence of the article or essay was captured.

How do I end my articles? I circle back to the beginning somehow – it depends on the topic, interviewees, audience, article length, and deadline. I often include more information about something I introduced earlier in the article.

“What is this ‘more’ you speak of?”, you ask? It depends on the article you’re writing. That’s the pain and power of writing: so much simply depends on so many things. If you know how to end your article or essay but your writing is flimsy and weak, read  How to Write Powerful Words That Grab Attention .

4. If you must summarize, do it with style

Some endings need to clearly restate and summarize the article’s main argument. Other articles don’t need a summary because there wasn’t a stated theme. Does your article need a summary? Ask it. Ask yourself as the writer. Maybe even ask a beta reader. If you’re arguing for or describing something complicated or new to readers, perhaps a summary is the most powerful way to end the article.

A summary isn’t the most creative   way to end your article, but you can spice it up with different literary techniques. Use sensory details to fire up your writing, or bring an inanimate object alive with personification. Learn different types of  edgy and quirky writing . Sometimes it’s not what you write…it’s how you write it.

Here’s how NOT to end an article:

• “In summary, I would like to say….”
• “The End.”
• “In conclusion, may I reiterate….”
• “I know I said this in my intro and in paragraphs three through thirty, but it cannot be overstated that…”

I take a week to write magazine articles. This allows my brain and the article to tell me how to write a powerful ending. It’s never perfect, but it is as good as I can write it.

5. Circle back to the beginning

The final, most powerful tip on how to end an article: write a conclusion that refers back to your introduction or opening statements. This, says some professional freelance writers, gives readers a feeling of arrival.

You could pick up a word, a phrase, or part of an anecdote from your introduction, and round it out more. Don’t just repeat it; expand on it, color it in, give it some texture and depth. Ideally, leave readers with a hook at the end of your article – something that lodges in their minds so deeply that they can’t forget it right away.

Good writing isn’t just about learning how to end an article with a strong conclusion or conclude an essay with a summary of all your main points. Rather, good writing is about weaving all the aspects of the whole piece together.

Are you writing for a magazine?

In 11 Most Popular Articles to Write for Magazines (Freelance Writing is Easier Than You Think!) I share tips for getting published in magazines.

Getting published in print and online magazines is a lot easier when you know what types of articles editors and publishers need.

I welcome your thoughts on writing good endings – and learning how to listen to your article for the ending it wants to tell. Remember that writing a good ending involves editing and revising; it’s not something you can just tack onto the end.

She Blossoms Newsletter

Comments cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

13 thoughts on “How to End Your Article: 5 Ways to Write a Powerful Conclusion”

Great article! Your explanation of how to write a conclusion was very clear and informative. I particularly appreciated the tips on summarizing the main points and tying them together to leave a lasting impact on the reader. Thank you for sharing this valuable information with the writing community

Appreciate the encouragement!

Just to say: Paula LaRocque is quoting (or ripping off?!) master playwright Anton Chekhov there (about the gun that must go off). It’s a pretty famous quote from him: he just says “acts” instead of chapters, since he was a playwright. Just sayin’! Thanks for the tips on endings!

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.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Brazil’s plummeting graduate enrolments hint at declining interest in academic science careers

Career News 21 MAY 24

How religious scientists balance work and faith

Career Feature 20 MAY 24

How to set up your new lab space

Career Column 20 MAY 24

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

World View 21 MAY 24

US halts funding to controversial virus-hunting group: what researchers think

News 16 MAY 24

Egypt is building a $1-billion mega-museum. Will it bring Egyptology home?

News Feature 22 MAY 24

Harassment of scientists is surging — institutions aren’t sure how to help

News Feature 21 MAY 24

Editor (Structural biology, experimental and/or computational biophysics)

We are looking for an Editor to join Nature Communications, the leading multidisciplinary OA journal, publishing high-quality scientific research.

London or New York - hybrid working model.

Springer Nature Ltd

Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in - Quantencomputing mit gespeicherten Ionen

Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in - Quantencomputing mit gespeicherten Ionen Bereich: Fakultät IV - Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Fakultät | St...

Siegen, Nordrhein-Westfalen (DE)

Universität Siegen

Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in (PostDoc) - Quantencomputing mit gespeicherten Ionen

Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in (PostDoc) - Quantencomputing mit gespeicherten Ionen Bereich: Fakultät IV - Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Fak...

Professor Helminthology

Excellent track record on the biology and immunobiology of zoonotic helminths and co-infections, with a strong scientific network.

Antwerp, New York

Institute of Tropical Medicine

Assistant Professor in Plant Biology

The Plant Science Program in the Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering (BESE) Division at King Abdullah University of Science and Te...

Saudi Arabia (SA)

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

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

The Worst State for Education in the US

Teaching in public and private schools: everything you need to know, the science of geography should be taught in schools, benefits of a boarding school education: everything you need to know, 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, 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.

How to Bond With Your Cat: 11 Steps

3 Easy Ways to Cover a Headboard

How to Know When to Euthanize Your Cat

14 Ways to Wear a Tunic

3 Ways to Paint a High Ceiling over Stairs

3 Ways to Stop Dry Heaving

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

What makes an effective discussion?

When you’re ready to write your discussion, you’ve already introduced the purpose of your study and provided an in-depth description of the methodology. The discussion informs readers about the larger implications of your study based on the results. Highlighting these implications while not overstating the findings can be challenging, especially when you’re submitting to a journal that selects articles based on novelty or potential impact. Regardless of what journal you are submitting to, the discussion section always serves the same purpose: concluding what your study results actually mean.

A successful discussion section puts your findings in context. It should include:

• the results of your research,
• a discussion of related research, and
• a comparison between your results and initial hypothesis.

Tip: Not all journals share the same naming conventions.

You can apply the advice in this article to the conclusion, results or discussion sections of your manuscript.

Our Early Career Researcher community tells us that the conclusion is often considered the most difficult aspect of a manuscript to write. To help, this guide provides questions to ask yourself, a basic structure to model your discussion off of and examples from published manuscripts. 

Questions to ask yourself:

• Was my hypothesis correct?
• If my hypothesis is partially correct or entirely different, what can be learned from the results? 
• How do the conclusions reshape or add onto the existing knowledge in the field? What does previous research say about the topic? 
• Why are the results important or relevant to your audience? Do they add further evidence to a scientific consensus or disprove prior studies? 
• How can future research build on these observations? What are the key experiments that must be done? 
• What is the “take-home” message you want your reader to leave with?

How to structure a discussion

Trying to fit a complete discussion into a single paragraph can add unnecessary stress to the writing process. If possible, you’ll want to give yourself two or three paragraphs to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of your study as a whole. Here’s one way to structure an effective discussion:

Writing Tips

While the above sections can help you brainstorm and structure your discussion, there are many common mistakes that writers revert to when having difficulties with their paper. Writing a discussion can be a delicate balance between summarizing your results, providing proper context for your research and avoiding introducing new information. Remember that your paper should be both confident and honest about the results! 

• Read the journal’s guidelines on the discussion and conclusion sections. If possible, learn about the guidelines before writing the discussion to ensure you’re writing to meet their expectations. 
• Begin with a clear statement of the principal findings. This will reinforce the main take-away for the reader and set up the rest of the discussion. 
• Explain why the outcomes of your study are important to the reader. Discuss the implications of your findings realistically based on previous literature, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the research. 
• State whether the results prove or disprove your hypothesis. If your hypothesis was disproved, what might be the reasons? 
• Introduce new or expanded ways to think about the research question. Indicate what next steps can be taken to further pursue any unresolved questions. 
• If dealing with a contemporary or ongoing problem, such as climate change, discuss possible consequences if the problem is avoided. 
• Be concise. Adding unnecessary detail can distract from the main findings. 

Don’t

• Rewrite your abstract. Statements with “we investigated” or “we studied” generally do not belong in the discussion. 
• Include new arguments or evidence not previously discussed. Necessary information and evidence should be introduced in the main body of the paper. 
• Apologize. Even if your research contains significant limitations, don’t undermine your authority by including statements that doubt your methodology or execution. 
• Shy away from speaking on limitations or negative results. Including limitations and negative results will give readers a complete understanding of the presented research. Potential limitations include sources of potential bias, threats to internal or external validity, barriers to implementing an intervention and other issues inherent to the study design. 
• Overstate the importance of your findings. Making grand statements about how a study will fully resolve large questions can lead readers to doubt the success of the research. 

Snippets of Effective Discussions:

Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach

Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears

• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Write Your Methods
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

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
• ScientificWorldJournal
• v.2024; 2024
• PMC10807936

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Ayodeji amobonye.

1 Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

2 Writing Centre, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334 KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

Japareng Lalung

3 School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Santhosh Pillai

Associated data.

The data and materials that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable as both students and researchers rely on these articles as the starting point for their research. Interestingly, many postgraduate students are expected to write review articles for journal publications as a way of demonstrating their ability to contribute to new knowledge in their respective fields. However, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide them on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. The dearth of ample guidance or explicit training results in students having to learn all by themselves, usually by trial and error, which often leads to high rejection rates from publishing houses. Therefore, this article seeks to identify these challenges from a beginner's perspective and strives to plug the identified gaps and discrepancies. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a systematic guide for emerging scientists and to summarise the most important information on how to write and structure a publishable review article.

1. Introduction

Early scientists, spanning from the Ancient Egyptian civilization to the Scientific Revolution of the 16 th /17 th century, based their research on intuitions, personal observations, and personal insights. Thus, less time was spent on background reading as there was not much literature to refer to. This is well illustrated in the case of Sir Isaac Newton's apple tree and the theory of gravity, as well as Gregor Mendel's pea plants and the theory of inheritance. However, with the astronomical expansion in scientific knowledge and the emergence of the information age in the last century, new ideas are now being built on previously published works, thus the periodic need to appraise the huge amount of already published literature [ 1 ]. According to Birkle et al. [ 2 ], the Web of Science—an authoritative database of research publications and citations—covered more than 80 million scholarly materials. Hence, a critical review of prior and relevant literature is indispensable for any research endeavour as it provides the necessary framework needed for synthesising new knowledge and for highlighting new insights and perspectives [ 3 ].

Review papers are generally considered secondary research publications that sum up already existing works on a particular research topic or question and relate them to the current status of the topic. This makes review articles distinctly different from scientific research papers. While the primary aim of the latter is to develop new arguments by reporting original research, the former is focused on summarising and synthesising previous ideas, studies, and arguments, without adding new experimental contributions. Review articles basically describe the content and quality of knowledge that are currently available, with a special focus on the significance of the previous works. To this end, a review article cannot simply reiterate a subject matter, but it must contribute to the field of knowledge by synthesising available materials and offering a scholarly critique of theory [ 4 ]. Typically, these articles critically analyse both quantitative and qualitative studies by scrutinising experimental results, the discussion of the experimental data, and in some instances, previous review articles to propose new working theories. Thus, a review article is more than a mere exhaustive compilation of all that has been published on a topic; it must be a balanced, informative, perspective, and unbiased compendium of previous studies which may also include contrasting findings, inconsistencies, and conventional and current views on the subject [ 5 ].

Hence, the essence of a review article is measured by what is achieved, what is discovered, and how information is communicated to the reader [ 6 ]. According to Steward [ 7 ], a good literature review should be analytical, critical, comprehensive, selective, relevant, synthetic, and fully referenced. On the other hand, a review article is considered to be inadequate if it is lacking in focus or outcome, overgeneralised, opinionated, unbalanced, and uncritical [ 7 ]. Most review papers fail to meet these standards and thus can be viewed as mere summaries of previous works in a particular field of study. In one of the few studies that assessed the quality of review articles, none of the 50 papers that were analysed met the predefined criteria for a good review [ 8 ]. However, beginners must also realise that there is no bad writing in the true sense; there is only writing in evolution and under refinement. Literally, every piece of writing can be improved upon, right from the first draft until the final published manuscript. Hence, a paper can only be referred to as bad and unfixable when the author is not open to corrections or when the writer gives up on it.

According to Peat et al. [ 9 ], “everything is easy when you know how,” a maxim which applies to scientific writing in general and review writing in particular. In this regard, the authors emphasized that the writer should be open to learning and should also follow established rules instead of following a blind trial-and-error approach. In contrast to the popular belief that review articles should only be written by experienced scientists and researchers, recent trends have shown that many early-career scientists, especially postgraduate students, are currently expected to write review articles during the course of their studies. However, these scholars have little or no access to formal training on how to analyse and synthesise the research literature in their respective fields [ 10 ]. Consequently, students seeking guidance on how to write or improve their literature reviews are less likely to find published works on the subject, particularly in the science fields. Although various publications have dealt with the challenges of searching for literature, or writing literature reviews for dissertation/thesis purposes, there is little or no information on how to write a comprehensive review article for publication. In addition to the paucity of published information to guide the potential author, the lack of understanding of what constitutes a review paper compounds their challenges. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a guide for writing review papers for journal publishing. This work draws on the experience of the authors to assist early-career scientists/researchers in the “hard skill” of authoring review articles. Even though there is no single path to writing scientifically, or to writing reviews in particular, this paper attempts to simplify the process by looking at this subject from a beginner's perspective. Hence, this paper highlights the differences between the types of review articles in the sciences while also explaining the needs and purpose of writing review articles. Furthermore, it presents details on how to search for the literature as well as how to structure the manuscript to produce logical and coherent outputs. It is hoped that this work will ease prospective scientific writers into the challenging but rewarding art of writing review articles.

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

Analysing literature gives an overview of the “WHs”: WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [ 11 ]. For new or aspiring researchers in a particular field, it can be quite challenging to get a comprehensive overview of their respective fields, especially the historical trends and what has been studied previously. As such, the importance of review articles to knowledge appraisal and contribution cannot be overemphasised, which is reflected in the constant demand for such articles in the research community. However, it is also important for the author, especially the first-time author, to recognise the importance of his/her investing time and effort into writing a quality review article.

