introduction article review

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

How to Write an Article Review

Last Updated: September 8, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,088,406 times.

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

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

Things You Should Know

Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information. [1] X Research source

Preparing to Write Your Review

Step 1 Understand what an article review is.

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.

Step 2 Think about the organization of the review 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.

Step 6 Write an outline of your evaluation.

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

Writing the Article Review

For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [10] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample Article Reviews

Expert Q&A

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

About This Article

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

Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Oct 25, 2023

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Featured Articles

Watch Articles

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

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

The 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

20 Ways to Reduce Your Overall Body Fat

How to care for your skin as a guy, how to treat a graze: 14 steps, how to aquascape, 4 simple ways to cook sea asparagus, how to ink comics with a brush: 12 steps, how to sell perfume on ebay, how to train your ear, how to smooth frizzy hair: 14 steps, 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

3 Ways to Have a Deep Connection With Your Boyfriend

14 Easy Ways to Join a Girl Group

4 Ways to Write a Follow Up Email for a Job Application

3 Effective Ways to Clean a Fiberglass Tub

3 Ways to Fix a Broken Fishing Rod

3 Ways to Snell a Hook

How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

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

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

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

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

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

❓ What Is an Article Review?

✍️ Writing Steps

📑 Article Review Format

🔗 references.

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

This image shows what an article review is.

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

Popular Vs. Scholarly Articles

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

Just in 1 hour! We will write you a plagiarism-free paper in hardly more than 1 hour

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

Article Review vs. Response Paper

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

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

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

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

✍️ How to Write an Article Review: Step by Step

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

Receive a plagiarism-free paper tailored to your instructions. Cut 20% off your first order!

Read the Article

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

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

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

Summarize the Article

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

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

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

Evaluate the Article

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

Get an originally-written paper according to your instructions!

Write the Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Review in APA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Review in MLA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

✅ Article Review Template

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

📝 Article Review Examples

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

📃 Men, Women, & Money

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

📃 When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism

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

📃 Sleep Deprivation

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

✏️ Article Review FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

How to Write a Short Essay: Format & Examples

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

Compare and Contrast Essay Outline: Template and Example

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

How to Write a Formal Essay: Format, Rules, & Example

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

How to Write a Narrative Essay Outline: Template & Examples

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

How to Write a Precis: Definition, Guide, & Examples

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

How to Write a Synthesis Essay: Examples, Topics, & Outline

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

How to Write a Catchy Hook: Examples & Techniques

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

How to Write a Critical Thinking Essay: Examples & Outline

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

How to Write a Process Analysis Essay: Examples & Outline

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

How to Write a Visual Analysis Essay: Examples & Template

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

How to Write a Reflection Paper: Example & Tips

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

How to Write a Character Analysis Essay: Examples & Outline

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

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, related articles.

How to Write a Policy Analysis Paper Step-by-Step

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

The introduction to a literature review serves as your reader’s guide through your academic work and thought process. Explore the significance of literature review introductions in review papers, academic papers, essays, theses, and dissertations. We delve into the purpose and necessity of these introductions, explore the essential components of literature review introductions, and provide step-by-step guidance on how to craft your own, along with examples.

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

When you need an introduction for a literature review, what to include in a literature review introduction, examples of literature review introductions, steps to write your own literature review introduction.

A literature review is a comprehensive examination of the international academic literature concerning a particular topic. It involves summarizing published works, theories, and concepts while also highlighting gaps and offering critical reflections.

In academic writing , the introduction for a literature review is an indispensable component. Effective academic writing requires proper paragraph structuring to guide your reader through your argumentation. This includes providing an introduction to your literature review.

It is imperative to remember that you should never start sharing your findings abruptly. Even if there isn’t a dedicated introduction section .

Instead, you should always offer some form of introduction to orient the reader and clarify what they can expect.

There are three main scenarios in which you need an introduction for a literature review:

Academic literature review papers: When your literature review constitutes the entirety of an academic review paper, a more substantial introduction is necessary. This introduction should resemble the standard introduction found in regular academic papers.
Literature review section in an academic paper or essay: While this section tends to be brief, it’s important to precede the detailed literature review with a few introductory sentences. This helps orient the reader before delving into the literature itself.
Literature review chapter or section in your thesis/dissertation: Every thesis and dissertation includes a literature review component, which also requires a concise introduction to set the stage for the subsequent review.

You may also like: How to write a fantastic thesis introduction (+15 examples)

It is crucial to customize the content and depth of your literature review introduction according to the specific format of your academic work.

In practical terms, this implies, for instance, that the introduction in an academic literature review paper, especially one derived from a systematic literature review , is quite comprehensive. Particularly compared to the rather brief one or two introductory sentences that are often found at the beginning of a literature review section in a standard academic paper. The introduction to the literature review chapter in a thesis or dissertation again adheres to different standards.

Here’s a structured breakdown based on length and the necessary information:

Academic literature review paper

The introduction of an academic literature review paper, which does not rely on empirical data, often necessitates a more extensive introduction than the brief literature review introductions typically found in empirical papers. It should encompass:

The research problem: Clearly articulate the problem or question that your literature review aims to address.
The research gap: Highlight the existing gaps, limitations, or unresolved aspects within the current body of literature related to the research problem.
The research relevance: Explain why the chosen research problem and its subsequent investigation through a literature review are significant and relevant in your academic field.
The literature review method: If applicable, describe the methodology employed in your literature review, especially if it is a systematic review or follows a specific research framework.
The main findings or insights of the literature review: Summarize the key discoveries, insights, or trends that have emerged from your comprehensive review of the literature.
The main argument of the literature review: Conclude the introduction by outlining the primary argument or statement that your literature review will substantiate, linking it to the research problem and relevance you’ve established.
Preview of the literature review’s structure: Offer a glimpse into the organization of the literature review paper, acting as a guide for the reader. This overview outlines the subsequent sections of the paper and provides an understanding of what to anticipate.

By addressing these elements, your introduction will provide a clear and structured overview of what readers can expect in your literature review paper.

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

Most academic articles or essays incorporate regular literature review sections, often placed after the introduction. These sections serve to establish a scholarly basis for the research or discussion within the paper.

In a standard 8000-word journal article, the literature review section typically spans between 750 and 1250 words. The first few sentences or the first paragraph within this section often serve as an introduction. It should encompass:

An introduction to the topic: When delving into the academic literature on a specific topic, it’s important to provide a smooth transition that aids the reader in comprehending why certain aspects will be discussed within your literature review.
The core argument: While literature review sections primarily synthesize the work of other scholars, they should consistently connect to your central argument. This central argument serves as the crux of your message or the key takeaway you want your readers to retain. By positioning it at the outset of the literature review section and systematically substantiating it with evidence, you not only enhance reader comprehension but also elevate overall readability. This primary argument can typically be distilled into 1-2 succinct sentences.

In some cases, you might include:

Methodology: Details about the methodology used, but only if your literature review employed a specialized method. If your approach involved a broader overview without a systematic methodology, you can omit this section, thereby conserving word count.

By addressing these elements, your introduction will effectively integrate your literature review into the broader context of your academic paper or essay. This will, in turn, assist your reader in seamlessly following your overarching line of argumentation.

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation

The literature review typically constitutes a distinct chapter within a thesis or dissertation. Often, it is Chapter 2 of a thesis or dissertation.

Some students choose to incorporate a brief introductory section at the beginning of each chapter, including the literature review chapter. Alternatively, others opt to seamlessly integrate the introduction into the initial sentences of the literature review itself. Both approaches are acceptable, provided that you incorporate the following elements:

Purpose of the literature review and its relevance to the thesis/dissertation research: Explain the broader objectives of the literature review within the context of your research and how it contributes to your thesis or dissertation. Essentially, you’re telling the reader why this literature review is important and how it fits into the larger scope of your academic work.
Primary argument: Succinctly communicate what you aim to prove, explain, or explore through the review of existing literature. This statement helps guide the reader’s understanding of the review’s purpose and what to expect from it.
Preview of the literature review’s content: Provide a brief overview of the topics or themes that your literature review will cover. It’s like a roadmap for the reader, outlining the main areas of focus within the review. This preview can help the reader anticipate the structure and organization of your literature review.
Methodology: If your literature review involved a specific research method, such as a systematic review or meta-analysis, you should briefly describe that methodology. However, this is not always necessary, especially if your literature review is more of a narrative synthesis without a distinct research method.

By addressing these elements, your introduction will empower your literature review to play a pivotal role in your thesis or dissertation research. It will accomplish this by integrating your research into the broader academic literature and providing a solid theoretical foundation for your work.

Comprehending the art of crafting your own literature review introduction becomes significantly more accessible when you have concrete examples to examine. Here, you will find several examples that meet, or in most cases, adhere to the criteria described earlier.

Example 1: An effective introduction for an academic literature review paper

To begin, let’s delve into the introduction of an academic literature review paper. We will examine the paper “How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review”, which was published in 2018 in the journal Management Decision.