Generally, literature reviews are undertaken for many reasons, mainly for publication and for dissertation purposes. The major purpose of literature reviews is to provide direction and information for the improvement of scientific knowledge. They also form a significant component in the research process and in academic assessment [ 12 ]. There may be, however, a thin line between a dissertation literature review and a published review article, given that with some modifications, a literature review can be transformed into a legitimate and publishable scholarly document. According to Gülpınar and Güçlü [ 6 ], the basic motivation for writing a review article is to make a comprehensive synthesis of the most appropriate literature on a specific research inquiry or topic. Thus, conducting a literature review assists in demonstrating the author's knowledge about a particular field of study, which may include but not be limited to its history, theories, key variables, vocabulary, phenomena, and methodologies [ 10 ]. Furthermore, publishing reviews is beneficial as it permits the researchers to examine different questions and, as a result, enhances the depth and diversity of their scientific reasoning [ 1 ]. In addition, writing review articles allows researchers to share insights with the scientific community while identifying knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research. The review writing process can also be a useful tool in training early-career scientists in leadership, coordination, project management, and other important soft skills necessary for success in the research world [ 13 ]. Another important reason for authoring reviews is that such publications have been observed to be remarkably influential, extending the reach of an author in multiple folds of what can be achieved by primary research papers [ 1 ]. The trend in science is for authors to receive more citations from their review articles than from their original research articles. According to Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero [ 14 ], review articles are, on average, three times more frequently cited than original research articles; they also asserted that a 20% increase in review authorship could result in a 40–80% increase in citations of the author. As a result, writing reviews can significantly impact a researcher's citation output and serve as a valuable channel to reach a wider scientific audience. In addition, the references cited in a review article also provide the reader with an opportunity to dig deeper into the topic of interest. Thus, review articles can serve as a valuable repository for consultation, increasing the visibility of the authors and resulting in more citations.

3. Types of Review Articles

The first step in writing a good literature review is to decide on the particular type of review to be written; hence, it is important to distinguish and understand the various types of review articles. Although scientific review articles have been classified according to various schemes, however, they are broadly categorised into narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses [ 15 ]. It was observed that more authors—as well as publishers—were leaning towards systematic reviews and meta-analysis while downplaying narrative reviews; however, the three serve different aims and should all be considered equally important in science [ 1 ]. Bibliometric reviews and patent reviews, which are closely related to meta-analysis, have also gained significant attention recently. However, from another angle, a review could also be of two types. In the first class, authors could deal with a widely studied topic where there is already an accumulated body of knowledge that requires analysis and synthesis [ 3 ]. At the other end of the spectrum, the authors may have to address an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations; hence, their contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model [ 3 ].

3.1. Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviewers are mainly focused on providing clarification and critical analysis on a particular topic or body of literature through interpretative synthesis, creativity, and expert judgement. According to Green et al. [ 16 ], a narrative review can be in the form of editorials, commentaries, and narrative overviews. However, editorials and commentaries are usually expert opinions; hence, a beginner is more likely to write a narrative overview, which is more general and is also referred to as an unsystematic narrative review. Similarly, the literature review section of most dissertations and empirical papers is typically narrative in nature. Typically, narrative reviews combine results from studies that may have different methodologies to address different questions or to formulate a broad theoretical formulation [ 1 ]. They are largely integrative as strong focus is placed on the assimilation and synthesis of various aspects in the review, which may involve comparing and contrasting research findings or deriving structured implications [ 17 ]. In addition, they are also qualitative studies because they do not follow strict selection processes; hence, choosing publications is relatively more subjective and unsystematic [ 18 ]. However, despite their popularity, there are concerns about their inherent subjectivity. In many instances, when the supporting data for narrative reviews are examined more closely, the evaluations provided by the author(s) become quite questionable [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, if the goal of the author is to formulate a new theory that connects diverse strands of research, a narrative method is most appropriate.

3.2. Systematic Reviews

In contrast to narrative reviews, which are generally descriptive, systematic reviews employ a systematic approach to summarise evidence on research questions. Hence, systematic reviews make use of precise and rigorous criteria to identify, evaluate, and subsequently synthesise all relevant literature on a particular topic [ 12 , 20 ]. As a result, systematic reviews are more likely to inspire research ideas by identifying knowledge gaps or inconsistencies, thus helping the researcher to clearly define the research hypotheses or questions [ 21 ]. Furthermore, systematic reviews may serve as independent research projects in their own right, as they follow a defined methodology to search and combine reliable results to synthesise a new database that can be used for a variety of purposes [ 22 ]. Typically, the peculiarities of the individual reviewer, different search engines, and information databases used all ensure that no two searches will yield the same systematic results even if the searches are conducted simultaneously and under identical criteria [ 11 ]. Hence, attempts are made at standardising the exercise via specific methods that would limit bias and chance effects, prevent duplications, and provide more accurate results upon which conclusions and decisions can be made.

The most established of these methods is the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines which objectively defined statements, guidelines, reporting checklists, and flowcharts for undertaking systematic reviews as well as meta-analysis [ 23 ]. Though mainly designed for research in medical sciences, the PRISMA approach has gained wide acceptance in other fields of science and is based on eight fundamental propositions. These include the explicit definition of the review question, an unambiguous outline of the study protocol, an objective and exhaustive systematic review of reputable literature, and an unambiguous identification of included literature based on defined selection criteria [ 24 ]. Other considerations include an unbiased appraisal of the quality of the selected studies (literature), organic synthesis of the evidence of the study, preparation of the manuscript based on the reporting guidelines, and periodic update of the review as new data emerge [ 24 ]. Other methods such as PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols), MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) have since been developed for systematic reviews (and meta-analysis), with most of them being derived from PRISMA.

Consequently, systematic reviews—unlike narrative reviews—must contain a methodology section which in addition to all that was highlighted above must fully describe the precise criteria used in formulating the research question and setting the inclusion or exclusion criteria used in selecting/accessing the literature. Similarly, the criteria for evaluating the quality of the literature included in the review as well as for analysing, synthesising, and disseminating the findings must be fully described in the methodology section.

3.3. Meta-Analysis

Meta-analyses are considered as more specialised forms of systematic reviews. Generally, they combine the results of many studies that use similar or closely related methods to address the same question or share a common quantitative evaluation method [ 25 ]. However, meta-analyses are also a step higher than other systematic reviews as they are focused on numerical data and involve the use of statistics in evaluating different studies and synthesising new knowledge. The major advantage of this type of review is the increased statistical power leading to more reliable results for inferring modest associations and a more comprehensive understanding of the true impact of a research study [ 26 ]. Unlike in traditional systematic reviews, research topics covered in meta-analyses must be mature enough to allow the inclusion of sufficient homogeneous empirical research in terms of subjects, interventions, and outcomes [ 27 , 28 ].

Being an advanced form of systematic review, meta-analyses must also have a distinct methodology section; hence, the standard procedures involved in the traditional systematic review (especially PRISMA) also apply in meta-analyses [ 23 ]. In addition to the common steps in formulating systematic reviews, meta-analyses are required to describe how nested and missing data are handled, the effect observed in each study, the confidence interval associated with each synthesised effect, and any potential for bias presented within the sample(s) [ 17 ]. According to Paul and Barari [ 28 ], a meta-analysis must also detail the final sample, the meta-analytic model, and the overall analysis, moderator analysis, and software employed. While the overall analysis involves the statistical characterization of the relationships between variables in the meta-analytic framework and their significance, the moderator analysis defines the different variables that may affect variations in the original studies [ 28 , 29 ]. It must also be noted that the accuracy and reliability of meta-analyses have both been significantly enhanced by the incorporation of statistical approaches such as Bayesian analysis [ 30 ], network analysis [ 31 ], and more recently, machine learning [ 32 ].

3.4. Bibliometric Review

A bibliometric review, commonly referred to as bibliometric analysis, is a systematic evaluation of published works within a specific field or discipline [ 33 ]. This bibliometric methodology involves the use of quantitative methods to analyse bibliometric data such as the characteristics and numbers of publications, units of citations, authorship, co-authorship, and journal impact factors [ 34 ]. Academics use bibliometric analysis with different objectives in mind, which includes uncovering emerging trends in article and journal performance, elaborating collaboration patterns and research constituents, evaluating the impact and influence of particular authors, publications, or research groups, and highlighting the intellectual framework of a certain field [ 35 ]. It is also used to inform policy and decision-making. Similarly to meta-analysis, bibliometric reviews rely upon quantitative techniques, thus avoiding the interpretation bias that could arise from the qualitative techniques of other types of reviews [ 36 ]. However, while bibliometric analysis synthesises the bibliometric and intellectual structure of a field by examining the social and structural linkages between various research parts, meta-analysis focuses on summarising empirical evidence by probing the direction and strength of effects and relationships among variables, especially in open research questions [ 37 , 38 ]. However, similarly to systematic review and meta-analysis, a bibliometric review also requires a well-detailed methodology section. The amount of data to be analysed in bibliometric analysis is quite massive, running to hundreds and tens of thousands in some cases. Although the data are objective in nature (e.g., number of citations and publications and occurrences of keywords and topics), the interpretation is usually carried out through both objective (e.g., performance analysis) and subjective (e.g., thematic analysis) evaluations [ 35 ]. However, the invention and availability of bibliometric software such as BibExcel, Gephi, Leximancer, and VOSviewer and scientific databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus have made this type of analysis more feasible.

3.5. Patent Review

Patent reviews provide a comprehensive analysis and critique of a specific patent or a group of related patents, thus presenting a concise understanding of the technology or innovation that is covered by the patent [ 39 ]. This type of article is useful for researchers as it also enhances their understanding of the legal, technical, and commercial aspects of an intellectual property/innovation; in addition, it is also important for stakeholders outside the research community including IP (intellectual property) specialists, legal professionals, and technology-transfer officers [ 40 ]. Typically, patent reviews encompass the scope, background, claims, legal implications, technical specifications, and potential commercial applications of the patent(s). The article may also include a discussion of the patent's strengths and weaknesses, as well as its potential impact on the industry or field in which it operates. Most times, reviews are time specified, they may be regionalised, and the data are usually retrieved via patent searches on databases such as that of the European Patent Office ( https://www.epo.org/searching.html ), United States Patent and Trademark Office ( https://patft.uspto.gov/ ), the World Intellectual Property Organization's PATENTSCOPE ( https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf ), Google Patent ( https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts ), and China National Intellectual Property Administration ( https://pss-system.cponline.cnipa.gov.cn/conventionalSearch ). According to Cerimi et al. [ 41 ], the retrieved data and analysed may include the patent number, patent status, filing date, application date, grant dates, inventor, assignee, and pending applications. While data analysis is usually carried out by general data software such as Microsoft Excel, an intelligence software solely dedicated to patent research and analysis, Orbit Intelligence has been found to be more efficient [ 39 ]. It is also mandatory to include a methodology section in a patent review, and this should be explicit, thorough, and precise to allow a clear understanding of how the analysis was carried out and how the conclusions were arrived at.

4. Searching Literature

One of the most challenging tasks in writing a review article on a subject is the search for relevant literature to populate the manuscript as the author is required to garner information from an endless number of sources. This is even more challenging as research outputs have been increasing astronomically, especially in the last decade, with thousands of new articles published annually in various fields. It is therefore imperative that the author must not only be aware of the overall trajectory in a field of investigation but must also be cognizant of recent studies so as not to publish outdated research or review articles. Basically, the search for the literature involves a coherent conceptual structuring of the topic itself and a thorough collation of evidence under the common themes which might reflect the histories, conflicts, standoffs, revolutions, and/or evolutions in the field [ 7 ]. To start the search process, the author must carefully identify and select broad keywords relevant to the subject; subsequently, the keywords should be developed to refine the search into specific subheadings that would facilitate the structure of the review.

Two main tactics have been identified for searching the literature, namely, systematic and snowballing [ 42 ]. The systematic approach involves searching literature with specific keywords (for example, cancer, antioxidant, and nanoparticles), which leads to an almost unmanageable and overwhelming list of possible sources [ 43 ]. The snowballing approach, however, involves the identification of a particular publication, followed by the compilation of a bibliography of articles based on the reference list of the identified publication [ 44 ]. Many times, it might be necessary to combine both approaches, but irrespective, the author must keep an accurate track and record of papers cited in the search. A simple and efficient strategy for populating the bibliography of review articles is to go through the abstract (and sometimes the conclusion) of a paper; if the abstract is related to the topic of discourse, the author might go ahead and read the entire article; otherwise, he/she is advised to move on [ 45 ]. Winchester and Salji [ 5 ] noted that to learn the background of the subject/topic to be reviewed, starting literature searches with academic textbooks or published review articles is imperative, especially for beginners. Furthermore, it would also assist in compiling the list of keywords, identifying areas of further exploration, and providing a glimpse of the current state of the research. However, past reviews ideally are not to serve as the foundation of a new review as they are written from someone else's viewpoint, which might have been tainted with some bias. Fortunately, the accessibility and search for the literature have been made relatively easier than they were a few decades ago as the current information age has placed an enormous volume of knowledge right at our fingertips [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, when gathering the literature from the Internet, authors should exercise utmost caution as much of the information may not be verified or peer-reviewed and thus may be unregulated and unreliable. For instance, Wikipedia, despite being a large repository of information with more than 6.7 million articles in the English language alone, is considered unreliable for scientific literature reviews, due to its openness to public editing [ 47 ]. However, in addition to peer-reviewed journal publications—which are most ideal—reviews can also be drawn from a wide range of other sources such as technical documents, in-house reports, conference abstracts, and conference proceedings. Similarly, “Google Scholar”—as against “Google” and other general search engines—is more appropriate as its searches are restricted to only academic articles produced by scholarly societies or/and publishers [ 48 ]. Furthermore, the various electronic databases, such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, many of which focus on specific fields of research, are also ideal options [ 49 ]. Advancement in computer indexing has remarkably expanded the ease and ability to search large databases for every potentially relevant article. In addition to searching by topic, literature search can be modified by time; however, there must be a balance between old papers and recent ones. The general consensus in science is that publications less than five years old are considered recent.

It is important, especially in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, that the specific method of running the computer searches be properly documented as there is the need to include this in the method (methodology) section of such papers. Typically, the method details the keywords, databases explored, search terms used, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied in the selection of data and any other specific decision/criteria. All of these will ensure the reproducibility and thoroughness of the search and the selection procedure. However, Randolph [ 10 ] noted that Internet searches might not give the exhaustive list of articles needed for a review article; hence, it is advised that authors search through the reference lists of articles that were obtained initially from the Internet search. After determining the relevant articles from the list, the author should read through the references of these articles and repeat the cycle until saturation is reached [ 10 ]. After populating the articles needed for the literature review, the next step is to analyse them individually and in their whole entirety. A systematic approach to this is to identify the key information within the papers, examine them in depth, and synthesise original perspectives by integrating the information and making inferences based on the findings. In this regard, it is imperative to link one source to the other in a logical manner, for instance, taking note of studies with similar methodologies, papers that agree, or results that are contradictory [ 42 ].

5. Structuring the Review Article

The title and abstract are the main selling points of a review article, as most readers will only peruse these two elements and usually go on to read the full paper if they are drawn in by either or both of the two. Tullu [ 50 ] recommends that the title of a scientific paper “should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and not be misleading.” In addition to providing “just enough details” to entice the reader, words in the titles are also used by electronic databases, journal websites, and search engines to index and retrieve a particular paper during a search [ 51 ]. Titles are of different types and must be chosen according to the topic under review. They are generally classified as descriptive, declarative, or interrogative and can also be grouped into compound, nominal, or full-sentence titles [ 50 ]. The subject of these categorisations has been extensively discussed in many articles; however, the reader must also be aware of the compound titles, which usually contain a main title and a subtitle. Typically, subtitles provide additional context—to the main title—and they may specify the geographic scope of the research, research methodology, or sample size [ 52 ].

Just like primary research articles, there are many debates about the optimum length of a review article's title. However, the general consensus is to keep the title as brief as possible while not being too general. A title length between 10 and 15 words is recommended, since longer titles can be more challenging to comprehend. Paiva et al. [ 53 ] observed that articles which contain 95 characters or less get more views and citations. However, emphasis must be placed on conciseness as the audience will be more satisfied if they can understand what exactly the review has contributed to the field, rather than just a hint about the general topic area. Authors should also endeavour to stick to the journal's specific requirements, especially regarding the length of the title and what they should or should not contain [ 9 ]. Thus, avoidance of filler words such as “a review on/of,” “an observation of,” or “a study of” is a very simple way to limit title length. In addition, abbreviations or acronyms should be avoided in the title, except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as AIDS, DNA, HIV, and RNA. In summary, to write an effective title, the authors should consider the following points. What is the paper about? What was the methodology used? What were the highlights and major conclusions? Subsequently, the author should list all the keywords from these answers, construct a sentence from these keywords, and finally delete all redundant words from the sentence title. It is also possible to gain some ideas by scanning indices and article titles in major journals in the field. It is important to emphasise that a title is not chosen and set in stone, and the title is most likely to be continually revised and adjusted until the end of the writing process.

5.2. Abstract

The abstract, also referred to as the synopsis, is a summary of the full research paper; it is typically independent and can stand alone. For most readers, a publication does not exist beyond the abstract, partly because abstracts are often the only section of a paper that is made available to the readers at no cost, whereas the full paper may attract a payment or subscription [ 54 ]. Thus, the abstract is supposed to set the tone for the few readers who wish to read the rest of the paper. It has also been noted that the abstract gives the first impression of a research work to journal editors, conference scientific committees, or referees, who might outright reject the paper if the abstract is poorly written or inadequate [ 50 ]. Hence, it is imperative that the abstract succinctly represents the entire paper and projects it positively. Just like the title, abstracts have to be balanced, comprehensive, concise, functional, independent, precise, scholarly, and unbiased and not be misleading [ 55 ]. Basically, the abstract should be formulated using keywords from all the sections of the main manuscript. Thus, it is pertinent that the abstract conveys the focus, key message, rationale, and novelty of the paper without any compromise or exaggeration. Furthermore, the abstract must be consistent with the rest of the paper; as basic as this instruction might sound, it is not to be taken for granted. For example, a study by Vrijhoef and Steuten [ 56 ] revealed that 18–68% of 264 abstracts from some scientific journals contained information that was inconsistent with the main body of the publications.

Abstracts can either be structured or unstructured; in addition, they can further be classified as either descriptive or informative. Unstructured abstracts, which are used by many scientific journals, are free flowing with no predefined subheadings, while structured abstracts have specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed. Structured abstracts have been noted to be more informative and are usually divided into subsections which include the study background/introduction, objectives, methodology design, results, and conclusions [ 57 ]. No matter the style chosen, the author must carefully conform to the instructions provided by the potential journal of submission, which may include but are not limited to the format, font size/style, word limit, and subheadings [ 58 ]. The word limit for abstracts in most scientific journals is typically between 150 and 300 words. It is also a general rule that abstracts do not contain any references whatsoever.

Typically, an abstract should be written in the active voice, and there is no such thing as a perfect abstract as it could always be improved on. It is advised that the author first makes an initial draft which would contain all the essential parts of the paper, which could then be polished subsequently. The draft should begin with a brief background which would lead to the research questions. It might also include a general overview of the methodology used (if applicable) and importantly, the major results/observations/highlights of the review paper. The abstract should end with one or few sentences about any implications, perspectives, or future research that may be developed from the review exercise. Finally, the authors should eliminate redundant words and edit the abstract to the correct word count permitted by the journal [ 59 ]. It is always beneficial to read previous abstracts published in the intended journal, related topics/subjects from other journals, and other reputable sources. Furthermore, the author should endeavour to get feedback on the abstract especially from peers and co-authors. As the abstract is the face of the whole paper, it is best that it is the last section to be finalised, as by this time, the author would have developed a clearer understanding of the findings and conclusions of the entire paper.

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

Since the mid-2000s, an increasing number of journals now require authors to provide a graphical abstract (GA) in addition to the traditional written abstract, to increase the accessibility of scientific publications to readers [ 60 ]. A study showed that publications with GA performed better than those without it, when the abstract views, total citations, and downloads were compared [ 61 ]. However, the GA should provide “a single, concise pictorial, and visual summary of the main findings of an article” [ 62 ]. Although they are meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole paper, it has been noted that they are not so easily comprehensible without having read through the traditionally written abstract [ 63 ]. It is important to note that, like traditional abstracts, many reputable journals require GAs to adhere to certain specifications such as colour, dimension, quality, file size, and file format (usually JPEG/JPG, PDF, PNG, or TIFF). In addition, it is imperative to use engaging and accurate figures, all of which must be synthesised in order to accurately reflect the key message of the paper. Currently, there are various online or downloadable graphical tools that can be used for creating GAs, such as Microsoft Paint or PowerPoint, Mindthegraph, ChemDraw, CorelDraw, and BioRender.

5.4. Keywords

As a standard practice, journals require authors to select 4–8 keywords (or phrases), which are typically listed below the abstract. A good set of keywords will enable indexers and search engines to find relevant papers more easily and can be considered as a very concise abstract [ 64 ]. According to Dewan and Gupta [ 51 ], the selection of appropriate keywords will significantly enhance the retrieval, accession, and consequently, the citation of the review paper. Ideally, keywords can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, the abstract, and the main text, but they should ideally not be the exact words in the main title. Choosing the most appropriate keywords for a review article involves listing down the key terms and phrases in the article, including abbreviations. Subsequently, a quick review of the glossary/vocabulary/term list or indexing standard in the specific discipline will assist in selecting the best and most precise keywords that match those used in the databases from the list drawn. In addition, the keywords should not be broad or general terms (e.g., DNA, biology, and enzymes) but must be specific to the field or subfield of study as well as to the particular paper [ 65 ].

5.5. Introduction

The introduction of an article is the first major section of the manuscript, and it presents basic information to the reader without compelling them to study past publications. In addition, the introduction directs the reader to the main arguments and points developed in the main body of the article while clarifying the current state of knowledge in that particular area of research [ 12 ]. The introduction part of a review article is usually sectionalised into background information, a description of the main topic and finally a statement of the main purpose of the review [ 66 ]. Authors may begin the introduction with brief general statements—which provide background knowledge on the subject matter—that lead to more specific ones [ 67 ]. It is at this point that the reader's attention must be caught as the background knowledge must highlight the importance and justification for the subject being discussed, while also identifying the major problem to be addressed [ 68 ]. In addition, the background should be broad enough to attract even nonspecialists in the field to maximise the impact and widen the reach of the article. All of these should be done in the light of current literature; however, old references may also be used for historical purposes. A very important aspect of the introduction is clearly stating and establishing the research problem(s) and how a review of the particular topic contributes to those problem(s). Thus, the research gap which the paper intends to fill, the limitations of previous works and past reviews, if available, and the new knowledge to be contributed must all be highlighted. Inadequate information and the inability to clarify the problem will keep readers (who have the desire to obtain new information) from reading beyond the introduction [ 69 ]. It is also pertinent that the author establishes the purpose of reviewing the literature and defines the scope as well as the major synthesised point of view. Furthermore, a brief insight into the criteria used to select, evaluate, and analyse the literature, as well as the outline or sequence of the review, should be provided in the introduction. Subsequently, the specific objectives of the review article must be presented. The last part of the “introduction” section should focus on the solution, the way forward, the recommendations, and the further areas of research as deduced from the whole review process. According to DeMaria [ 70 ], clearly expressed or recommended solutions to an explicitly revealed problem are very important for the wholesomeness of the “introduction” section. It is believed that following these steps will give readers the opportunity to track the problems and the corresponding solution from their own perspective in the light of current literature. As against some suggestions that the introduction should be written only in present tenses, it is also believed that it could be done with other tenses in addition to the present tense. In this regard, general facts should be written in the present tense, specific research/work should be in the past tense, while the concluding statement should be in the past perfect or simple past. Furthermore, many of the abbreviations to be used in the rest of the manuscript and their explanations should be defined in this section.

5.6. Methodology

Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [ 71 ], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary. Hence, the methodological section of a review paper (which can also be referred to as the review protocol) details how the relevant literature was selected and how it was analysed as well as summarised. The selection details may include, but are not limited to, the database consulted and the specific search terms used together with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. As earlier highlighted in Section 3 , a description of the methodology is required for all types of reviews except for narrative reviews. This is partly because unlike narrative reviews, all other review articles follow systematic approaches which must ensure significant reproducibility [ 72 ]. Therefore, where necessary, the methods of data extraction from the literature and data synthesis must also be highlighted as well. In some cases, it is important to show how data were combined by highlighting the statistical methods used, measures of effect, and tests performed, as well as demonstrating heterogeneity and publication bias [ 73 ].

The methodology should also detail the major databases consulted during the literature search, e.g., Dimensions, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. For meta-analysis, it is imperative to highlight the software and/or package used, which could include Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, OpenMEE, Review Manager (RevMan), Stata, SAS, and R Studio. It is also necessary to state the mathematical methods used for the analysis; examples of these include the Bayesian analysis, the Mantel–Haenszel method, and the inverse variance method. The methodology should also state the number of authors that carried out the initial review stage of the study, as it has been recommended that at least two reviews should be done blindly and in parallel, especially when it comes to the acquisition and synthesis of data [ 74 ]. Finally, the quality and validity assessment of the publication used in the review must be stated and well clarified [ 73 ].

5.7. Main Body of the Review

Ideally, the main body of a publishable review should answer these questions: What is new (contribution)? Why so (logic)? So what (impact)? How well it is done (thoroughness)? The flow of the main body of a review article must be well organised to adequately maintain the attention of the readers as well as guide them through the section. It is recommended that the author should consider drawing a conceptual scheme of the main body first, using methods such as mind-mapping. This will help create a logical flow of thought and presentation, while also linking the various sections of the manuscript together. According to Moreira [ 75 ], “reports do not simply yield their findings, rather reviewers make them yield,” and thus, it is the author's responsibility to transform “resistant” texts into “docile” texts. Hence, after the search for the literature, the essential themes and key concepts of the review paper must be identified and synthesised together. This synthesis primarily involves creating hypotheses about the relationships between the concepts with the aim of increasing the understanding of the topic being reviewed. The important information from the various sources should not only be summarised, but the significance of studies must be related back to the initial question(s) posed by the review article. Furthermore, MacLure [ 76 ] stated that data are not just to be plainly “extracted intact” and “used exactly as extracted,” but must be modified, reconfigured, transformed, transposed, converted, tabulated, graphed, or manipulated to enable synthesis, combination, and comparison. Therefore, different pieces of information must be extracted from the reports in which they were previously deposited and then refined into the body of the new article [ 75 ]. To this end, adequate comparison and combination might require that “qualitative data be quantified” or/and “quantitative data may be qualitized” [ 77 ]. In order to accomplish all of these goals, the author may have to transform, paraphrase, generalize, specify, and reorder the text [ 78 ]. For comprehensiveness, the body paragraphs should be arranged in a similar order as it was initially stated in the abstract or/and introduction. Thus, the main body could be divided into thematic areas, each of which could be independently comprehensive and treated as a mini review. Similarly, the sections can also be arranged chronologically depending on the focus of the review. Furthermore, the abstractions should proceed from a wider general view of the literature being reviewed and then be narrowed down to the specifics. In the process, deep insights should also be provided between the topic of the review and the wider subject area, e.g., fungal enzymes and enzymes in general. The abstractions must also be discussed in more detail by presenting more specific information from the identified sources (with proper citations of course!). For example, it is important to identify and highlight contrary findings and rival interpretations as well as to point out areas of agreement or debate among different bodies of literature. Often, there are previous reviews on the same topic/concept; however, this does not prevent a new author from writing one on the same topic, especially if the previous reviews were written many years ago. However, it is important that the body of the new manuscript be written from a new angle that was not adequately covered in the past reviews and should also incorporate new studies that have accumulated since the last review(s). In addition, the new review might also highlight the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of the past studies. But the authors must not be excessively critical of the past reviews as this is regarded by many authors as a sign of poor professionalism [ 3 , 79 ]. Daft [ 79 ] emphasized that it is more important for a reviewer to state how their research builds on previous work instead of outright claiming that previous works are incompetent and inadequate. However, if a series of related papers on one topic have a common error or research flaw that needs rectification, the reviewer must point this out with the aim of moving the field forward [ 3 ]. Like every other scientific paper, the main body of a review article also needs to be consistent in style, for example, in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense. It is also important to note that tables and figures can serve as a powerful tool for highlighting key points in the body of the review, and they are now considered core elements of reviews. For more guidance and insights into what should make up the contents of a good review article, readers are also advised to get familiarised with the Boote and Beile [ 80 ] literature review scoring rubric as well as the review article checklist of Short [ 81 ].