The entire introduction spans 611 words and is divided into five paragraphs. In this introduction, the authors accomplish the following:

In the first paragraph, the authors introduce the broader topic of the literature review, which focuses on innovation and its significance in the context of economic competition. They underscore the importance of this topic, highlighting its relevance for both researchers and policymakers.
In the second paragraph, the authors narrow down their focus to emphasize the specific role of culture in relation to innovation.
In the third paragraph, the authors identify research gaps, noting that existing studies are often fragmented and disconnected. They then emphasize the value of conducting a systematic literature review to enhance our understanding of the topic.
In the fourth paragraph, the authors introduce their specific objectives and explain how their insights can benefit other researchers and business practitioners.
In the fifth and final paragraph, the authors provide an overview of the paper’s organization and structure.

In summary, this introduction stands as a solid example. While the authors deviate from previewing their key findings (which is a common practice at least in the social sciences), they do effectively cover all the other previously mentioned points.

Example 2: An effective introduction to a literature review section in an academic paper

The second example represents a typical academic paper, encompassing not only a literature review section but also empirical data, a case study, and other elements. We will closely examine the introduction to the literature review section in the paper “The environmentalism of the subalterns: a case study of environmental activism in Eastern Kurdistan/Rojhelat”, which was published in 2021 in the journal Local Environment.

The paper begins with a general introduction and then proceeds to the literature review, designated by the authors as their conceptual framework. Of particular interest is the first paragraph of this conceptual framework, comprising 142 words across five sentences:

“ A peripheral and marginalised nationality within a multinational though-Persian dominated Iranian society, the Kurdish people of Iranian Kurdistan (a region referred by the Kurds as Rojhelat/Eastern Kurdi-stan) have since the early twentieth century been subject to multifaceted and systematic discriminatory and exclusionary state policy in Iran. This condition has left a population of 12–15 million Kurds in Iran suffering from structural inequalities, disenfranchisement and deprivation. Mismanagement of Kurdistan’s natural resources and the degradation of its natural environmental are among examples of this disenfranchisement. As asserted by Julian Agyeman (2005), structural inequalities that sustain the domination of political and economic elites often simultaneously result in environmental degradation, injustice and discrimination against subaltern communities. This study argues that the environmental struggle in Eastern Kurdistan can be asserted as a (sub)element of the Kurdish liberation movement in Iran. Conceptually this research is inspired by and has been conducted through the lens of ‘subalternity’ ” ( Hassaniyan, 2021, p. 931 ).

In this first paragraph, the author is doing the following:

The author contextualises the research
The author links the research focus to the international literature on structural inequalities
The author clearly presents the argument of the research
The author clarifies how the research is inspired by and uses the concept of ‘subalternity’.

Thus, the author successfully introduces the literature review, from which point onward it dives into the main concept (‘subalternity’) of the research, and reviews the literature on socio-economic justice and environmental degradation.

While introductions to a literature review section aren’t always required to offer the same level of study context detail as demonstrated here, this introduction serves as a commendable model for orienting the reader within the literature review. It effectively underscores the literature review’s significance within the context of the study being conducted.

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

The introduction to a literature review chapter can vary in length, depending largely on the overall length of the literature review chapter itself. For example, a master’s thesis typically features a more concise literature review, thus necessitating a shorter introduction. In contrast, a Ph.D. thesis, with its more extensive literature review, often includes a more detailed introduction.

Numerous universities offer online repositories where you can access theses and dissertations from previous years, serving as valuable sources of reference. Many of these repositories, however, may require you to log in through your university account. Nevertheless, a few open-access repositories are accessible to anyone, such as the one by the University of Manchester . It’s important to note though that copyright restrictions apply to these resources, just as they would with published papers.

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

The first example is “Benchmarking Asymmetrical Heating Models of Spider Pulsar Companions” by P. Sun, a master’s thesis completed at the University of Manchester on January 9, 2024. The author, P. Sun, introduces the literature review chapter very briefly but effectively:

PhD thesis literature review chapter introduction

The second example is Deep Learning on Semi-Structured Data and its Applications to Video-Game AI, Woof, W. (Author). 31 Dec 2020, a PhD thesis completed at the University of Manchester . In Chapter 2, the author offers a comprehensive introduction to the topic in four paragraphs, with the final paragraph serving as an overview of the chapter’s structure:

PhD thesis literature review introduction

The last example is the doctoral thesis Metacognitive strategies and beliefs: Child correlates and early experiences Chan, K. Y. M. (Author). 31 Dec 2020 . The author clearly conducted a systematic literature review, commencing the review section with a discussion of the methodology and approach employed in locating and analyzing the selected records.

Having absorbed all of this information, let’s recap the essential steps and offer a succinct guide on how to proceed with creating your literature review introduction:

Contextualize your review : Begin by clearly identifying the academic context in which your literature review resides and determining the necessary information to include.
Outline your structure : Develop a structured outline for your literature review, highlighting the essential information you plan to incorporate in your introduction.
Literature review process : Conduct a rigorous literature review, reviewing and analyzing relevant sources.
Summarize and abstract : After completing the review, synthesize the findings and abstract key insights, trends, and knowledge gaps from the literature.
Craft the introduction : Write your literature review introduction with meticulous attention to the seamless integration of your review into the larger context of your work. Ensure that your introduction effectively elucidates your rationale for the chosen review topics and the underlying reasons guiding your selection.

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

The best answers to "What are your plans for the future?"

10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, related articles.

Featured blog post image for Writing article reviews for academic journals

How to peer review an academic paper

PhD thesis types: Monograph and collection of articles

How to disagree with reviewers (with examples!)

How to introduce yourself in a conference presentation (in six simple steps)

Article Review

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

What is an Article Review?

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

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

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

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Types of Article Reviews

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

Here are some common types of article reviews:

Journal Article Review

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

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

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

Example of Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

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

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

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

Here is a sample for you to get an idea.

Example of Research Article Review

Science Article Review

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

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

Take a look at the following example.

Example of Science Article Review

Critical Review

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

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

Critical Review Example

Article Review Format

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

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

How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps

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

Step 1: Understand the Assignment

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

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

Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly

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

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

Step 3: Create a Summary

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

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

Step 4: Identify the Author's Thesis

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

This will serve as a foundation for your critique.

Step 5: Evaluate the Author's Evidence and Methodology

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

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

Step 6: Analyze the Author's Writing Style

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

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

Step 7: Consider the Article's Contribution

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

Step 8: Write the Introduction

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

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

Step 9: Develop the Body of the Review

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

Use clear paragraphs to structure your analysis logically.

Step 10: Conclude with a Summary and Evaluation

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

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

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

Article Review Outline

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

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

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

Article Review Format Template

Article Review Examples

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

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

Example of Article Review

Sample of article review assignment pdf

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

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

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

Start with a Clear Introduction

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

Concise Summary with Unanswered Questions

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

Illustrate with Examples

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

Organize Clearly with a Summary Section

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

Constructive Criticism

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

Smoothly Connect Your Ideas

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

Revise and Check for Clarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why wait? Get our essay writing service today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

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

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

Keep reading

How to Write an Article Review That Stands Out

An article review is a critical assessment of another writer’s research paper or scholarly article. Such an activity aims to expand one’s knowledge by evaluating the original author’s research.

Of course, writing an article review could be tricky. But a few expert tips and tricks can get you on the right track. That’s what this interesting blog post is all about. So, ensure you read it till the end to make the most out of it.

Table of Contents

A Step-by-step Guide on How to Write an Article Review

Master the art of writing an article review with this step-by-step guide from professional paper help providers.

Step 1: Select the Right Article

The first step is to pick a suitable article for a review. Choose a scholarly source that’s connected to your area of study. You can look for pieces printed in trustworthy journals or by respected authors.

For Example:

For reviewing an article on climate change, consider selecting one from scientific journals like Nature or Science.

Step 2: Read and Understand the Article

It’s super important to read and understand the article before writing your review. Read the article a few times and jot down the notes as you go. Focus on the main arguments, major points, evidence, and how it’s structured.

Let’s say you’re looking at an article on how social media affects mental health. Ensure to take note of the following:

The number of people involved
How the data is analyzed
The Results

Step 3: Structure and Introduction

To start a solid review, start with an introduction that gives readers the background info they need. Must include the article’s title, the author, and where it was published. Also, write a summary of the main point or argument in the article.

“In the article ‘The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health by John Smith, published in the Journal of Psychology:

The author examines the correlation between excessive social media usage and adolescent mental health disorders.”

Step 4: Summarize the Article

In this part, you’ll need to quickly go over the main points and arguments from the article. Make it short but must cover the most important elements and the evidence that backs them up. Leave your opinions and analysis out of it for now.

For instance, you could write:

“The author discusses various studies highlighting the negative effects of excessive social media usage on mental health.

Smith’s research reveals a significant correlation between

Increased social media consumption and higher rates of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem among teenagers.

The article also explores the underlying mechanisms, such as social comparison and cyberbullying. All are contributing to the adverse mental health outcomes.”

Step 5: Critically Analyze and Evaluate

Now that you’ve given a rundown of the article, it’s time to take a closer look. Think about what the author did well and what could have been done better.

Check out the proof they used and if it seems solid. Give a thorough assessment, and use examples from the text to support your thoughts.