5.8. Tables and Figures

An ideal review article should be logically structured and efficiently utilise illustrations, in the form of tables and figures, to convey the key findings and relationships in the study. According to Tay [ 13 ], illustrations often take a secondary role in review papers when compared to primary research papers which are focused on illustrations. However, illustrations are very important in review articles as they can serve as succinct means of communicating major findings and insights. Franzblau and Chung [ 82 ] pointed out that illustrations serve three major purposes in a scientific article: they simplify complex data and relationships for better understanding, they minimise reading time by summarising and bringing to focus on the key findings (or trends), and last, they help to reduce the overall word count. Hence, inserting and constructing illustrations in a review article is as meticulous as it is important. However, important decisions should be made on whether the charts, figures, or tables to be potentially inserted in the manuscript are indeed needed and how best to design them [ 83 ]. Illustrations should enhance the text while providing necessary information; thus, the information described in illustrations should not contradict that in the main text and should also not be a repetition of texts [ 84 ]. Furthermore, illustrations must be autonomous, meaning they ought to be intelligible without having to read the text portion of the manuscript; thus, the reader does not have to flip back and forth between the illustration and the main text in order to understand it [ 85 ]. It should be noted that tables or figures that directly reiterate the main text or contain extraneous information will only make a mess of the manuscript and discourage readers [ 86 ].

Kotz and Cals [ 87 ] recommend that the layout of tables and figures should be carefully designed in a clear manner with suitable layouts, which will allow them to be referred to logically and chronologically in the text. In addition, illustrations should only contain simple text, as lengthy details would contradict their initial objective, which was to provide simple examples or an overview. Furthermore, the use of abbreviations in illustrations, especially tables, should be avoided if possible. If not, the abbreviations should be defined explicitly in the footnotes or legends of the illustration [ 88 ]. Similarly, numerical values in tables and graphs should also be correctly approximated [ 84 ]. It is recommended that the number of tables and figures in the manuscript should not exceed the target journal's specification. According to Saver [ 89 ], they ideally should not account for more than one-third of the manuscript. Finally, the author(s) must seek permission and give credits for using an already published illustration when necessary. However, none of these are needed if the graphic is originally created by the author, but if it is a reproduced or an adapted illustration, the author must obtain permission from the copyright owner and include the necessary credit. One of the very important tools for designing illustrations is Creative Commons, a platform that provides a wide range of creative works which are available to the public for use and modification.

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

It has been observed that many reviews end abruptly with a short conclusion; however, a lot more can be included in this section in addition to what has been said in the major sections of the paper. 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. A good conclusion should highlight the relationship between the major points and the author's hypothesis as well as the relationship between the hypothesis and the broader discussion to demonstrate the significance of the review article in a larger context. In addition to giving a concise summary of the important findings that describe current knowledge, the conclusion must also offer a rationale for conducting future research [ 12 ]. Knowledge gaps should be identified, and themes should be logically developed in order to construct conceptual frameworks as well as present a way forward for future research in the field of study [ 11 ].

Furthermore, the author may have to justify the propositions made earlier in the manuscript, demonstrate how the paper extends past research works, and also suggest ways that the expounded theories can be empirically examined [ 3 ]. Unlike experimental studies which can only draw either a positive conclusion or ambiguous failure to reject the null hypothesis, four possible conclusions can be drawn from review articles [ 1 ]. First, the theory/hypothesis propounded may be correct after being proven from current evidence; second, the hypothesis may not be explicitly proven but is most probably the best guess. The third conclusion is that the currently available evidence does not permit a confident conclusion or a best guess, while the last conclusion is that the theory or hypothesis is false [ 1 ]. It is important not to present new information in the conclusion section which has link whatsoever with the rest of the manuscript. According to Harris et al. [ 90 ], the conclusions should, in essence, answer the question: if a reader were to remember one thing about the review, what would it be?

5.10. References

As it has been noted in different parts of this paper, authors must give the required credit to any work or source(s) of information that was included in the review article. This must include the in-text citations in the main body of the paper and the corresponding entries in the reference list. Ideally, this full bibliographical list is the last part of the review article, and it should contain all the books, book chapters, journal articles, reports, and other media, which were utilised in the manuscript. It has been noted that most journals and publishers have their own specific referencing styles which are all derived from the more popular styles such as the American Psychological Association (APA), Chicago, Harvard, Modern Language Association (MLA), and Vancouver styles. However, all these styles may be categorised into either the parenthetical or numerical referencing style. Although a few journals do not have strict referencing rules, it is the responsibility of the author to reference according to the style and instructions of the journal. Omissions and errors must be avoided at all costs, and this can be easily achieved by going over the references many times for due diligence [ 11 ]. According to Cronin et al. [ 12 ], a separate file for references can be created, and any work used in the manuscript can be added to this list immediately after being cited in the text [ 12 ]. In recent times, the emergence of various referencing management software applications such as Endnote, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero has even made referencing easier. The majority of these software applications require little technical expertise, and many of them are free to use, while others may require a subscription. It is imperative, however, that even after using these software packages, the author must manually curate the references during the final draft, in order to avoid any errors, since these programs are not impervious to errors, particularly formatting errors.

6. Concluding Remarks

Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. Thus, the reviewer must develop the ability to think critically, spot patterns in a large volume of information, and must be invested in writing without tiring. The prospective author must also be inspired and dedicated to the successful completion of the article while also ensuring that the review article is not just a mere list or summary of previous research. It is also important that the review process must be focused on the literature and not on the authors; thus, overt criticism of existing research and personal aspersions must be avoided at all costs. All ideas, sentences, words, and illustrations should be constructed in a way to avoid plagiarism; basically, this can be achieved by paraphrasing, summarising, and giving the necessary acknowledgments. Currently, there are many tools to track and detect plagiarism in manuscripts, ensuring that they fall within a reasonable similarity index (which is typically 15% or lower for most journals). Although the more popular of these tools, such as Turnitin and iThenticate, are subscription-based, there are many freely available web-based options as well. An ideal review article is supposed to motivate the research topic and describe its key concepts while delineating the boundaries of research. In this regard, experience-based information on how to methodologically develop acceptable and impactful review articles has been detailed in this paper. Furthermore, for a beginner, this guide has detailed “the why” and “the how” of authoring a good scientific review article. However, the information in this paper may as a whole or in parts be also applicable to other fields of research and to other writing endeavours such as writing literature review in theses, dissertations, and primary research articles. Finally, the intending authors must put all the basic rules of scientific writing and writing in general into cognizance. A comprehensive study of the articles cited within this paper and other related articles focused on scientific writing will further enhance the ability of the motivated beginner to deliver a good review article.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa under grant number UID 138097. The authors would like to thank the Durban University of Technology for funding the postdoctoral fellowship of the first author, Dr. Ayodeji Amobonye.

Data Availability

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Writing a Paper: Conclusions

Writing a conclusion.

A conclusion is an important part of the paper; it provides closure for the reader while reminding the reader of the contents and importance of the paper. It accomplishes this by stepping back from the specifics in order to view the bigger picture of the document. In other words, it is reminding the reader of the main argument. For most course papers, it is usually one paragraph that simply and succinctly restates the main ideas and arguments, pulling everything together to help clarify the thesis of the paper. A conclusion does not introduce new ideas; instead, it should clarify the intent and importance of the paper. It can also suggest possible future research on the topic.

An Easy Checklist for Writing a Conclusion

It is important to remind the reader of the thesis of the paper so he is reminded of the argument and solutions you proposed.

Think of the main points as puzzle pieces, and the conclusion is where they all fit together to create a bigger picture. The reader should walk away with the bigger picture in mind.

Make sure that the paper places its findings in the context of real social change.

Make sure the reader has a distinct sense that the paper has come to an end. It is important to not leave the reader hanging. (You don’t want her to have flip-the-page syndrome, where the reader turns the page, expecting the paper to continue. The paper should naturally come to an end.)

No new ideas should be introduced in the conclusion. It is simply a review of the material that is already present in the paper. The only new idea would be the suggesting of a direction for future research.

Conclusion Example

As addressed in my analysis of recent research, the advantages of a later starting time for high school students significantly outweigh the disadvantages. A later starting time would allow teens more time to sleep--something that is important for their physical and mental health--and ultimately improve their academic performance and behavior. The added transportation costs that result from this change can be absorbed through energy savings. The beneficial effects on the students’ academic performance and behavior validate this decision, but its effect on student motivation is still unknown. I would encourage an in-depth look at the reactions of students to such a change. This sort of study would help determine the actual effects of a later start time on the time management and sleep habits of students.

Related Webinar

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Thesis Statements
• Next Page: Writer's Block
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• SpringerLink shop

Discussion and Conclusions

Your Discussion and Conclusions sections should answer the question: What do your results mean?

In other words, the majority of the Discussion and Conclusions sections should be an interpretation of your results. You should:

• Discuss your conclusions in order of  most to least important.
• Compare  your results with those from other studies: Are they consistent? If not, discuss possible reasons for the difference.
• Mention any  inconclusive results  and explain them as best you can. You may suggest additional experiments needed to clarify your results.
• Briefly describe the  limitations  of your study to show reviewers and readers that you have considered your experiment’s weaknesses. Many researchers are hesitant to do this as they feel it highlights the weaknesses in their research to the editor and reviewer. However doing this actually makes a positive impression of your paper as it makes it clear that you have an in depth understanding of your topic and can think objectively of your research.
• Discuss  what your results may mean  for researchers in the same field as you, researchers in other fields, and the general public. How could your findings be applied?
• State how your results  extend the findings  of previous studies.
• If your findings are preliminary, suggest  future studies  that need to be carried out.
• At the end of your Discussion and Conclusions sections,  state your main conclusions once again .

Back │ Next

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

How to Write a Conclusion for Research Papers (with Examples)

The conclusion of a research paper is a crucial section that plays a significant role in the overall impact and effectiveness of your research paper. However, this is also the section that typically receives less attention compared to the introduction and the body of the paper. The conclusion serves to provide a concise summary of the key findings, their significance, their implications, and a sense of closure to the study. Discussing how can the findings be applied in real-world scenarios or inform policy, practice, or decision-making is especially valuable to practitioners and policymakers. The research paper conclusion also provides researchers with clear insights and valuable information for their own work, which they can then build on and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

The research paper conclusion should explain the significance of your findings within the broader context of your field. It restates how your results contribute to the existing body of knowledge and whether they confirm or challenge existing theories or hypotheses. Also, by identifying unanswered questions or areas requiring further investigation, your awareness of the broader research landscape can be demonstrated.

Remember to tailor the research paper conclusion to the specific needs and interests of your intended audience, which may include researchers, practitioners, policymakers, or a combination of these.

Table of Contents

What is a conclusion in a research paper, summarizing conclusion, editorial conclusion, externalizing conclusion, importance of a good research paper conclusion, how to write a conclusion for your research paper, research paper conclusion examples.

• How to write a research paper conclusion with Paperpal? 

Frequently Asked Questions

A conclusion in a research paper is the final section where you summarize and wrap up your research, presenting the key findings and insights derived from your study. The research paper conclusion is not the place to introduce new information or data that was not discussed in the main body of the paper. When working on how to conclude a research paper, remember to stick to summarizing and interpreting existing content. The research paper conclusion serves the following purposes: 1

• Warn readers of the possible consequences of not attending to the problem.
• Recommend specific course(s) of action.
• Restate key ideas to drive home the ultimate point of your research paper.
• Provide a “take-home” message that you want the readers to remember about your study.

Types of conclusions for research papers

In research papers, the conclusion provides closure to the reader. The type of research paper conclusion you choose depends on the nature of your study, your goals, and your target audience. I provide you with three common types of conclusions:

A summarizing conclusion is the most common type of conclusion in research papers. It involves summarizing the main points, reiterating the research question, and restating the significance of the findings. This common type of research paper conclusion is used across different disciplines.

An editorial conclusion is less common but can be used in research papers that are focused on proposing or advocating for a particular viewpoint or policy. It involves presenting a strong editorial or opinion based on the research findings and offering recommendations or calls to action.

An externalizing conclusion is a type of conclusion that extends the research beyond the scope of the paper by suggesting potential future research directions or discussing the broader implications of the findings. This type of conclusion is often used in more theoretical or exploratory research papers.

Align your conclusion’s tone with the rest of your research paper. Start Writing with Paperpal Now!  

The conclusion in a research paper serves several important purposes:

• Offers Implications and Recommendations : Your research paper conclusion is an excellent place to discuss the broader implications of your research and suggest potential areas for further study. It’s also an opportunity to offer practical recommendations based on your findings.
• Provides Closure : A good research paper conclusion provides a sense of closure to your paper. It should leave the reader with a feeling that they have reached the end of a well-structured and thought-provoking research project.
• Leaves a Lasting Impression : Writing a well-crafted research paper conclusion leaves a lasting impression on your readers. It’s your final opportunity to leave them with a new idea, a call to action, or a memorable quote.