For Example

“While the article presents compelling evidence linking social media usage to mental health issues , it is important to acknowledge some limitations in Smith’s study.

The sample size of the research was relatively small. It comprises only 100 participants, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.

Additionally, the study primarily focused on one specific age group, namely adolescents. This way, there’s room for further research on other demographic groups.”

Step 6: Express Your Perspective

Here’s your chance to give your two cents and show off your smarts. Put your spin on the article by pointing out the pros, cons, and other potential improvements. Remember to back up your thoughts with facts and sound arguments.

Continuing with the Previous Example

Despite the limitations, Smith’s research offers valuable insights into the complex relationship between social media and mental health.

Future studies could expand the sample size and include a more diverse range of age groups. It is better to understand the broader impact of social media on mental well-being.

Furthermore, exploring strategies for developing digital literacy programs could be potential avenues for future research.

Step 7: Conclusion and Final Thoughts

At the end of your article review, wrap it up with a brief and powerful conclusion. Give a summary of your main points and overall thoughts about the article.

Point out its importance to the field and the impact of the study. Finish off with a thought-provoking conclusion. Give the reader a sense of finality and emphasize the need for additional research or discussion.

For instance

“In conclusion, John Smith’s article provides valuable insights into the detrimental effects of excessive social media usage on adolescent mental health.

While the research has limitations, it serves as a starting point for further investigation in this rapidly evolving field.

By addressing the research gaps and implementing targeted interventions:

We can strive to promote a healthier relationship between social media and mental well-being in our digitally connected society.”

Step 8: Editing and Proofreading

Before submission, set aside some time for editing and proofreading.

Ensure everything makes sense and everything is correct. Check out how it reads and if your points come across clearly. Get feedback from other people to get a different point of view and make it even better.

Types of Article Reviews

In college, you might be asked to write different types of review articles, including:

Narrative Review

This type of review needs you to look into the author’s background and experiences. You have to go through the specialist’s theories and practices and compare them. For the success of a narrative review, ensure that your arguments are qualitative and make sense.

Evidence Review

For a solid evidence paper, you got to put in the work and study the topic. You’ll need to research the facts, analyze the author’s ideas, their effects, and more.

Systematic Review

This task involves reviewing a bunch of research papers and summarizing the existing knowledge about a certain subject. A systematic paper type uses an organized approach and expects you to answer questions linked to the research.

Tips for Writing a Great Article Review

Here are some expert tips you could use to write an exceptional article review:

1. Figure out the main points you want to cover and why they matter.

It will help you zero in on the key points.

2. Look for and assess pertinent sources, both from the past and present.

It will give you a better understanding of the article you’re looking at.

3. Come Up with a Catchy Title, Summarize Your Topic in an Abstract, and Select Keywords

It will help people read your review and get a good idea of what it’s about.

4. Write the main point of a review along with introducing the topic.

It should help readers get a better grasp of the topic.

Outline for Writing a Good Article Review

Here’s an outline to write an excellent article review.

Introduction

– Begin with a summary of the article

– Put in background knowledge of the topic

– State why you are writing the review

– Give an overview of the article’s main points

– Figure out why the author choose to write something

– Look at the article and consider what it does well and what it could have done better.

– Highlight the shortcomings in the article

– Restate why you are writing the review

– Sum up the main points in a few sentences

– Suggest what could be achieved in the future research

Review Article Example

Title: “The Power of Vulnerability: A Review of Brené Brown’s Daring Greatly”

Introduction:

In her revolutionary book “Daring Greatly,”

Brené Brown, a renowned researcher and storyteller. Delves into vulnerability and how it can positively impact our lives, both professionally and personally.

Brown’s work has gained lots of praise. Since it resonates with people looking to build real connections in a world that often feels isolated.

This article looks to recap the main ideas and concepts from “Daring Greatly.” Also explains why it is such a captivating and insightful read.

Summary of Key Ideas:

“Daring Greatly” is all about how the vulnerability isn’t a sign of being weak. but it’s actually what it takes to be brave, strong and live a full life.

Brene Brown examines how society and culture can make it hard to be vulnerable. And, how fear of being judged or shamed stops us from being our authentic selves.

The book puts a lot of emphasis on shame and how it affects us.

Brown explains that shame thrives when it’s kept hidden away and can only be cured by being open, understanding, and compassionate.

By admitting our weaknesses, we can create meaningful connections and a sense of community.

Brown looks into the connection between being open to vulnerability and unleashing creative leadership and innovation.

She uses her own experiences and research to support her viewpoint. The book also gives useful advice on how to include vulnerability in different parts of life. Such as relationships, parenting, and the workplace.

Strengths of the Book:

Brown’s book is remarkable for her ability to mix her own experiences with comprehensive research. Combining her stories and evidence makes the material engaging and easy to understand.

Plus, her writing style is so friendly that readers feel they’re being acknowledged and accepted.

There’s advice on how to be kind to yourself. Set your limits, and accept that things won’t always be perfect. It’s like a toolkit to help you build strength and make positive changes.

Final Verdict

This book is really helpful for everyone, no matter who you are. It can help you figure out how to grow in life, have better relationships, and become a better leader. Plus, since it applies to all kinds of people, everyone can get something out of it.

If you want to write a great article review, it’s important to pick the right article, understand and analyze it critically. Finally, express your thoughts on it clearly. Ensure to stay impartial, back up your points with evidence, and write clearly and coherently.

Still if you are having troubles writing an article review, don’t hesitate to count on the expertise of our writers .

Order Original Papers & Essays

Your First Custom Paper Sample is on Us!

Timely Deliveries

No Plagiarism & AI

100% Refund

Try Our Free Paper Writing Service

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

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

A Research Guide
Writing Guide
Article Writing

How To Write an Article Review

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

Article review format

How to write a good article review
Article review examples

Definition of article review assignments

Why do students write article reviews.

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

Types of article review tasks

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

Article review structure and outline

Article review structure.

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

Article review outline

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

Step-by-step writing guide

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

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

How to write a good article review?

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

Why choose article review examples?

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

Receive paper in 3 Hours!

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

Number of Pages

550 words (double spaced)

Deadline: 10 days left

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

Forget about ChatGPT and get quality content right away.

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

Research management

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

How two PhD students overcame the odds to snag tenure-track jobs

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Correspondence 02 APR 24

‘Without these tools, I’d be lost’: how generative AI aids in accessibility

Technology Feature 08 APR 24

Will the Gates Foundation’s preprint-centric policy help open access?

News 04 APR 24

Assistant Professor in Integrated Photonics

We offer you the chance to design a unique and autonomous research program, networking with specialists, students and entrepreneurs.

Gothenburg (Stad), Västra Götaland (SE)

Chalmers University of Technology

Postdoctoral Fellow (Aging, Metabolic stress, Lipid sensing, Brain Injury)

Seeking a Postdoctoral Fellow to apply advanced knowledge & skills to generate insights into aging, metabolic stress, lipid sensing, & brain Injury.

Dallas, Texas (US)

UT Southwestern Medical Center - Douglas Laboratory

High-Level Talents at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

For clinical medicine and basic medicine; basic research of emerging inter-disciplines and medical big data.

Nanchang, Jiangxi, China

The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

POSTDOCTORAL Fellow -- DEPARTMENT OF Surgery – BIDMC, Harvard Medical School

The Division of Urologic Surgery in the Department of Surgery at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School invites applicatio...

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Director of Research

Applications are invited for the post of Director of Research at Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India.

Chennai, Tamil Nadu (IN)

Cancer Institute (W.I.A)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

Find your Fit

UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

Give Like a Star

Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.

Bragging Rights

UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.

Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support Bookstore UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness COVID-19 United in Safety Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps UIS Mobile App Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance

Request Info

How to Review a Journal Article

Request Info Request info for.... Undergraduate/Graduate Online Study Away Continuing & Professional Education International Student Services General Inquiries

For many kinds of assignments, like a literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your qualified opinion and evaluation of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple summary of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes, annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?

Evaluating Methods

How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?

Evaluating Data

Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.

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

Have you been assigned an article review paper, but you are unsure where to start, or what is a review article at all? There is no need to worry, as EssayService has put together a top guide for you! Find out all about an article review to master your assignment.

What is an Article Review?

In simple terms, an article review essay is like a summary and evaluation of another professional or expert's work. It may also be referred to as a literature review that includes an outline of the most recent research on the subject, or a critical review that focuses on a specific article with smaller scope. Article review can be used for many reasons; for example, a teacher or lecturer may wish to introduce their students to a new subject by reviewing a professional's piece. You can also learn about the most important works of specialists in your industry by looking at relevant article review examples.

Also, a newspaper article review example could be a journalist writing a critique about another competitor's published work.

In comparison, a book review article example could be critiqued by a fellow author or even a student in the chosen field.

Depending on the critique criteria and the work being reviewed, there could also be certain points asked for addition which should be checked and noted by the lecturer or supervisor. Otherwise, follow the article review guidelines from our write my essay service to complete the assignment in no time.

Key points when writing an article review:

Use the article review template from our paper writing service to get through the assignment as fast as possible so you will not waste any time.

How to Start an Article Review?