Writing a strong conclusion for your research paper is essential to leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here’s a step-by-step process to help you create and know what to put in the conclusion of a research paper: 2

• Research Statement : Begin your research paper conclusion by restating your research statement. This reminds the reader of the main point you’ve been trying to prove throughout your paper. Keep it concise and clear.
• Key Points : Summarize the main arguments and key points you’ve made in your paper. Avoid introducing new information in the research paper conclusion. Instead, provide a concise overview of what you’ve discussed in the body of your paper.
• Address the Research Questions : If your research paper is based on specific research questions or hypotheses, briefly address whether you’ve answered them or achieved your research goals. Discuss the significance of your findings in this context.
• Significance : Highlight the importance of your research and its relevance in the broader context. Explain why your findings matter and how they contribute to the existing knowledge in your field.
• Implications : Explore the practical or theoretical implications of your research. How might your findings impact future research, policy, or real-world applications? Consider the “so what?” question.
• Future Research : Offer suggestions for future research in your area. What questions or aspects remain unanswered or warrant further investigation? This shows that your work opens the door for future exploration.
• Closing Thought : Conclude your research paper conclusion with a thought-provoking or memorable statement. This can leave a lasting impression on your readers and wrap up your paper effectively. Avoid introducing new information or arguments here.
• Proofread and Revise : Carefully proofread your conclusion for grammar, spelling, and clarity. Ensure that your ideas flow smoothly and that your conclusion is coherent and well-structured.

Write your research paper conclusion 2x faster with Paperpal. Try it now!

Remember that a well-crafted research paper conclusion is a reflection of the strength of your research and your ability to communicate its significance effectively. It should leave a lasting impression on your readers and tie together all the threads of your paper. Now you know how to start the conclusion of a research paper and what elements to include to make it impactful, let’s look at a research paper conclusion sample.

How to write a research paper conclusion with Paperpal?

A research paper conclusion is not just a summary of your study, but a synthesis of the key findings that ties the research together and places it in a broader context. A research paper conclusion should be concise, typically around one paragraph in length. However, some complex topics may require a longer conclusion to ensure the reader is left with a clear understanding of the study’s significance. Paperpal, an AI writing assistant trusted by over 800,000 academics globally, can help you write a well-structured conclusion for your research paper. 

• Sign Up or Log In: Create a new Paperpal account or login with your details.  
• Navigate to Features : Once logged in, head over to the features’ side navigation pane. Click on Templates and you’ll find a suite of generative AI features to help you write better, faster.  
• Generate an outline: Under Templates, select ‘Outlines’. Choose ‘Research article’ as your document type.  
• Select your section: Since you’re focusing on the conclusion, select this section when prompted.  
• Choose your field of study: Identifying your field of study allows Paperpal to provide more targeted suggestions, ensuring the relevance of your conclusion to your specific area of research. 
• Provide a brief description of your study: Enter details about your research topic and findings. This information helps Paperpal generate a tailored outline that aligns with your paper’s content. 
• Generate the conclusion outline: After entering all necessary details, click on ‘generate’. Paperpal will then create a structured outline for your conclusion, to help you start writing and build upon the outline.  
• Write your conclusion: Use the generated outline to build your conclusion. The outline serves as a guide, ensuring you cover all critical aspects of a strong conclusion, from summarizing key findings to highlighting the research’s implications. 
• Refine and enhance: Paperpal’s ‘Make Academic’ feature can be particularly useful in the final stages. Select any paragraph of your conclusion and use this feature to elevate the academic tone, ensuring your writing is aligned to the academic journal standards. 

By following these steps, Paperpal not only simplifies the process of writing a research paper conclusion but also ensures it is impactful, concise, and aligned with academic standards. Sign up with Paperpal today and write your research paper conclusion 2x faster .  

The research paper conclusion is a crucial part of your paper as it provides the final opportunity to leave a strong impression on your readers. In the research paper conclusion, summarize the main points of your research paper by restating your research statement, highlighting the most important findings, addressing the research questions or objectives, explaining the broader context of the study, discussing the significance of your findings, providing recommendations if applicable, and emphasizing the takeaway message. The main purpose of the conclusion is to remind the reader of the main point or argument of your paper and to provide a clear and concise summary of the key findings and their implications. All these elements should feature on your list of what to put in the conclusion of a research paper to create a strong final statement for your work.

A strong conclusion is a critical component of a research paper, as it provides an opportunity to wrap up your arguments, reiterate your main points, and leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here are the key elements of a strong research paper conclusion: 1. Conciseness : A research paper conclusion should be concise and to the point. It should not introduce new information or ideas that were not discussed in the body of the paper. 2. Summarization : The research paper conclusion should be comprehensive enough to give the reader a clear understanding of the research’s main contributions. 3 . Relevance : Ensure that the information included in the research paper conclusion is directly relevant to the research paper’s main topic and objectives; avoid unnecessary details. 4 . Connection to the Introduction : A well-structured research paper conclusion often revisits the key points made in the introduction and shows how the research has addressed the initial questions or objectives. 5. Emphasis : Highlight the significance and implications of your research. Why is your study important? What are the broader implications or applications of your findings? 6 . Call to Action : Include a call to action or a recommendation for future research or action based on your findings.

The length of a research paper conclusion can vary depending on several factors, including the overall length of the paper, the complexity of the research, and the specific journal requirements. While there is no strict rule for the length of a conclusion, but it’s generally advisable to keep it relatively short. A typical research paper conclusion might be around 5-10% of the paper’s total length. For example, if your paper is 10 pages long, the conclusion might be roughly half a page to one page in length.

In general, you do not need to include citations in the research paper conclusion. Citations are typically reserved for the body of the paper to support your arguments and provide evidence for your claims. However, there may be some exceptions to this rule: 1. If you are drawing a direct quote or paraphrasing a specific source in your research paper conclusion, you should include a citation to give proper credit to the original author. 2. If your conclusion refers to or discusses specific research, data, or sources that are crucial to the overall argument, citations can be included to reinforce your conclusion’s validity.

The conclusion of a research paper serves several important purposes: 1. Summarize the Key Points 2. Reinforce the Main Argument 3. Provide Closure 4. Offer Insights or Implications 5. Engage the Reader. 6. Reflect on Limitations

Remember that the primary purpose of the research paper conclusion is to leave a lasting impression on the reader, reinforcing the key points and providing closure to your research. It’s often the last part of the paper that the reader will see, so it should be strong and well-crafted.

• Makar, G., Foltz, C., Lendner, M., & Vaccaro, A. R. (2018). How to write effective discussion and conclusion sections. Clinical spine surgery, 31(8), 345-346.
• Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters.  Journal of English for academic purposes ,  4 (3), 207-224.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• 5 Reasons for Rejection After Peer Review
• Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects

7 Ways to Improve Your Academic Writing Process

• Paraphrasing in Academic Writing: Answering Top Author Queries

Preflight For Editorial Desk: The Perfect Hybrid (AI + Human) Assistance Against Compromised Manuscripts

You may also like, how to write a high-quality conference paper, academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, phd qualifying exam: tips for success , ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai..., quillbot review: features, pricing, and free alternatives, what is an academic paper types and elements , should you use ai tools like chatgpt for....

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

ON YOUR 1ST ORDER

How to Conclude a Literature Review

By Laura Brown on 6th March 2019

The conclusion of the dissertation literature review focuses on a few critical points,

• Highlight the essential parts of the existing body of literature in a concise way.
• Next, you should analyse the current state of the reviewed literature .
• Explain the research gap for your chosen topic/existing knowledge.
• Now, outline the areas for future study by mentioning main agreements and disagreements in the literature.
• Finally, link the research to existing knowledge .

Now, any of you who have been into research would agree that literature review is a very exhausting process and may stress you during your academic career. It is tougher because it requires you to be organised. We have seen many students asking does a literature review need a conclusion.

Well, the answer is simple, a good literature review will always have a proper ending. But there is nothing to worry about how to write a conclusion for a literature review. Here is a complete guide for you in “four” simple yet convenient steps. These steps can really be valuable in providing an excellent presentation to your literature review help . Furthermore, you can ask us for literature review conclusion examples anytime using our live chat or email option.

Now, without further ado, let’s move towards the steps.

How To Write A Literature Review Conclusion

Get Expert Assistance For Literature Review

Here are four major steps which can help you with how to conclude a literature review with ease.

1. Enlist Key Points

The conclusion can also be said as judgement because it gives a clear view of your work, whether you achieved your targeted objectives or not. Typically, it is not too difficult to conclude a review, but it can be challenging as well if not carried out properly.

It is crucial to find key features which should be engaging and useful as well for a reader. So at first, draft or enlist key factors before moving forward towards initialising your summary.

2. Summarise The Key Features Briefly

This is a most sensitive and important step of a dissertation literature review conclusion, where you should stick to the following things to get the job done efficiently.

• Once you are done drafting the important points , here you should mention them briefly.
• You can also take the liberty to agree or disagree with whatever literature you have gone through.
• Make sure you don’t drag your arguments while counter-arguing. Keeping your points specific is key.
• Describe, in one to two lines, how you addressed the previously identified gap .
• It is also important to point out the lapses you have noticed in previous authors’ work. Those lapses could be a misquotation of figures, a wrong pattern of research and so on.
• Alongside this, discuss existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research.

3. Educational Implications Of The Reviewed Literature

After mentioning the key factors, it is suggested to put implications to the already reviewed research. Like, as identifying problems in the already done research and giving recommendations on how these problems can be resolved.

Need Help in Writing Your Literature Review?

4. Indicating Room For Future Research

After completing the whole analysis of the particular research, you will be capable of identifying the work which can be done in future. You can also leave some gaps for future researchers so others can extend your work. This will be the final step, and this is how to end a literature review.

Tips That Can Enlighten Your Conclusion

We hope that things are very clear to you on how to write a conclusion for a literature review. If you want it to be even better and more meaningful, then you should keep the below points in mind.

• It should not be burdened with an unnecessary chain of details.
• It should be as precise and easy to understand as possible.
• You should mention important key points and findings .
• Make sure to put all points in a flow so the reader can understand your research in one go.
• Do not add anything from your own.

“Simply put, touch the prominent factors and leave them unexplained here”.

Get Help to Conclude Your Literature Review

If you are able to keep your focus around these steps and mentioned points, believe us, you will never ask anyone how to conclude literature review.

Looking At Literature Review Conclusion Example

Below are three examples which will help you understand how to conclude a literature review.

1. Firstly, you should summarise the important aspects and evaluate the current state of the existing literature.

Overall, the findings from this literature review highlight the need for further research to address the gaps in knowledge on the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression in college students.

2. Now, along with mentioning the gaps, come up with your approach to future study.

Therefore, to address this gap in the literature, we incorporated larger and more diverse samples, used standardised measures of mindfulness and mental health outcomes, and included longer follow-up periods to assess the long-term effects of mindfulness-based interventions on anxiety and depression.

3. Now summarise on how your findings will contribute to the particular field by linking it to the existing knowledge.

The findings from the study will provide important insights for researchers, clinicians, and educators interested in developing and implementing effective interventions to promote mental health and well-being among college students, and highlight the need for further research to establish the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in this population.

We hope that these examples will bring in more clarification and you can have a better idea about the literature review conclusion.

What basically is a literature review?

What are the 3 primary parts of a literature review, what are the goals of writing a literature review.

There are four primary objectives of writing a literature review:

1. Determining the background from the previous scholarly literature related to the topic.

2. Identifying the gaps between literature to boost further research.

3. Analysing if the theory is applicable and associating a suitable methodology.

Why is a literature review conclusion necessary?

• https://azhin.org/cummings/basiclitreview/conclusions
• https://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/writing-well/litreview.html
• https://psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/undergraduate-resources/academic-writing-resources/writing-research-papers/writing-lit-review.html
• https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/resources/report-writing/reviewing-the-literature

Laura Brown, a senior content writer who writes actionable blogs at Crowd Writer.

Comments on the review process

• GUEST EDITORIAL
• Published: 18 May 2024

Cite this article

• Roald Hoffmann 1  

43 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The following comments on the review process emerge out of many years of experience on both sides of the process, as reviewer and as author. They are idiosyncratic, indelibly colored by a world view that values expression and communication, and appreciates the penetration of the personal and emotional into science. The writing of science, in the author’s view, needs humanization. The latter opinion puts the writer at odds with much tradition in the trade, and I know can be viewed as some mixture of naïve and prejudiced. And perceived as made from a privileged position.

This is my personal opinion:

The classic Hippocratic oath includes these words: “With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so.” The modern statement of the oath says “First, do no harm”. On that principle, all nastiness and intemperate expression of condemnation shall be excluded from reviews or responses to them. Poison has many guises. Just say that you think the author (or reviewer) is wrong, and why.

The principle of doing no harm should be interpreted generously, in a permissive way, to allow different, unconventional, even strange views to be published. Even if the community thinks otherwise, even if the reviewer thinks otherwise, one should allow publication of them. On the claim in a paper that certain facts are true, if the reviewer claims otherwise, the editor should insert a note saying just this: “A reviewer disagrees with this claimed fact or conclusion.”

In general, for reviewers and editors: On papers that propose interpretation or ideas: if in doubt, publish. Apply stricter criteria to papers that claim chemical or physical properties. See also point 13 below.

If the author does not take into account substantial aspects of a field, leaving out what a reviewer sees as important work, allow the publication in the paper of a statement that says so. Along the lines of…: “A reviewer has noted that the large body of work on …anionic receptors… is not discussed by the authors.”

The communication of science is afflicted with a heritage of dry, neutered, third person expression. The gatekeepers feel they should prevent expressions of emotion. Authors fall into step. Lest the audience, namely readers, be “misled” by it. The history of this has been traced [ 1 ]. In my opinion, the effect of implementing unexpressive writing styles has damaged the public’s and other scientists’ understanding of science. What is needed is more expression, more emotion, taking lessons from writing elsewhere. Science needs to be humanized.

Davide Proserpio and the author, with coworkers, have written at length about citation practice [ 2 ]. Cite we must, cite we do. The reasons for citation are multiform, detailed in a lively way in the article cited. To summarize them via catchwords:

The tradition of scholarship.

Everything has a history.