Firstly read the work being reviewed as much as possible and look up key phrases and words that are not understood.
Discuss the work with other professionals or colleagues to collect more opinions and get a more balanced impression.
Highlight important sections or sentences and refer this to your knowledge in the topic, do you agree or disagree and what does this contribute to the field?
Then re-write the key arguments and findings into your own words this will help gain better understanding into the paper. This can be just written as an outline also and will help decide which points are wanted to discuss later.

If you feel you do not have enough time to create a critique worthy of your time, then come to EssayService and order a custom Article review online.

You can order essay independent of type, for example:

nursing essay;
law essay writing;
history essays.

The best way to write an effective essay would be to draw up a plan or outline of what needs to be covered and use it for guidance throughout the critique.

Article Review Formatting

There is no one-fits-all article format you can follow in your review. In fact, the formatting is dictated by the citation style specified by your professor in the task requirements. Thus, be sure to clarify the preferred style before you jump straight to writing to handle the given assignment right.

APA Format Article Review

Writing an APA style article review, you will most likely use articles from journals, websites, and newspapers. For each source, you will have to create properly formatted bibliographical entries.

Here is how to write an article review APA:

Journal: Author’s last name, First and middle initial. (Year of Publication). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
Website: Last name, initials. (Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
Newspaper: Last name, initials. (Date of Publication). Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

MLA Format Article Review

Tips for citing sources in an article review MLA format:

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

Article Review Outline

Planning out an outline for your paper will help writing and to put it together so therefore saving you time in the long run.

Some questions to help with the outline of a critique:

What does the article set out to do or prove?
Are the main ideas clear and defined?
How substantial is the evidence?
Where does the article fit in its specific field?
Does it provide new knowledge on the topic?
What are the central theories and assumptions?
Is the writer conclusive at getting their point across?

Here is a typical article review format to follow:

Use our article review template to get through the assignment as fast as possible so you will not waste any time.

Article Review Title

Firstly start with creating a title for your critique, this should be something to do with the focus of the work that is being reviewed. An approach could be to make it descriptive or also in a more creative way think of something that intrigues the reader. After the title, this is a good place to correctly cite the paper being critiqued and include the important details for example, the author, title of publication, any page references. The style in which the citation is written will depend on which is best for this type of work being reviewed.

Article Review Introduction

The introduction should be a brief glimpse into what the author was writing about and any other details the audience will find interesting. Maybe some background details on the piece that is not already known or something that contributes to the review itself. It is a good idea to start by introducing the work at the start of the paragraph and then include a ' hook '. Include the writer's thesis if there is one and put it at the end but include your own thesis towards the critique near the beginning of this section.

Article Review Body

When constructing the summary section, write down the important points and findings in the piece in your own words. Include how the claims are supported and backed up with evidence but use direct quotes as sparing as possible. Do not put in any information known to professionals in the field or topic, but detail any conclusions the work came to. Make sure the paper is not just copied word for word and is actually summarized by yourself; this will also help the review stage.

To make an accurate critique, break down the work and express opinions on whether it achieves its goals and how useful it is in explaining the topics for an article review. Decide if the paper contributes to its field and is important and credible to the given field. Back up all the claims with evidence from the summary or another source. If using another text, remember to cite it correctly in the bibliography section. Look at how strong the points are and do they contribute to the argument. Try to identify any biases the writer might have and use this to make a fair critique. This part is only for opinions of the piece's significance, not including whether you liked it. Furthermore, the different types of audiences that would benefit from the paper can be mentioned in this section.

Article Review Conclusion

In the conclusion section of the critique, there should only be one or two paragraphs in which a summary of key points and opinions in the piece are included. Also, summarize the paper's significance to its field and how accurate the work is. Depending on the type of critique or work evaluated, it is also possible to include comments on future research or the topic to be discussed further.

If other sources have been used, construct a bibliography section and correctly cite all works utilized in the critique.

The APA format is very common in an article review and stands for American Psychology Association. This will include a 'references list' at the end of the critique and in-text citations, mentioning the author's last name, page number, and publication date.

There are also MLA and Chicago formats for citations with slight differences in a name, like using a 'works cited' page for MLA. More can be found in this guide on the subtle differences between the types of citation methods under the heading 'Creating a bibliography.'

Article Review Example

Article review writing tips.

If you are interested in best scholarships for high school seniors , the following tips will be handy while writing your essay or article:

Allow enough time to complete the research and writing of the critique. The number one problem with creating a critique is running out of time to make it the best it can be. This can be avoided by effective planning and keeping on time with the deadlines you set out.
Collect twice more research than you think is needed to write a review. This will help when coming to the writing stage as not all the information collected will be used in the final draft.
Write in a style that is compatible with the work being critiqued. This will be better for whoever requested the critique and also will make paper easier to construct.
A summary and evaluation must be written. Do not leave out either part as one complements the other and is vital to create a critique worth reading.
Be clear and explain well every statement made about the piece . Everything that is unknown to professionals in the field should be explained and all comments should be easy to follow for the reader.
Do not just describe the work, analyze and interpret it. The critique should be in depth and give the audience some detailed interpretations of the work in a professional way.
Give an assessment of the quality in the writing and of what standard it is. Evaluate every aspect in the paper so that the audience can see where it fits into the rest of the related works. Give opinions based on fact and do not leave any comments without reason as this will not count for anything.

How to Write an Article Review?

Writing a review article is not that hard if you know what steps to take. Below is a step-by-step guide on how to write a review example quickly and easily.

Before You Start

Before you start writing your review essay, there are a few pre-writing steps to take. The pre-writing process should consist of the following steps:

Pick the subject of your review (if it wasn’t specified by your professor);
Read the article fully multiple times;
Summarize the main ideas, points, and claims made in the article;
Define the positive (strong) aspects;
Identify the gaps or inconsistencies;
Find the questions that remained unanswered.

All these steps are needed to help you define the direction for your review article and find the main ideas you’d like to cover in it.

After you review articles and define the key ideas, gaps, and other details, map out your future paper by creating a detailed outline.

Here are the core elements that must be included:

Pre-title page;
Corresponding author details (optional);
Running head (only for the APA style);
Summary page (optional);
Title page;
Introduction;
References/Works Cited;
Suggested Reading page (optional);
Tables and Figure Legends (if required by the professor).

This step is vital to organize your thoughts and ensure a proper structure of your work. Thus, be sure not to skip this step.

When you have an outline, students can move on to the writing stage by formulating compelling titles for their article reviews. Titles should be declarative, interrogative, or descriptive to reflect the core focus of the paper.

Article Citation

After the title should follow a proper citation of the piece you are going to review. Write a citation according to the required style, and feel free to check out a well-written article review example to see how it should look like.

Article Identification

Start the first paragraph of your review with concise and clear article identification that specifies its title, author, name of the resource (e.g., journal, web, etc.), and the year of publication.

Following the identification, write a short introductory paragraph. It should be to the point and state a clear thesis for your review.

Summary and Critique

In the main body of your article review, you should first make a detailed but not too extensive summary of the article you reviewed, its main ideas, statements, and findings. In this part, you should also reflect on the conclusion made by the author of the original article.

After a general summary should follow an objective critique. In this part of your paper, you have to state and analyze the main strengths and weaknesses of the article. Also, you need to point out any gaps or unanswered questions that are still there. And clarify your stance on the author’s assertions.

Lastly, you need to craft a compelling conclusion that recaps the key points of your review and gives the final, logical evaluation of the piece that was reviewed.

After this, proofread your work and submit it.

No Time Left For Your Due Assignment

Now we hope you understand how to write a review of an article. However, we know that writing a great article review requires a lot of time to properly research the work. To save your precious time, visit EssayService, where our team of top essay writers will help you. The team can even provide you with the best article review topics! You can learn more at the college essay writing service page where we have free guides with all the essay writing tips and tricks!

Frequently asked questions

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

Other Guides
Article Review: How's and Why's Explained
Speech Topics
Basics of Essay Writing
Essay Topics
Other Essays
Main Academic Essays
Research Paper Topics
Basics of Research Paper Writing
Miscellaneous
Chicago/ Turabian
Data & Statistics
Methodology
Admission Writing Tips
Admission Advice
Student Life
Studying Tips
Understanding Plagiarism
Academic Writing Tips
Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

Essay Guides
Research Paper Guides
Formatting Guides
Basics of Research Process
Admission Guides
Dissertation & Thesis Guides

Article Review: How's and Why's Explained

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

An article review is a critical evaluation of a published journal article. It typically provides an overview of the main points, the author’s arguments, and general quality. Article reviews are usually conducted as part of an academic course or as professional development for educators.

Preparing material before writing an article review requires a thorough study of facts. Assessing what should be stated in your paper plays a crucial role in your research process. The main difficulty is that you should consider the specified information with extra care and formulate your thoughts clearly when writing. It is impossible to write a review article without studying the work. You can't conduct a fair review without having a certain knowledge base. Provided information must be reasonable and contain valid arguments. If these basic characteristics are absent, it indicates that such an evaluation is unfair.

What Is a Review Article?

Writing this type of professional paper requires preparation. A review article or a literature review is an article critique of another author's work that was published previously. Its purpose is to survey existing research and provide readers with your critical assessment of this specific topic. You will be able to create a high-quality article review using these principles:

main topic in-depth analysis;
generalization and classification;
comparison of information from several sources.

When specifying a definition of a review article, a thorough analysis of relevant information and an appropriate database use are a must. The main task is to identify the topic correctly and share the results of your research. The subject of paperwork and the conclusions' validity of its author are your main targets.

Review Article Structure

Preparation for writing a review contains several stages. They include research and making your own opinion. Without an outline of your review article , nothing will work. So it is worth considering an outline and focusing on this issue as well. In addition, your finished work should include:

criticism and comparison (introduction);
detailed topic analysis;
new information.

Finished work should contain a personal conclusion. If you don't include it, an article will be incomplete. You can learn more about how to write such paperwork correctly by exploring the other information below.

How to Write a Good Introduction for a Review Article

Preliminary preparation for writing a piece in a new format will let you:

determine the author’s focus;
mark arguments;
pay attention to structuring.

Studying headlines and arguments plays a critical role in your finished work. Eventually, it makes it more helpful to readers. You should also focus on the introduction of how to start an essay . The introduction makes it possible to get acquainted with a perspective of its topic. For greater efficiency, it is worth pointing out the main thesis. It is important to display issues raised in an article when writing an introduction. When you start your paper, make sure your introduction is catchy enough. It should be interesting and bring some value to your readers. The first few sentences will be your hook for grabbing attention. Tell your audience why you have chosen that particular topic. Also, mention why the subject you surveyed is important.

The Body of Review Article

When studying materials, you should identify different ways of argumentation . Then you will have to highlight them in your work. Please note that the body of article review is an essential component that needs careful work on its details. Remember that your body paragraphs will vary depending on your topic. The bulk of the work includes:

describing the author's arguments;
providing a personal assessment.

Study the text of the first paragraphs. Then try to retell them in your own words. Retelling will help you understand your topic better and transfer your attention from the background to the foreground. Ultimately, you will have to summarize what you’ve read. Tell your opinion about its choice of arguments and evidence base.

How to Write Conclusion to Review Article

Writing a conclusion is always hard. You will need to outline the topic raised by the author and share your impressions. Use the citation from the author's work. Identify the most compelling arguments. Then address them in the conclusion of your review article. Also you can try to use our Conclusion Generator to find interesting ideas. You can’t finish reviewing without providing new information. This will mean that your research was unproductive. Discover new sides of a raised topic. Then search for the presence of arguments from similar literature. It will let you compile a summary of materials you have read and offer food for thought.

Review Article Format

Article review format is necessary for a correct presentation of data about used articles and scientific papers. While writing research, you will need to use citations of both the author and other reliable sources. Depending on your choice, you should write a description. It is worth stopping at APA in some cases. This type of data presentation is more common. There are different rules for writing descriptions of citations in MLA format. Special attention is paid to allocating primary information. Initials, titles, indications of sources, and other information are drawn in accordance with the rules. Looking for a book review format ? We have one more blog dedicated to this theme.

APA Format Article Review

Knowing how to cite a quote is mandatory because they can be used as arguments. Studying materials and presenting data about sources in a certain style requires careful focus on the order of placement of bibliographic data. Choosing APA format for article review is a popular decision for authors who prefer citing information from Internet sources, magazines, and newspapers.

MLA Format Article Review

To write this type of paper, people use quotes from literature covering the given topic. Formatting choice depends on your personal preference. However, if you have decided what style to use, you still should follow some basic rules. Article review in MLA format assumes an indication of publication date, bibliographic data, and titles. Don’t make mistakes when citing authors. Take your time to study the requirements.

How to Write an Article Review

In order to write such a paper, you should decide on your goal. As an author, you should use your analytical skills, critical thinking, and logical arguments. If you still don’t understand how to write an article review, you should follow the tips below:

come up with some catchy title;
use the author's quotes of your publication;
don’t forget to include the title that you are analyzing;
reflect your main ideas in the introduction;
write a resume.

The final part is displaying your material's strengths and weaknesses. Identifying your opinion about the work is also a goal. Use informed criticism to achieve the desired result.

Last Thoughts on Writing a Review Article

A review article is a type of professional essay writing . So you need to study its subject carefully. Use multiple sources and highlight the main arguments. Then form your own opinion on the given topic. In conclusion of your article review, you should bring new arguments for or against the author's opinion. Use the authors' work with an excellent reputation and quote them in your article sections. Finally, don't forget to summarize and point out your work's strengths and weaknesses. Healthy criticism will let you draw up proper conclusions and challenge the author's opinion.

If you need help with your article review, feel free to contact our essay writing service. Our proficient academic writers will execute a perfect paper while being in touch for immediate revisions all the time.

FAQ About Article Review

1. what is a systematic article review.

Reviews of publications that highlight important research are thoroughly analyzed by peers and other representatives in its field. Writing a systematic review article will let you provide strong and weak arguments. Besides, it will help you give your reasons and draw correct conclusions. This will require exploring other relevant articles and databases. Research work allows you to identify erroneous conclusions. It also allows you to produce quality material for interested readers.

2. How long should an article review be?

Preparing and writing a review article requires a serious approach to the work being studied. It is rather difficult to determine how much such an article should take. Many things depend on your chosen topic: the volume of source material (number of words), research quality carried out. Ultimately, you will need to show the author's arguments as well as bring yours in order to support or refute a central thought.

3. How to title an article review?

When writing a review, selecting the right title is also an important task. It is permissible to use interrogative, summarizing, and other sentences to fully reflect the main idea. Heading becomes the focus for drawing attention, so it should be appropriate for your work. The finished review article should reflect the selected topic. It also should present a composed heading for a better understanding of readers.

4. Why articles are peer-reviewed?

In their works, researchers raise important questions that cannot be ignored. Reviewing materials allows you to determine your conclusion’s validity and to achieve better results. Conducting new independent research guarantees discovering new sides of an issue. In addition, more readers manage to study the journal article review.

Rachel R. Hill is a real educational devotee. She prides in writing exceptional general guides while listening to every need of students.

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

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

Search for relevant literature
Evaluate sources
Identify themes, debates, and gaps
Outline the structure
Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

Your university’s library catalogue
Google Scholar
Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
EconLit (economics)
Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

What question or problem is the author addressing?
What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
What are the key theories, models, and methods?
Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
What are the results and conclusions of the study?
How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

Most research has focused on young women.
There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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 sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Sampling methods
Simple random sampling
Stratified sampling
Cluster sampling
Likert scales
Reproducibility

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

Optimism bias
Cognitive bias
Implicit bias
Hawthorne effect
Anchoring bias
Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An annotated bibliography is a list of source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a paper .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

How to Write Critical Reviews

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

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

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

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

Understanding the Assignment

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

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

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

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

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

Write the introduction

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

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

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

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

Explain relationships

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

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

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

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

As you write, consider the following questions:

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

Provide an overview

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

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

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

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

Write the body

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

Organize using a logical plan

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

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

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

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

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

Write the conclusion

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

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

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

Consider the following questions:

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

Academic and Professional Writing

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

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

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

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

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.

An Introduction to Writing Review Articl ...

An Introduction to Writing Review Articles

Posted by Seema Grewal , on 7 April 2020

Last week, I gave a talk (online, of course) about ‘Writing review articles’. It was aimed at graduate students who, as part of their training, had to identify a topic in the field of developmental biology and write a mini-review on that particular topic. However, my talk contained some general advice about writing review-type articles, as well as some general writing tips, so I thought I’d share a summary of it here.

Types of Review articles

I guess the first thing to point out is that review-type articles come in lots of different ‘flavours’. They all vary with regard to length, scope, style and overall purpose, and are given different names by different journals. But they all aim to summarise and distill research findings. This makes them very different to primary research articles, whic h aim to present data, although they are handled in similar way, i.e. they are submitted to a journal and peer-reviewed by 2-3 experts in the field.

What’s the purpose of a (good) Review article?

A good review article might aim to:

summarise key research findings
highlight ‘must-read’ articles in the field
act as educational material

However, an excellent review article will also:

provide critique of studies
highlight areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates
point out gaps in knowledge and unanswered questions
highlight current technologies that are helping/can help the field
suggest directions for future research

But remember that readers are usually a mix of experts and non-experts who will be looking for very different things so a good review will cater for both of these audiences. For example, a graduate student might turn to a review article when they start in a new lab to find out more about the history of a field, or to get a summary of key findings. By contrast, an experienced post-doc or PI might want to read a review written by one of their peers to find out what the current state of thinking in a field is. Ideally, a good review should therefore aim to provide a combination of balanced summaries and critique whilst being authoritative, forward-looking and inspirational. However, note that the exact ‘flavour’ or format of the review will also dictate its purpose, e.g. a ‘Perspective’ article in Journal X might aim to summarise a handful of recent studies, whereas an ‘Essay’ in Journal Y might aim to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the last decade of research.

Where to begin?