We use the work of others.

Avoidance of duplication.

Establishing professionalism and credentials.

We wish to claim priority!

To connect up the world.

We want to be fair.

Editorial practices, at times a surrender to the demands of technical editors, that push for a separation of text from captions from drawings in submissions (or in publication) are a gross violation of the lesson of humanity – that telling stories is human [ 3 ]. The chemical paper reached a high positive point in the nineteen sixties, when the advances of computers and layout programs allowed the creation of a Gesamtkunstwerk , with three-dimensionally effective structures intercalated in a text wherever called out. A chemical story could be crafted and understood.

Contemporary policies of the “prestige” journals, of clumping all illustrations into an omnibus figure, are a particular travesty of the story-telling impulse – just when integrating text and pictures can be done more easily, the capability is vitiated.

Large language models, like Chat GPT, have a place in improving the language of papers by authors for whom English is not their first language. The use of such models must be stated clearly in the paper. It’s obvious that any mistakes made by large language models are the direct responsibility of the authors.

If a paper has coauthors, every coauthor is responsible for any material in the paper, even if their role was quite specific (such as providing a certain type of measurement). To assure this, I would require a signing off by every coauthor, saying that they have read the paper and approve of submission. The sign-off probably should occur just before final acceptance of a work, and should be communicated not via the lead author, but directly to the journal.

Illustrations: From perusing many deposited, but not necessarily published papers, my conclusion is that (sadly) one of the prime functions of reviewers is to spot deficient illustration. The sadness comes from the realization that the poor illustrations one sees (in the age of superb computer graphic capabilities) derive from laziness, and a failure to realize the importance of the visual and geometric in teaching and learning. So easy to spot, these defective graphics.

Abstracts: These are routinely abused. An abstract is a succinct summary of what was done, allowing others to see the essence of the  accomplishment. It is not the place to give history, or an argument for validity of a line of reasoning.

Humility is a human virtue. And excessive feelings of self-importance, a typical human failing. It is the place of reviewers to indicate general and specific over-advertising, undue use of enhancers of value of the work done, and -- more generally -- hype in a paper. There should be a question to reviewers to allow them to indicate whether the hype level is excessive, with a positive answer (yes, too much hype) seen prominently by author. If the author makes no change in response, the text should be published as the author has it – our personal hypemeters are well-tuned; no harm will be done by publication, except to the reputation of the writer.

Some of the papers that reach us for review are not “normal” scientific papers, but in the nature of introductions, prefaces, opinion papers, perspectives. They may be idiosyncratic, colorful or unconventional in expression, even prejudiced. How to review these? I would opt for liberal reviewing, generally allowing such papers to be published. The community can take it.

The above are personal, subjective opinions. People may disagree with the author, of course. And no doubt will think of further problems they see. And suggest resolutions. Keep writing!

Hoffmann R (1988) Under the surface of the chemical article. Angew Chem Int Ed 27:1593–1602

Article   Google Scholar  

Hoffmann R, Kabanov A, Golov A, Proserpio DM (2016) Homo citans and carbon allotropes: for an ethics of citation. Angew Chem Int Ed 55:10962–10976

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hoffmann R (2000) Narrative. Am Sci 88(4):310–303

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Cornell University, Baker Laboratory, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

Roald Hoffmann

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roald Hoffmann .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hoffmann, R. Comments on the review process. Struct Chem (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11224-024-02335-z

Download citation

Published : 18 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11224-024-02335-z

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

Essential Operational Management Skills

Table of Contents

What are operational management skills, importance of operations management skills, hard skills for operations managers, soft skills for operations managers, the importance of continuous learning.

In any organization, operational managers are crucial for success. To be a strong operations manager, you need a unique blend of technical expertise, leadership, strategic foresight, and effective communication. This article speaks to all of these required skills, with a special emphasis on the last one: the importance of strong writing across various operations management functions. Excelling in operations management not only requires technical skills and strategic vision but also the ability to convey your ideas, strategies, and analyses through clear and persuasive writing.

Operational management skills encompass the competencies required to plan, direct, and coordinate the operations of an organization. These skills are not limited to the knowledge of business operations but extend to the ability to manage teams, make data-driven decisions, and optimize operational costs for enhanced efficiency and customer satisfaction.

Operations management is pivotal for achieving operational excellence, ensuring quality standards are met, and aligning the operations with the strategic goals of the organization. Effective management of operations directly impacts customer satisfaction, operational costs, and the organization’s ability to compete in the market. Therefore, developing a robust skill set in operations management is crucial for anyone aspiring to excel in this role. 

Learn how to write effectively as an operations manager.

Hard skills are technical, teachable abilities that are often industry-specific and crucial for any operations manager aiming for excellence in their role. 

Analytical and Problem-Solving Skills

Operational management is deeply rooted in identifying problems and creating solutions. Writing also plays a pivotal role. Operations managers must not only analyze complex situations but also document their findings, draft reports, and communicate their strategies effectively. The capacity to compose clear analyses and articulate problem-solving methodologies in writing is indispensable for securing stakeholder support and guiding teams.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Beyond mastering tools like Excel, SQL, or specific data management systems, conveying the implications of data analysis through well-structured reports or presentations is fundamental. This involves crafting compelling narratives around data to inform decision-making processes, highlight trends, and advocate for strategic changes.

Process Improvement

In process improvement, the documentation of current processes, identification of inefficiencies, and proposal of improvements heavily rely on clear and effective writing. From drafting workflow analyses to writing process improvement proposals, the ability to clearly articulate these aspects is crucial for convincing stakeholders of the need for change and for ensuring that improvements are comprehensively understood and implemented.

Project Management

Project management is a core skill for operations managers. With a focus on delivering projects within scope, time, and budget constraints, project management skills ensure that managers can plan, execute, and finalize projects in alignment with the organization's goals. Effective project management also involves risk management, ensuring that potential issues are identified and mitigated early in the project lifecycle.

Financial Acumen

Financial acumen allows managers to budget accurately, forecast operational costs, and identify cost savings opportunities. By effectively managing the financial aspects of operations, managers contribute to the overall financial health of the organization, ensuring resources are allocated efficiently and strategically to support business goals. Operational decisions have significant financial implications, so a strong understanding of finances, risks, and opportunities is crucial for an operational manager.

The ability to write and communicate about these topics effectively is also a key skill. You must be able to create and explain budgets, financial forecasts, and cost-benefit analyses in a manner that is understandable and compelling to all types of stakeholders. The financial reasoning behind your decisions must always be clearly articulated and supported by written evidence. 

Learn more about this in What Does a Financial Writer Do?

Technology Literacy

As technology continually reshapes the landscape of operational management, the ability to document technological implementations, write user guides, and communicate about new systems through written reports or training manuals becomes increasingly valuable. Writing thus becomes a bridge between technological advancements and their practical application within an organization.

Operational Excellence and Risk Management

Achieving operational excellence requires a commitment to continuous improvement and quality management. Operations managers must focus on optimizing business processes, reducing operational costs, and enhancing customer satisfaction. Risk management plays a critical role in this context, as it involves identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks that could impact the organization’s operations and objectives.

While hard skills are essential for operations manager roles, soft skills such as interpersonal skills, communication skills, and team leadership are equally important. These skills foster a collaborative environment, enhance team performance, and ensure all team members are aligned with the organization's objectives.

Interpersonal Skills

Building strong relationships within and across teams helps create a positive work environment and facilitates the smooth execution of operations. Creating a collaborative environment is key to leveraging the strengths of cross-functional teams.

Communication Skills

Clear and effective communication is crucial for conveying expectations, providing feedback, and ensuring that all stakeholders are informed and engaged. This communication takes place verbally and in writing, so it’s essential to cultivate both skills.

Written communication is especially salient. Operations managers write correctly, clearly, and persuasively, whether it be through email/chat, proposals, or strategic documents, to inspire and lead their teams effectively. Strong writing enhances managers' abilities to influence outcomes and drive collective action toward common objectives.

The business landscape is constantly evolving, making continuous learning an invaluable skill for operations managers. Staying updated on industry trends, emerging technologies, and best practices in operational management is essential for driving innovation and maintaining a competitive edge.

This ongoing educational commitment is vital not just for personal and professional growth but also for organizations to maintain a competitive edge. Within this spectrum of learning, developing robust business writing skills emerges as a critical component. Effective communication, enabled by proficient business writing, is crucial for articulating complex ideas, drafting project proposals, and documenting decisions accurately.

The importance of business writing cannot be overstated, as it plays a pivotal role in both internal and external organizational communications. For internal operations, clarity in writing minimizes misunderstandings, facilitating a seamless workflow and enhancing overall productivity. Externally, it enables stronger stakeholder relationships, opens new avenues for business, and bolsters the organization's image. 

Business writing courses offer a comprehensive curriculum encompassing grammar, tone, style, and document structure, thus preparing operations managers to adapt their messaging for varied audiences, ensuring clarity and actionable communication.

This investment in learning and skill development not only empowers managers but is also indispensable for navigating the complexities of modern business, driving operational success, and achieving sustained organizational growth.

Meet one-on-one with an instructor to review your actual operational documents together.

The skills we’ve outlined above are the foundation of effective operational management for business. These skills empower operations managers to drive efficiency, reduce costs, and ensure customer satisfaction. By focusing on both hard skills and soft skills, operations managers can lead their teams to achieve operational excellence and contribute significantly to the organization’s success.

In a landscape marked by rapid change and technological advancement, the commitment to continuous learning and adaptation is what distinguishes exceptional operations managers. By developing a comprehensive skill set and knowing how and when to prioritize key initiatives, operations managers can navigate the complexities of the modern business environment and lead their organizations toward sustainable growth and success.

Related Articles

Communication skills for excellent managers, is grammar or content more important in business writing, guide to selecting credible sources for business writing, get notified of new articles.

• Business Writing Skills (57)
• Business Grammar (52)
• Technical Writing (32)
• Business Writing Resources (26)
• Business Email Writing (17)
• Business Writing Training (12)
• Business Proposals (10)
• Business Report Writing (7)
• Business Proofreading (4)
• Sales Writing (3)
• Executive Summary Writing (2)
• Customer Support Writing (1)
• Bailey Lang (1)
• Elisabeth O'Quinn (14)
• Grace Cuddy (6)
• Haley Larsen (4)
• Kara Latz (10)
• Katie Almeida Spencer (31)
• Malcolm Stiefel (1)
• Mary Cullen (134)
• Samantha Taylor (5)
• Terrance Collins (1)
• Tom DuPuis (10)

• Original article
• Open access
• Published: 20 May 2024

The great detectives: humans versus AI detectors in catching large language model-generated medical writing

• Jae Q. J. Liu 1 ,
• Kelvin T. K. Hui 1 ,
• Fadi Al Zoubi 1 ,
• Zing Z. X. Zhou 1 ,
• Dino Samartzis 2 ,
• Curtis C. H. Yu 1 ,
• Jeremy R. Chang 1 &
• Arnold Y. L. Wong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5911-5756 1  

International Journal for Educational Integrity volume  20 , Article number:  8 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing has raised concerns regarding accuracy, ethics, and scientific rigour. Some AI content detectors may not accurately identify AI-generated texts, especially those that have undergone paraphrasing. Therefore, there is a pressing need for efficacious approaches or guidelines to govern AI usage in specific disciplines.

Our study aims to compare the accuracy of mainstream AI content detectors and human reviewers in detecting AI-generated rehabilitation-related articles with or without paraphrasing.

Study design

This cross-sectional study purposively chose 50 rehabilitation-related articles from four peer-reviewed journals, and then fabricated another 50 articles using ChatGPT. Specifically, ChatGPT was used to generate the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections based on the original titles, methods, and results. Wordtune was then used to rephrase the ChatGPT-generated articles. Six common AI content detectors (Originality.ai, Turnitin, ZeroGPT, GPTZero, Content at Scale, and GPT-2 Output Detector) were employed to identify AI content for the original, ChatGPT-generated and AI-rephrased articles. Four human reviewers (two student reviewers and two professorial reviewers) were recruited to differentiate between the original articles and AI-rephrased articles, which were expected to be more difficult to detect. They were instructed to give reasons for their judgements.

Originality.ai correctly detected 100% of ChatGPT-generated and AI-rephrased texts. ZeroGPT accurately detected 96% of ChatGPT-generated and 88% of AI-rephrased articles. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of ZeroGPT were 0.98 for identifying human-written and AI articles. Turnitin showed a 0% misclassification rate for human-written articles, although it only identified 30% of AI-rephrased articles. Professorial reviewers accurately discriminated at least 96% of AI-rephrased articles, but they misclassified 12% of human-written articles as AI-generated. On average, students only identified 76% of AI-rephrased articles. Reviewers identified AI-rephrased articles based on ‘incoherent content’ (34.36%), followed by ‘grammatical errors’ (20.26%), and ‘insufficient evidence’ (16.15%).

Conclusions and relevance

This study directly compared the accuracy of advanced AI detectors and human reviewers in detecting AI-generated medical writing after paraphrasing. Our findings demonstrate that specific detectors and experienced reviewers can accurately identify articles generated by Large Language Models, even after paraphrasing. The rationale employed by our reviewers in their assessments can inform future evaluation strategies for monitoring AI usage in medical education or publications. AI content detectors may be incorporated as an additional screening tool in the peer-review process of academic journals.

Introduction

Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT; OpenAI, USA) is a popular and responsive chatbot that has surpassed other Large Language Models (LLMs) in terms of usage (ChatGPT Statistics 2023 ). Being trained with 175 billion parameters, ChatGPT has demonstrated its capabilities in the field of medicine and digital health (OpenAI 2023 ). It has been reported to be able to solve higher-order reasoning questions in pathology (Sinha 2023 ). Currently, ChatGPT has been used in generating discharge summaries (Patel &Lam 2023 ), aiding in diagnosis (Mehnen et al. 2023 ), and providing health information to patients with cancer (Hopkins et al. 2023 ). Currently, ChatGPT has become a valuable writing assistant, especially in medical writing (Imran & Almusharaf 2023 ).