The first step is to choose the topic you want to write on and come up with a rough idea of the scope of your article. You may already have this in mind but it’s important, before you begin writing, to really nail the exact purpose of your article. To help you do this, I‘d suggest the following:

Identify the particular theme/topic/idea that you want to focus on. In most cases, this will be something that’s closely related to the topic you work on, e.g. you might be working on something, or reading up on a particular area, and feel that a review would be helpful. If you need inspiration (i.e. if you want to write but aren’t sure what to write about), read, speak to people, and think about talks you’ve been to. What’s exciting in your field right now? Are there papers that change the way we think about something? Have you seen/read papers that converge on a similar theme/idea?
Check that there aren’t already reviews on this topic, i.e. something that’s been published within the past year or so. This is important; no-one wants to read a review that doesn’t offer anything new.
Decide if there is enough recent material to include (or too much). At this point, you may need to go back to the drawing board to either expand on or refine the scope of your article. It’s also helpful to read a few reviews (mini-reviews vs longer reviews) to get a feel for how much material a review can cover.
Identify and write down the main aim/purpose of your article. What’s the key message you want to get across? Why is this important and timely? Why would people want to read your article?

Note that lots of reviews are commissioned, i.e. the author is invited to write by a journal/editor. So, if you know you want to write a review on a particular topic and have a pretty clear idea of what your review will cover, a good place to start is by contacting a journal to see if they’d consider it. This also then means that you’ll (hopefully) be working alongside an editor from the outset to develop and refine the scope of your article. You’ll also have your target audience, article format and word limit in mind while you’re writing so can tailor the review accordingly.

Before you begin writing

Plan, plan and plan some more! Having worked with authors on review-type articles for years now, I can’t stress this enough.

Think about the sections/sub-sections you might use. What material would you cover in each of these? What’s the message of each section? How can you link the sections?
Think about the key concepts/words/specialist terms that you need to introduce and define. Where, when and how should you introduce these? (e.g. in Intro, in a figure, in a text box). What needs to be introduced first? What’s the best order in which to discuss these?
Think about the display items (figures, text boxes, tables) that might be helpful. How/when should they be used? What material would they contain?

When you start writing

Once you have a plan, you can start writing. I’d suggest that you start with the Title, Abstract and Introduction – these are the first parts that the reader sees of the article so they need careful thought. By starting off with these, you’ll also have the scope/purpose of the article clear in your own mind. You can then work on the main text of the article (the ‘meaty’ bit) and the Conclusions with this scope/purpose in mind, although you’ll need to return to the Title, Abstract and Introduction for a tidy up once you’ve written the main text.

Things to think about:

Title, Abstract and Introduction: These should be short and self-contained, and should complement each other. Each one in turn should provide more detail, aiming to draw the reader in. Remember: lots of readers will only read the title and abstract (e.g. when they search for articles in Pubmed) so these basically act as a ‘hook’ to grab their attention. They also need to be ‘discoverable’ on the Web, i.e. database friendly and containing the relevant keywords.
Choosing a title: Choose something that is short, clear and self-explanatory; try to avoid puns/idioms and colloquial phrases or references. Try to convey the key message but also provide context.
Abstract: The abstract should then aim to highlight the most important parts of the article. The answers to the following 5 questions provide a good starting point: What is the main topic you’re going to focus on? What do we know so far? What is new/why is this now an interesting time for this field? What are the broad implications of these newer findings? What does your review aim to do?
Introduction: The Introduction should then expand on the Abstract and set the scene. Provide context by first introducing the topic: why is this topic interesting/significant, what do we know about it so far, how has the field progressed, what has the new progress shown? Ideally, the Introduction should end with a clear description of the article’s scope, aims and structure, i.e. a walk-through of the main topics that will be discussed and the order in which these will be covered. This just lets the reader know what they can expect from the article. If possible, introduce or re-iterate the main ‘message’ of the article.
Conclusions: Emphasize the key message or theme of the article and, if needed, reiterate the data that support this message. Highlight the broader significance of this conclusion. Finally, if possible, bring your voice to the article: What do you think are the most compelling questions raised by these studies? What approach(es) could be taken to address these open questions? Are there technical hurdles that need to be overcome? What are the broader implications of this, i.e. why are further studies needed and what benefits might they offer?
Display items: Use figures to emphasize or illustrate key concepts/processes, or to introduce or summarize . Remember that figures should ideally act as stand-alone items; you should be able to follow them by eye and without referring to the main text, although each figure should have a clear title and a figure legend the walks the reader through the figure. In general, schematics are easier to follow than images reproduced from primary articles. Tables can be useful for summarizing lots of information, for comparing/contrasting things, or for highlighting advantages and disadvantages. Some journals encourage the use of text boxes, which can house additional or background information or material that is peripheral to the main theme of the text.

General things to think about while you’re writing (and to re-visit before you finish off!)

Try to group your discussion into sections/sub-sections. This just helps to break up long chunks of text (and helps to keep the reader interested). If you already have a plan (e.g. a list of headings/sub-headings) this structuring will be much easier.
Each section should begin with a small introduction.
Each sub-section (and/or even each paragraph) should then have a clear message/point to it, e.g. What question did particular sets/types of studies set out to address? What did these show (and here you can go into the detail)? What could be concluded from these?
It’s also helpful to add in a few lines to wrap up each section and ease transition into the next section.
Make sure that all statements are adequately supported by a citation. Cite the source/primary article whenever possible (but note that it is okay to cite Reviews for established concepts or to refer to a large body of evidence).
Think about the word count and how much can be covered/how much detail you can go in to; you may find that it’s easier to write lots first then trim at a later stage.
Avoid regurgitating the conclusions drawn in the papers you cite without giving them some thought.
Don’t shy away from discussing findings that contradict each other. It’s better to highlight what can/cannot be reconciled and the possible cause of any discrepancies. Also use this as an opportunity to draw out the questions that remain and discuss how these questions could be addressed.
Similarly, remain balanced – make sure you discuss the findings from the field as a whole (and not just the data from a few select labs).
Make it clear when you are stating results versus providing speculation or alternative interpretations.
Provide critique if you can…but keep it polite and constructive.

Accessibility

Remember your audience: the article needs to accessible to expert and non-expert readers alike.
Introduce/define/explain specialist terms, cell types, tissues, phrases on first mention.
Consider using display items to house any material that a non-expert reader might find useful.
Don’t assume the reader knows what you’re thinking and how things link together; you might feel like you’re sometimes stating the obvious but it’s better to do this than to leave readers feeling lost.
Stick to using clear and simple sentences…but try to vary the pace of your writing, e.g. by using a mixture of long and short sentences.
A general rule is to write as you would speak, using active rather than passive tense/sentence construction.
Be thrifty with your words: completely eliminate any that aren’t needed.
Avoid vague sentences. For example, say ‘Factor A causes an increase/decrease in Factor B’, rather than ‘Factor A modulates Factor B’.

Importantly, be patient and don’t get frustrated! A good writing style needs to be developed over time and comes with practice. Of all the things highlighted above (structure, content, accessibility and style), I’d say that style is the hardest to really nail. Getting a good and consistent writing style is also challenging if you have multiple authors working on the same article. In this case, I’d recommend that you nominate one author to do a final comb-through to iron out any inconsistencies, although hopefully you’ll have an editor who’ll also assist with this! On this note, I should point out that the amount of input you receive from an editor will vary from journal to journal, e.g. some journals have dedicated editors who spend a significant amount of time, working alongside the authors, to edit and improve a review.

Finally, some tips from fellow editors!

We have a bunch of experienced editors here at the Company of Biologists so I asked them all for their key pieces of advice. Here are just some of the things they suggested:

Plan, plan, plan – make sure you have a good idea of the overall structure before you think about details
Get feedback. Before you submit your review, send it to someone whose opinion you trust and ask them for their honest thoughts. Don’t be discouraged if they give lots of feedback – this is exactly what you want!
A review shouldn’t just be a list of facts, e.g. X showed this, Y showed this, Z showed this. A narrative thread or argument that connects is much more engaging.
Take time to pull back and look at the overall structure. Does it make sense? Can you see how the ideas join together and flow from beginning to end?
Remember that readers aren’t psychic. Explain why you’ve chosen the scope you have, why you’ve chosen to discuss particular examples, why you’re moving on to the next topic. Also make sure you clearly link up relevant observations and state conclusions rather than expecting the reader to make connections.
Don’t assume that the reader can link two statements that you might be able to link in your mind; you have to explain the link.
Think about the graphics at an early stage – figures can often feel like a bit of an afterthought but good figures can really help to get the message across far more concisely than text.
Break the article up into sections so that people can easily find the particular piece of information they might be looking for; recognize that not everyone is going to read from start to finish.
Remember that your readers will know far less about the topic than you do. So before you dive into the new and exciting findings in the field, make sure you’ve given a clear overview of the system you’re writing about. Imagine that you’re writing for a new PhD student who’s never worked in this particular field.

One final point: there’s no ‘winning formula’. This is just my advice based on the articles I’ve handled and the authors I’ve dealt with, so you may find that some of it doesn’t work for you or that someone else’s advice differs. Ultimately, you should aim to develop a writing approach, technique and style that works for you.

Happy writing!

Tags: how to Categories: Careers , Education , Lab Life , Outreach , Research , Resources

5 thoughts on “An Introduction to Writing Review Articles”

I want to say that was really simple and pragmatic. Thank you very much!

Thank you very much. I got good hint from this written piece. please don’t back to comment and help others on the topic of what you know.

its a pleasure interaction with you and the kind written piece advice on how to approach introduction review has been productive. looking forward to have you again. than you

This blog is informative for my research, but what are the resources I should use for writing my review paper to make it more specific or provide additional information so it can easily get published?

Thank You for sharing this information regarding introduction to write review article. if you want to know more information related to review article and other research related things you can visit our website pubmanu.com

Get involved

Create an account or log in to post your story on the Node.

Sign up for emails

Subscribe to our mailing lists.

Most-read posts in March

Can the post-doc shortage get even worse? by J Guillermo Sanchez
Lab meeting with the Mohlin lab
SciArt profile: Brent Foster
Lab meeting with the Soiza-Reilly lab
Exploring multi-hub conferences: interview with Sally Lowell by Teodora Andreea Rinciog
An afternoon in the museum with an exploded skull and a 3.5m python skeleton by Joyce Yu

Do you have any news to share?

Our ‘Developing news’ posts celebrate the various achievements of the people in the developmental and stem cell biology community. Let us know if you would like to share some news.

Browse our topic pages

A day in the life…
Alternative careers
Behind the paper stories
Forgotten classics
Honest conversations
Lab meetings
Meeting reports
Monthly preprint list
New PI diaries
SciArt profiles
About the Node
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Acceptable Use Policy
The Company of Biologists
Development

© 2024. The Company of Biologists Ltd | Registered Charity 277992 Registered in England and Wales | Company Limited by Guarantee No 514735 Registered office: Bidder Building, Station Road, Histon, Cambridge CB24 9LF, UK

AI Content Shield
AI KW Research
AI Assistant
SEO Optimizer
AI KW Clustering
Customer reviews
The NLO Revolution
Press Center
Help Center
Content Resources
Facebook Group

Winning Intro Examples For Article Reviews

Table of Contents

Writing an article review is a great way to analyze and evaluate the work of other experts in your field. It is typically done to demonstrate clarity, originality, and how significant a certain article’s contribution is. As with most pieces of writing, your introduction is a critical element for an article review. It can be beneficial to refer to an example introduction for article review to help you make a winning intro.

This article has gathered some great introduction examples you can refer to. We’ve also listed some great tips to help you get started on your article.

Your introduction is often the determining factor in whether or not someone will be interested in reading your article. It needs to capture your audience’s attention immediately and state the purpose of your review.

What Is an Article Review?

An article review is a piece of writing that summarises and assesses someone else’s article. It aims to understand the central theme, supporting arguments, and implications of an article for future research.

There are specific guidelines and formats that an article review has to abide by. Reviews can either be critical, literature-based, or both. Literature reviews cover broad topics, while critical reviews focus on specific texts.

A black and white photo of a person working on a laptop

The Significance of Article Reviews

Article reviews are often required for school writing assignments. But scholars or students can also use it outside the educational system to conduct preliminary research before writing a paper. An article review can help you with:

Clarifying questions
See other people’s thoughts and perspectives regarding current issues.
Correct grammar errors and sentence structure.
Get out of personal biases after reading various reviews
Improve grammar as well as writing skills
Provide suggestions or criticism on the article for future research.

How to Start an Article Review

Your introduction in an article review is of the utmost importance. Before you begin writing, you should first outline your assignment. You can also use an article review template to organize your thoughts. Here are some things your intro should accomplish:

Introduce the article and the thesis you will be reviewing.
Establish the significance of the study.
Summarize the main points of the article.
Present the positive aspects and facts contained in the article.
Mention knowledge gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions in the publication.

In journals, an introduction usually takes up one paragraph, but in longer book reviews, it can take two or three paragraphs.

Include a few opening sentences that explain the subject of the text and introduce the author . Present the main finding or key argument and describe the aim of the text. After this, make a brief statement about your evaluation of the text in your introduction.

Example Introduction for Article Review

As Olsen (2015) states, grasping mathematics concepts is not something that happens spontaneously or independently. To improve one’s mathematics proficiency, one must appropriately use mental math to enhance their knowledge. Olsen (2015) suggests increasing a student’s mental abilities is possible.

George Hammond’s book “The Role of God” was first published in the opinion magazine Grass over Grass. It is ambitious in its primary focus being a perception of infinity. Hammond points out that God cannot be seen in its pure form. This cancels out a specific role since we cannot get acquainted with it physically. According to the author, “the roleless God has a role in our lives.” It causes us to look deeply at nothingness, mystery, and what we cannot explain.” (Hammond 56).

The growth of technology has had a huge effect on the political ratings that candidates achieve. The article, Impact of Technology on Politics by Housley explores how technology and politics interrelate. And it also analyzes what consequences they have.

There are many ways political candidates use technology. Different communication channels have the power to influence the growth of individuals in their respective political spheres. The likes of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are powerful platforms that can easily increase the ratings of political candidates. According to Housley, technology is a decisive factor in politics, regardless of whether we recognize it.

Article reviews analyze and evaluate a body of written text. Its goal is to pull out a certain theme that the author is trying to convey, interpret the text, and synthesize your findings.

A review stands out with specific use of language and clear articulation of observations and conclusions. For this reason, reviewing an article or book can be an exercise in analytical writing. And it may prepare you for your future in various careers, from teaching to business writing. So start your article review right by referring to an example introduction for article review .

Winning Intro Examples For Article Reviews

Abir Ghenaiet

Abir is a data analyst and researcher. Among her interests are artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing. As a humanitarian and educator, she actively supports women in tech and promotes diversity.

Explore All Essay Intro Generator Articles

The different ways to start a comparative essay.

Some writers intend to compare two specific things or ideas through their articles. They write these essays to compare and…

Essay Intro Generator

Know The Best Way to Start an Expository Essay

Are you into writing essays that tackle a still-unknown fact? Do you know how to write an expository essay? Before…

Writing an Opinion Essay? Read This First!

Students are required to express their opinions on a topic in an opinion essay. Pertinent illustrations and explanations support their…

Identifying the Best Transitions to Start an Essay

A typical academic assignment is the essay, which must meet certain requirements in order to be written properly. Even students…

How to Write Introductions for Synthesis Essays

One of the most exciting assignments you could have is writing a synthesis essay. For a college or university student,…

How to Write Introductions for Music Essays

Music is food for the soul, or so they say. A music essay analyzes or describes a piece of music,…

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.

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
Write for Us
BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

Aromataris E ,
Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Open access
Published: 29 January 2022

Gut microbiota in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders — a systematic review

Zhilu XU 1 , 2 , 3 na1 ,
Wei JIANG 1 na1 ,
Wenli HUANG 1 , 2 , 3 ,
Yu LIN 1 , 2 , 3 ,
Francis K.L. CHAN 1 , 2 , 3 &
Siew C. NG 1 , 2 , 3

Genes & Nutrition volume 17 , Article number: 2 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

63 Citations

35 Altmetric

Metrics details

Previous observational studies have demonstrated inconsistent and inconclusive results of changes in the intestinal microbiota in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders. We performed a systematic review to explore evidence for this association across different geography and populations.

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE (OvidSP) and Embase (OvidSP) of articles published from Sept 1, 2010, to July 10, 2021, for case–control studies comparing intestinal microbiome of individuals with obesity and metabolic disorders with the microbiome of non-obese, metabolically healthy individuals (controls). The primary outcome was bacterial taxonomic changes in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders as compared to controls. Taxa were defined as “lean-associated” if they were depleted in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders or negatively associated with abnormal metabolic parameters. Taxa were defined as “obesity-associated” if they were enriched in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders or positively associated with abnormal metabolic parameters.

Among 2390 reports screened, we identified 110 full-text articles and 60 studies were included. Proteobacteria was the most consistently reported obesity-associated phylum. Thirteen, nine, and ten studies, respectively, reported Faecalibacterium , Akkermansia , and Alistipes as lean-associated genera. Prevotella and Ruminococcus were obesity-associated genera in studies from the West but lean-associated in the East. Roseburia and Bifidobacterium were lean-associated genera only in the East, whereas Lactobacillus was an obesity-associated genus in the West.

Conclusions

We identified specific bacteria associated with obesity and metabolic disorders in western and eastern populations. Mechanistic studies are required to determine whether these microbes are a cause or product of obesity and metabolic disorders.

Introduction

Obesity-related metabolic disorders, including type 2 diabetes (T2DM), cardiovascular diseases, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), affect 13% of the population and result in 2.8 million deaths each year [ 1 , 2 ], and are a significant socioeconomic burden to society. Pathophysiology of obesity and metabolic disorders is multi-factorial, and currently, therapies are limited. The role of intestinal microbiota in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders have been extensively studied in the past decade. Humanized mouse models showed that the microbiome in obese subjects appeared to be more efficient in harvesting energy from the diet and may thereby contribute to the pathogenesis of obesity [ 3 , 4 ]. However, observational studies reported inconsistent and inconclusive changes of intestinal microbiota in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders [ 5 ]. For instance, the Firmicutes and Bacteriodetes ratio (F/B ratio) is not a reproducible marker across human cohorts [ 6 ].