However, scientists did not support granting ChatGPT authorship in academic publishing because it could not be held accountable for the ethics of the content (Stokel-Walker 2023 ). Its tendency to generate plausible but non-rigorous or misleading content has raised doubts about the reliability of its outputs (Sallam 2023 ; Manohar & Prasad 2023 ). This poses a risk of disseminating unsubstantiated information. Therefore, scholars have been exploring ways to detect AI-generated content to uphold academic integrity, although there are conflicting perspectives on the utilization of detectors in academic publishing. Previous research found that 14 existing AI detection tools exhibited an average accuracy of less than 80% (Weber-Wulff et al. 2023 ). However, the availability of paraphrasing tools further complicates the detection of LLM-generated texts. Some AI content detectors were ineffective in identifying paraphrased texts (Anderson et al. 2023 ; Weber-Wulff et al. 2023 ). Moreover, some detectors may misclassify human-written articles, which can undermine the credibility of academic publications (Liang et al. 2023 ; Sadasivan et al. 2023 ).

Nevertheless, there have been advancements in AI content detectors. Turnitin and Originality.ai have shown excellent accuracy in discriminating between AI-generated and human-written essays in various academic disciplines (e.g., social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities) (Walters 2023 ). However, their effectiveness in detecting paraphrased academic articles remains uncertain. Importantly, the accuracy of universal AI detectors has shown inconsistencies across studies in different domains (Gao et al. 2023 ; Anderson et al. 2023 ; Walters 2023 ). Therefore, continuous efforts are necessary to identify detectors that can achieve near-perfect accuracy, especially in the detection of medical texts, which is of particular concern to the academic community.

In addition to using AI detectors to help identify AI-generated articles, it is crucial to assess the ability of human reviewers to detect AI-generated formal academic articles. A study found that four peer reviewers only achieved an average accuracy of 68% in identifying ChatGPT-generated biomedical abstracts (Gao et al. 2023 ). However, this study had limitations because the reviewers only assessed abstracts instead of full-text articles, and their assessments were limited to a binary choice of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ without providing any justifications for their decisions. The reported moderate accuracy is inadequate for informing new editorial policy regarding AI usage. To establish effective regulations for supervising AI usage in journal publishing, it is necessary to continuously explore the accuracy of experienced human reviewers and to understand the patterns and stylistic features of AI-generated content. This can help researchers, educators, and editors develop discipline-specific guidelines to effectively supervise AI usage in academic publishing.

Against this background, the current study aimed to (1) compare the accuracy of several common AI content detectors and human reviewers with different levels of research training in detecting AI-generated academic articles with or without paraphrasing; and (2) understand the rationale by human reviewers for determining AI-generated content.

The current study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of a university. This study consisted of four stages: (1) identifying 50 published peer-reviewed papers from four high-impact journals; (2) generating artificial papers using ChatGPT; (3) rephrasing the ChatGPT-generated papers using a paraphrasing tool called Wordtune; and (4) employing six AI content detectors to distinguish between the original papers, ChatGPT-generated papers, and AI-rephrased papers. To determine human reviewers’ ability to discern between the original papers and AI-rephrased papers, four reviewers reviewed and assessed these two types of papers (Fig. 1 ).

An outline of the study

Identifying peer-reviewed papers

As this study was conducted by researchers involved in rehabilitation sciences, only rehabilitation-related publications were considered. A researcher searched on PubMed in June 2023 using a search strategy involving: (“Neurological Rehabilitation”[Mesh]) OR (“Cardiac Rehabilitation”[Mesh]) OR (“Pulmonary Rehabilitation” [Mesh]) OR (“Exercise Therapy”[Mesh]) OR (“Physical Therapy”[Mesh]) OR (“Activities of Daily Living”[Mesh]) OR (“Self Care”[Mesh]) OR (“Self-Management”[Mesh]). English rehabilitation-related articles published between June 2013 and June 2023 in one of four high-impact journals ( Nature, The Lancet, JAMA, and British Medical Journal [BMJ] ) were eligible for inclusion. Fifty articles were included and categorized into four categories (musculoskeletal, cardiopulmonary, neurology, and pediatric) (Appendix 1 ).

Generating academic articles using ChatGPT

ChatGPT (GPT-3.5-Turbo, OpenAI, USA) was used to generate the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections of fabricated articles in July 2023. Specifically, before starting a conversation with ChatGPT, we gave the instruction “ Considering yourself as an academic writer ” to put it into a specific role. After that, we entered “ Please write a convincing scientific introduction on the topic of [original topic] with some citations in the text” into GPT-3.5-Turbo to generate the ‘Introduction’ section. The ‘Discussion’ section was generated by the request “Please critically discuss the methods and results below: [original method] and [original result], Please include citations in the text” . For the ‘Conclusions’ section, we instructed ChatGPT to create a summary of the generated discussion section with reference to the original title. Collectively, each ChatGPT-generated article comprised fabricated introduction, discussion, and conclusions sections, alongside the original methods and results sections.

Rephrasing ChatGPT-generated articles using a paraphrasing tool

Wordtune (AI21 Labs, Tel Aviv, Israel) (Wordtune 2023 ), a widely used AI-powered writing assistant, was applied to paraphrase 50 ChatGPT-generated articles, specifically targeting the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections, to enhance their authenticity.

Identification of AI-generated articles

Using ai content detectors.

Six AI content detectors, which have been widely used (Walters 2023 ; Crothers 2023 ; Top 10 AI Detector Tools 2023 ), were applied to identify texts generated by AI language models in August 2023. They classified a given paper as “human-written” or “AI-generated”, with a confidence level reported as an AI score [% ‘confidence in predicting that the content was produced by an AI tool’] or a perplexity score [randomness or particularity of the text]. A lower perplexity score indicates that the text has relatively few random elements and is more likely to be written by generative AI (GPTZero 2023 ). The 50 original articles, 50 ChatGPT-generated articles, and 50 AI-rephrased articles were evaluated for authenticity by two paid (Originality.ai, Originality. AI Inc., Ontario, Canada; and Turnitin’s AI writing detection, Turnitin LLC, CA, USA) and four free AI content detectors (ZeroGPT, Munchberg, Germany; GPTZero, NJ, USA; Content at Scale, AZ, USA; and GPT-2 Output Detector, CA, USA). The authentic methods and results sections were not entered into the AI content detectors. Since the GPT-2 Output Detector has a restriction of 510 tokens per attempt, each article was divided into several parts for input, and the overall AI score of the article was calculated based on the mean score of all parts.

Peer reviews by human reviewers

Four blinded reviewers with backgrounds in physiotherapy and varying levels of research training (two college student reviewers and two professorial reviewers) were recruited to review and discern articles. To minimize the risk of recall bias, a researcher randomly assigned the 50 original articles and 50 AI-rephrased articles (ChatGPT-generated articles after rephrasing) to two electronic folders by a coin toss. If an original article was placed in Folder 1, the corresponding AI-rephrased article was assigned to Folder 2. Reviewers were instructed to review all the papers in Folder 1 first and then wait for at least 7 days before reviewing papers in Folder 2. This approach would reduce the reviewers’ risk of remembering the details of the original papers and AI-rephrased articles on the same topic (Fisher & Radvansky 2018 ).

The four reviewers were instructed to use an online Google form (Appendix 2 ) to make their decision and provide reasons behind their decision. Reviewers were instructed to enter the article number on the Google form before reviewing the article. Once the reviewers had gathered sufficient information/confidence to make the decision, they would give a binary response (“AI-rephrased” or “human-written”). Additionally, they should select their top three reasons for their decision from a list of options (i.e., coherence creativity, evidence-based, grammatical errors, and vocabulary diversity) (Walters 2019; Lee 2022 ). The definitions of these reasons (Appendix 3 ) were explained to the reviewers beforehand. If they could not find the best answers, they could enter additional responses. When the reviewer submitted the form, the total duration was automatically recorded by the system.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analyses were reported when appropriate. Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to evaluate the normality of the data, while Levene’s tests were employed to assess the homogeneity of variance. Logarithmic transformation was applied to the data related to ‘time taken’ to achieve the normal distribution. Separate two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc comparisons were conducted to evaluate the effect of detectors and AI usage on AI scores, and the effect of reviewers and AI usage on the time taken. Separate paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction were applied for pairwise comparisons. The GPTZero Perplexity scores were compared among groups of articles using one-way repeated ANOVA. Subsequently, separate paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction were used for pairwise comparisons. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine cutoff values for the highest sensitivity and specificity in detecting AI articles by AI content detectors. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was also calculated. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using Fleiss’s kappa, and Cohen’s kappa with Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons. The significance level was set at p  < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 26; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

The accuracy of AI detectors in identifying AI articles

The accuracy of AI content detectors in identifying AI-generated articles is shown in Fig. 2 a and b. Notably, Originality.ai demonstrated perfect accuracy (100%) in detecting both ChatGPT-generated and AI-rephrased articles. ZeroGPT showed near-perfect accuracy (96%) in identifying ChatGPT-generated articles. The optimal ZeroGPT cut-off value for distinguishing between original and AI articles (ChatGPT-generated and AI-rephrased) was 42.45% (Fig. 3 a) , with a sensitivity of 98% and a specificity of 92%. The GPT-2 Output Detector achieved an accuracy of 96% in identifying ChatGPT-generated articles based on an AI score cutoff value of 1.46%, as suggested by previous research (Gao et al. 2023 ). Likewise, Turnitin showed near-perfect accuracy (94%) in discerning ChatGPT-generated articles but only correctly discerned 30% of AI-rephrased articles. GPTZero and Content at Scale only correctly identified 70 and 52% of ChatGPT-generated papers, respectively. While Turnitin did not misclassify any original articles, Content at Scale and GPTZero incorrectly classified 28 and 22% of the original articles, respectively. AI scores, or perplexity scores, in response to the original, ChatGPT-generated, and AI-rephrased articles from each AI content detector are shown in Appendix 4 . The classification of responses from each AI content detector is shown in Appendix 5 .

The accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) content detectors and human reviewers in identifying large language model (LLM)-generated texts. a The accuracy of six AI content detectors in identifying AI-generated articles; b the percentage of misclassification of human-written articles as AI-generated ones by detectors; c the accuracy of four human reviewers (reviewers 1 and 2 were college students, while reviewers 3 and 4 were professorial reviewers) in identifying AI-rephrased articles; and d the percentage of misclassifying human-written articles as AI-rephrased ones by reviewers

The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the ROC (AUROC) of artificial intelligence (AI) content detectors. a The ROC curve and AUROC of ZeroGPT for discriminating between original and AI articles, with the AUROC of 0.98; b the ROC curve and AUROC of GPTZero for discriminating between original and AI articles, with the AUROC of 0.312

All AI content detectors, except Originality.ai, gave rephrased articles lower scores as compared to the corresponding ChatGPT-generated articles (Fig. 4 a). Likewise, GPTZero demonstrated that the perplexity scores of ChatGPT-generated (p<0.001) and AI-rephrased (p<0.001) texts were significantly lower than those of the original articles (Fig. 4 b) . The ROC curve of GPTZero perplexity scores for identifying original articles and AI articles showed that the respective AUROC were 0.312 (Fig. 3 b).

Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated articles demonstrated reduced AI scores after rephrasing. a The mean AI scores of 50 ChatGPT-generated articles before and after rephrasing; b ChatGPT-generated articles demonstrated lower Perplexity scores computed by GPTZero as compared to original articles although increased after rephrasing; * p  < 0·05, ** p  < 0·01, *** p  < 0·001

The accuracy of reviewers in identifying AI-rephrased articles

The median time spent by the four reviewers to distinguish original and AI-rephrased articles was 5 minutes (min) 45 seconds (s) (interquartile range [IQR] 3 min 42 s, 9 min 7 s). The median time taken by each reviewer to distinguish original and AI-rephrased articles is shown in Appendix 6 . The two professorial reviewers demonstrated extremely high accuracy (96 and 100%) in discerning AI-rephrased articles, although both misclassified 12% of human-written articles as AI-rephrased (Fig. 2 c and d , and Table 1 ). Although three original articles were misclassified as AI-rephrased by both professorial reviewers, they were correctly identified by Originality and ZeroGPT. The common reasons for an article to be classified as AI-rephrased by reviewers included ‘incoherence’ (34.36%), ‘grammatical errors’ (20.26%), ‘insufficient evidence-based claims’ (16.15%), vocabulary diversity (11.79%), creativity (6.15%) , ‘misuse of abbreviations’(5.87%), ‘writing style’ (2.71%), ‘vague expression’ (1.81%), and ‘conflicting data’ (0.9%). Nevertheless, 12 of the 50 original articles were wrongly considered AI-rephrased by two or more reviewers. Most of these misclassified articles were deemed to be incoherent and/or lack vocabulary diversity. The frequency of the primary reason given by each reviewer and the frequency of the reasons given by four reviewers for identifying AI-rephrased articles are shown in Fig. 5 a and b, respectively.

A The frequency of the primary reason for artificial intelligence (AI)-rephrased articles being identified by each reviewer. B The relative frequency of each reason for AI-rephrased articles being identified (based on the top three reasons given by the four reviewers)

Regarding the inter-rater agreement between two professorial reviewers, there was near-perfect agreement in the binary responses, with κ = 0.819 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.705, 0.933, p <0.05), as well as fair agreements in the primary and second reasons, with κ = 0.211 (95% CI 0.011, 0.411, p <0.05) and κ = 0.216 (95% CI 0.024, 0.408, p <0.05), respectively.

“Plagiarized” scores of ChatGPT-generated or AI-rephrased articles

Turnitin results showed that the content of ChatGPT-generated and AI-rephrased articles had significantly lower ‘plagiarized’ scores (39.22% ± 10.6 and 23.16% ± 8.54%, respectively) than the original articles (99.06% ± 1.27%).

Likelihood of ChatGPT being used in original articles after the launch of GPT-3.5-Turbo

No significant differences were found in the AI scores or perplexity scores calculated by the six AI content detectors (p>0.05), or in the binary responses evaluated by reviewers ( p >0.05), when comparing the included original papers published before and after November 2022 (the release of ChatGPT).

Our study found that Originality.ai and ZeroGPT accurately detected AI-generated texts, regardless of whether they were rephrased or not. Additionally, Turnitin did not misclassify human-written articles. While professorial reviewers were generally able to discern AI-rephrased articles from human-written ones, they might misinterpret some human-written articles as AI-generated due to incoherent content and varied vocabulary. Conversely, AI-rephrased articles are more likely to go unnoticed by student reviewers.

What is the performance of generative AI in academic writing?

Lee et al found that sentences written by GPT-3 tended to generate fewer grammatical or spelling errors than human writers (Lee 2022 ). However, ChatGPT may not necessarily minimize grammatical mistakes. In our study, reviewers identified ‘grammatical errors’ as the second most common reason for classifying an article as AI-rephrased. Our reviewers also noted that generative AI was more likely to inappropriately use medical terminologies or abbreviations, and even generate fabricated data. These might lead to a detrimental impact on academic dissemination. Collectively, generative AI is less likely to successfully create credible academic articles without the development of discipline-specific LLMs.

Can generative AI generate creative and in-depth thoughts?

Prior research reported that ChatGPT correctly answered 42.0 to 67.6% of questions in medical licensing examinations conducted in China, Taiwan, and the USA (Zong 2023 ; Wang 2023 ; Gilson 2023 ). However, our reviewers discovered that AI-generated articles offered only superficial discussion without substantial supporting evidence. Further, redundancy was observed in the content of AI-generated articles. Unless future advancements in generative AI can improve the interpretation of evidence-based content and incorporate in-depth and insightful discussion, its utility may be limited to serving as an information source for academic works.

Who can be deceived by ChatGPT? How can we address it?

ChatGPT is capable of creating realistic and intelligent-sounding text, including convincing data and references (Ariyaratne et al. 2023 ). Yeadon et al , found that ChatGPT-generated physics essays were graded as first-class essays in a writing assessment at Durham University (Yeadon et al. 2023 ). We found that AI-generated content had a relatively low plagiarism rate. These factors may encourage the potential misuse of AI technology for generating written assignments and the dissemination of misinformation among students. In a current survey, Welding ( 2023 ) reported that 50% of 1000 college students admitted to using AI tools to help complete assignments or exams. However, in our study, college student reviewers only correctly identified an average of 76% of AI-rephrased articles. Notably, our professorial reviewers found fabricated data in two AI-generated articles, while the student reviewers were unaware of this issue, which highlights the possibility of AI-generated content deceiving junior researchers and impacting their learning. In short, the inherent limitations of ChatGPT as reported by experienced reviewers may help research students understand some key points in critically appraising academic articles and be more competent in detecting AI-generated articles.

Which detectors are recommended for use?

Our study revealed that Originality.ai emerged as the most sensitive and accurate platform for detecting AI-generated (including paraphrased) content, although it requires a subscription fee. ZeroGPT is an excellent free tool that exhibits a high level of sensitivity and specificity for detecting AI articles when the AI score threshold is set at 42.45%. These findings could help monitor the AI use in academic publishing and education, to promisingly tackle ethical challenges posed by the iteration of AI technologies. Additionally, Turnitin, a widely used platform in educational institutions or scientific journals, displayed perfect accuracy in detecting human-written articles and near-perfect accuracy in detecting ChatGPT-generated content but was proved susceptible to deception when confronted with AI-rephrased articles. This raises concerns among educators regarding the potential for students to evade Turnitin AI detection by using an AI rephrasing editor. As generative AI technologies continue to evolve, educators and researchers should regularly conduct similar studies to identify the most suitable AI content detectors.

AI content detectors employ different predictive algorithms. Some publicly available detectors use perplexity scores and related concepts for identifying AI-generated writing. However, we found that the AUROC curve of GPTZero perplexity scores in identifying AI articles performed worse than chance. As such, the effectiveness of utilizing perplexity-based methods as the machine learning algorithm for developing an AI content detector remains debatable.

As with any novel technology, some merits and demerits require continuous improvement and development. Currently, AI content detectors have been developed as general-purpose tools to analyze text features, primarily based on the randomness of word choice and sentence lengths (Prillaman 2023 ). While technical issues such as algorithms, model turning, and development are beyond the scope of this study, we have provided empirical evidence that offers potential directions for future advancements in AI content detectors. One such area that requires further exploration and investigation is the development of AI content detectors trained using discipline-specific LLMs.

Should authors be concerned about their manuscripts being misinterpreted?

While AI-rephrasing tools may help non-native English writers and less experienced researchers prepare better academic articles, AI technologies may pose challenges to academic publishing and education. Previous research has suggested that AI content detectors may penalize non-native English writers with limited linguistic expressions due to simplified wording (Liang et al. 2023 ). However, scientific writing emphasizes precision and accurate expression of scientific evidence, often favouring succinctness over vocabulary diversity or complex sentence structures (Scholar Hangout 2023 ). This raises concerns about the potential misclassification of human-written academic papers as AI-generated, which could have negative implications for authors’ academic reputations. However, our results indicate that experienced reviewers are unlikely to misclassify human-written manuscripts as AI-generated if the articles present logical arguments, provide sufficient evidence-based support, and offer in-depth discussions. Therefore, authors should consider these factors when preparing their manuscripts to minimize the risk of misinterpretation.

Our study revealed that both AI content detectors and human reviewers occasionally misclassified certain original articles as AI-generated. However, it is noteworthy that no human-written articles were misclassified by both AI-content detectors and the two professorial reviewers simultaneously. Therefore, to minimize the risk of misclassifying human-written articles as AI-generated, editors of peer-reviewed journals may consider implementing a screening process that involves a reliable, albeit imperfect, AI-content detector in conjunction with the traditional peer-review process, which includes at least two reviewers. If both the AI content detectors and the peer reviewers consistently label a manuscript as AI-generated, the authors should be given the opportunity to appeal the decision. The editor-in-chief and one member of the editorial board can then evaluate the appeal and make a final decision.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Firstly, the ChatGPT-3.5 version was used to fabricate articles given its popularity. Future studies should investigate the performance of upgraded LLMs. Secondly, although our analyses revealed no significant differences in the proportion of original papers classified as AI-written before and after November 2022 (the release of ChatGPT), we cannot guarantee that all original papers were not assisted by generative AI in their writing process. Future studies should consider including papers published before this date to validate our findings. Thirdly, although an excellent inter-rater agreement in the binary score was found between the two professorial reviewers, our results need to be interpreted with caution given the small number of reviewers and the lack of consistency between the two student reviewers. Future studies should address these limitations and expand our methodology to include other disciplines/industries with more reviewers to enhance the generalizability of our findings and facilitate the development of strategies for detecting AI-generated content in various fields.

Conclusions

This is the first study to directly compare the accuracy of advanced AI detectors and human reviewers in detecting AI-generated medical writing after paraphrasing. Our findings substantiate that the established peer-reviewed system can effectively mitigate the risk of publishing AI-generated academic articles. However, certain AI content detectors (i.e., Originality.ai and ZeroGPT) can be used to help editors or reviewers with the initial screening of AI-generated articles, upholding academic integrity in scientific publishing. It is noteworthy that the current version of ChatGPT is inadequate to generate rigorous scientific articles and carries the risk of fabricating data and misusing medical abbreviations. Continuous development of machine-learning strategies to improve AI detection accuracy in the health sciences field is essential. This study provides empirical evidence and valuable insights for future research on the validation and development of effective detection tools. It highlights the importance of implementing proper supervision and regulation of AI usage in medical writing and publishing. This ensures that relevant stakeholders can responsibly harness AI technologies while maintaining scientific rigour.

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials used in the manuscript are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

• Artificial intelligence

Large language model

Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer

Receiver Operating Characteristic

Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic

Anderson N, Belavy DL, Perle SM, Hendricks S, Hespanhol L, Verhagen E, Memon AR (2023) AI did not write this manuscript, or did it? Can we trick the AI text detector into generating texts? The potential future of ChatGPT and AI in sports & exercise medicine manuscript generation. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 9(1):e001568

Article   Google Scholar  

Ariyaratne S, Iyengar KP, Nischal N, Chitti Babu N, Botchu R (2023) A comparison of ChatGPT-generated articles with human-written articles. Skeletal Radiol 52:1755–1758

ChatGPT Statistics, 2023, Detailed Insights On Users. https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/ Accessed 08 Nov 2023

Crothers E, Japkowicz N, Viktor HL (2023) Machine-generated text: a comprehensive survey of threat models and detection methods. IEEE Access

Google Scholar  

Fisher JS, Radvansky GA (2018) Patterns of forgetting. J Mem Lang 102:130–141

Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, Dyer EC, Ramesh S, Luo Y, Pearson AT (2023) Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digit Med 6:75

Gilson A, Safranek CW, Huang T, Socrates V, Chi L, Taylor RA, Chartash D (2023) How does ChatGPT perform on the United States medical licensing examination? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. JMIR Med Educ 9:e45312

GPTZero, 2023 , How do I interpret burstiness or perplexity? https://support.gptzero.me/hc/en-us/articles/15130070230551-How-do-I-interpret-burstiness-or-perplexity. Accessed August 20 2023

Hopkins AM, Logan JM, Kichenadasse G, Sorich MJ (2023) Artificial intelligence chatbots will revolutionize how cancer patients access information: ChatGPT represents a paradigm-shift. JNCI Cancer Spectr 7:pkad010

Imran M, Almusharraf N (2023) Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: a systematic review of the literature. Contemp Educ Technol 15:ep464

Lee M, Liang P, Yang Q (2022) Coauthor: designing a human-ai collaborative writing dataset for exploring language model capabilities. In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–19 ACM, April 2022

Liang W, Yuksekgonul M, Mao Y, Wu E, Zou J (2023) GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns (N Y) 4(7):100779

Manohar N, Prasad SS (2023) Use of ChatGPT in academic publishing: a rare case of seronegative systemic lupus erythematosus in a patient with HIV infection. Cureus 15(2):e34616

Mehnen L, Gruarin S, Vasileva M, Knapp B (2023) ChatGPT as a medical doctor? A diagnostic accuracy study on common and rare diseases medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.20.23288859

OpenAI, 2023, Introducing ChatGPT. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt .Accessed 30 Dec 2023

Patel SB, Lam K (2023) ChatGPT: the future of discharge summaries? Lancet Digital Health 5:e107–e108

Prillaman M (2023) ChatGPT detector' catches AI-generated papers with unprecedented accuracy. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03479-4 Accessed 31 Dec 2023

Sadasivan V, Kumar A, Balasubramanian S, Wang W, Feizi S (2023) Can AI-generated text be reliably detected? arXiv e-prints: 2303.11156

Sallam M (2023) ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. In Healthcare MDPI 887:1

Scholar Hangout, 2023, https://www.manuscriptedit.com/scholar-hangout/maintaining-accuracy-in-academic-writing/ .Accessed September 10 2023

Sinha RK, Deb Roy A, Kumar N, Mondal H (2023) Applicability of ChatGPT in assisting to solve higher order problems in pathology. Cureus 15(2):e35237

Stokel-Walker C (2023) ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature 613(7945):620–621

Top 10 AI Detector Tools, 2023, You Should Use. https://www.eweek.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-detector-software/#chart .Accessed August 2023

Walters WH (2023) The effectiveness of software designed to detect AI-generated writing: a comparison of 16 AI text detectors. Open Information Science 7:20220158

Wang Y-M, Shen H-W, Chen T-J (2023) Performance of ChatGPT on the pharmacist licensing examination in Taiwan. J Chin Med Assoc 10:1097

Weber-Wulff D, Anohina-Naumeca A, Bjelobaba S, Foltýnek T, Guerrero-Dib J, Popoola O, Šigut P, Waddington L (2023) Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. Int J Educ Integrity 19(1):26

Welding L (2023) Half of college students say using AI on schoolwork is cheating or plagiarism. Best Colleges

Wordtune. 2023, https://app.wordtune.com/ .Accessed 16 July 2023

Yeadon W, Inyang O-O, Mizouri A, Peach A, Testrow CP (2023) The death of the short-form physics essay in the coming AI revolution. Phys Educ 58:035027

Zong H, Li J, Wu E, Wu R, Lu J, Shen B (2023) Performance of ChatGPT on Chinese National Medical Licensing Examinations: a five-year examination evaluation study for physicians, pharmacists and nurses. medRxiv:2023.2007. 2009.23292415

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The current study was supported by the GP Batteries Industrial Safety Trust Fund (R-ZDDR).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Rehabilitation Science, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, SAR, China

Jae Q. J. Liu, Kelvin T. K. Hui, Fadi Al Zoubi, Zing Z. X. Zhou, Curtis C. H. Yu, Jeremy R. Chang & Arnold Y. L. Wong

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

Dino Samartzis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Jae QJ Liu, Kelvin TK Hui and Arnold YL Wong conceptualized the study; Fadi Al Zoubi, Zing Z.X. Zhou, Curtis CH Yu, and Arnold YL Wong acquired the data; Jae QJ Liu and Kelvin TK Hui curated the data; Jae QJ Liu and Jeremy R Chang analyzed the data; Arnold YL Wong was responsible for funding acquisition and project supervision; Jae QJ Liu drafted the original manuscript; Arnold YL Wong and Dino Samartzis edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnold Y. L. Wong .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Liu, J.Q.J., Hui, K.T.K., Al Zoubi, F. et al. The great detectives: humans versus AI detectors in catching large language model-generated medical writing. Int J Educ Integr 20 , 8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00155-6

Download citation

Received : 27 December 2023

Accepted : 13 March 2024

Published : 20 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00155-6

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

• Paraphrasing tools
• Generative AI
• Academic integrity
• AI content detectors
• Peer review
• Perplexity scores
• Scientific rigour

International Journal for Educational Integrity

ISSN: 1833-2595

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]