Microbial-based therapies such as probiotics aiming to reshape the gut microbial ecosystem have been increasingly explored in the treatment of obesity-related metabolic disorders [ 7 , 8 ]. Traditional probiotics, primarily consisting of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium have been shown to elicit weight loss in subjects with obesity yet the effect sizes were small with large variations of efficacy among different studies [ 9 ]. Emerging evidence showed that Akkermansia muciniphila was depleted in patients with obesity-related metabolic disorders. These results have led to mechanistic studies and clinical trials to test its efficacy in the management of obesity and metabolic disorders [ 10 ].

Age, geography, and dietary patterns largely affect the gut microbiome [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. The gut microbiota of vegetarians was dominated by Clostridium species [ 14 ] whereas subjects who mainly consumed fish and meat had high level of F. prausnitzii [ 15 ]. In recent years, the prevalence of childhood obesity has increased sharply. However, only limited data has issued the function and structure of gut microbiota in children and adolescents with obesity [ 16 ].

We have therefore conducted a systematic review of case–control studies evaluating the microbiota in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders compared to lean, healthy controls to summarize the current evidence in the relationship between individual members of the microbiota and obesity. We aimed to identify novel candidates as live biotherapeutics to facilitate the treatment of obesity and metabolic disorders.

Materials and methods

Search strategy.

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA 2009 guidelines [ 17 ]. We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE (OvidSP) and Embase (OvidSP) of articles published from Sept 1, 2010 to July 10, 2021 to identify case-control studies comparing gut microbiota in patients with obesity and metabolic disorder and non-obese, metabolically healthy controls. Search strategy is shown in the Appendix .

Study selection and patient population

Studies were included if they were (1) case–control studies comparing gut microbiota in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders and non-obese, metabolically healthy individuals (controls); (2) intestinal microbiota was assessed by next-generation sequencing (NGS; 16s rRNA amplicon or shotgun metagenomic sequencing); and (3) obesity was defined based on body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30kg/m 2 and metabolic disorders including type 2 diabetes mellitus, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome were diagnosed according to respective guidelines (Table 1 ). Studies from all age groups were included. Studies were excluded if they were (1) case reports, reviews, meta-analyses, re-analysis of public datasets, or conference abstracts, (2) without data for individual bacterial groups, (3) not in English, and (4) not a case–control design. Studies of genetic-associated obesity such as Prader–Willi syndrome were also excluded.

Study outcomes

The primary outcome was the bacterial taxonomic changes in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders compared to non-obese, metabolically healthy controls. Secondary outcomes included the changes in bacteria diversity and F/B ratio, subgroup analysis of microbiota changes in adults and children with obesity and metabolic disorders, and in Eastern and Western populations. Data on microbiota community composition were extracted from each study. Taxa were defined as “lean-associated” if they were depleted in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders or negatively associated with abnormal metabolic parameters such as high body mass index (BMI), elevated fasting plasma glucose and elevated serum cholesterol. Taxa were defined as “obesity-associated” if they were enriched in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders or positively associated with abnormal metabolic parameters. Taxon at each level (phylum, class, order, family, genus) was only counted once for each study (i.e., if a genus was both depleted in obesity and negatively associate with fat mass in the same study, it was only counted once).

Eligibility assessment and data extraction

Two authors (JW, HW) independently reviewed studies and excluded based on titles, abstracts, or both to lessen the selection bias and then reviewed selected studies with full text for complete analysis. JW extracted data from studies and entered it into a designated spreadsheet. HW checked the accuracy of this process. The data were re-checked when there was a discrepancy. XZ arbitrated if the discrepancy cannot be resolved by consensus and discussion. The data collected included the following: participant characteristics, including age group, country, types of metabolic disorders, number of patients; types of specimens, microbiota assessment method, microbiome diversity, and Firmicutes/Bacteroides ratio.

Quality assessment

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the quality of included studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale consists of 3 domains (maximum 9 stars); selection (is the case definition adequate, representativeness of the cases, selection of controls, definition of controls); comparability (comparability of baseline characteristics); and exposure (ascertainment of exposure, same method of ascertainment for cases and controls, attrition rate).

Study characteristics

Overall, 2390 citations were retrieved; 2280 were excluded based on title, abstract, and the availability of full text; 110 articles were subsequently fully reviewed. After further review, 50 full-text articles were rejected (Fig. 1 ). The final analysis included 60 studies (Table 1 ). Of these, 44 studies assessed the gut microbiota in adults and 16 in infants, children, and adolescents. Ethnicity of subjects consisted of Asian, Black, Caucasian, Hispanic, or Latino. Fifty-eight out of 60 (96.7%) studies evaluated intestinal microbiota in stool samples and two studies assessed the microbiota in duodenal biopsies. Thirty-two studies involved patients with obesity [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 76 ], ten involved patients with T2DM [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], eleven involved patients with NAFLD or non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 75 ], and seven involved patients with metabolic syndrome [ 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 77 ]. General characteristics and diagnostic criteria for obesity and metabolic disorders in each study were summarized in Table 1 .

Flowchart of study selection

Microbiome assessment methods

Of the 58 studies assessing stool microbiome, 50 studies assessed the gut microbiota by using 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequencing, six used shotgun metagenomic sequencing and two studies applied both 16s rRNA and shotgun metagenomic sequencing. Both studies assessing biopsy microbiome applied 16S rRNA sequencing.

Primary outcomes

At the phylum level, significant changes of phyla Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Proteobacteria were most reported in obese, metabolic diseased subjects compared with controls. Among 60 studies included, 22 studies reported significant changes in Firmicutes with 15 studies showing phylum Firmicutes were obesity-associated and 7 showing it was lean-associated [ 18 , 21 , 23 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 34 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 ,, 46 , 48 50 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 68 , 69 , 71 ]; 20 studies reported significant changes in Bacteroidetes with 8 studies showing it was obesity-associated and 12 showing it was lean-associated [ 20 , 23 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 37 , 43 , 46 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 68 , 68 ,, 69 , 71 , 74 , 75 ]. Fifteen studies reported significant change in Proteobacteria with 13 studies showing it was obesity-associated and 2 showing it was lean-associated [ 19 , 20 , 22 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 45 , 46 , 55 , 59 , 61 , 65 , 68 , 69 , 71 ]. Studies consistently reported that Fusobacteria as obesity-associated taxa ( n = 5) [ 18 , 20 , 22 , 32 , 61 ], Actinobacteria was a lean-associated taxa ( n = 7) [ 20 , 23 , 32 , 45 , 62 , 68 , 69 ] and Tenericutes was lean-associated ( n = 4) [ 20 , 22 , 48 , 77 ] (Table 2 ). The details on the differential levels of taxon in each eligible study are shown in Supplementary table 1 .

At lower taxonomic levels, studies consistently reported the class Bacilli, Gammaproteobacteria and family Coriobacteriaceae to be obesity-associated. Controversial results were reported for class Clostridia, family Lachnospiraceae, Rikenellaceae, and Ruminococcaceae ( Supplementary table 2 ). At the genus level, Alistipes , Akkermansia , Bifidobacterium , Desulfovibrio , and genera in the Clostridium cluster IV ( Faecalibacterium , Eubacterium , Oscillospira , Odoribacter ) were the most reported lean-associated genera, while Prevotella , Lactobacillus , Blautia , Escherichia , Succinivibrio , and Fusobacterium were the most reported obesity-associated genera. Significant change in genera Ruminococcus , Coprococcus , Dialister , Bacteroides , Clostridium and Roseburia were reported but results were controversial (Table 3 ).

Secondary outcomes

Forty (67%) studies provided alpha diversity of the gut microbiota. Among them, 18 reported significant reduction in diversity while four reported significant increase of alpha diversity in obesity and metabolic disorders compared with controls. The remaining studies ( n = 18) found no significant difference in alpha diversity between both groups. In addition, 11 studies demonstrated significant difference in β-diversity [ 20 , 23 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 40 , 47 , 55 , 58 , 66 , 69 ], while 10 studies showed no significant difference in β-diversity between patients with obesity and metabolic disorders and controls [ 24 , 26 , 38 , 49 , 50 , 57 , 65 , 70 , 74 , 79 ]. Twenty-two (37%) studies reported Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes (F/B) ratio [ 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 ]. Among them, eight studies reported significant increase [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 48 , 52 , 59 , 75 ] and three studies reported a significant decreased in F/B ratio [ 33 , 41 , 44 ]. Eleven studies reported no significant change in F/B ratio in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders compared with controls (Supplementary Table 3 ) [ 37 , 42 , 46 , 53 , 54 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 67 , 68 ].

Difference of microbiota between adult and childhood obesity

The trend for most microbial changes in adult and childhood obesity were consistent. Studies reported Actinobacteria as lean-associated, while Proteobacteria and Firmicutes as obesity-associated in both adults and childhood obesity. However, discrepancies were observed for several genera. Three studies in adults consistently reported that Fusobacterium was obesity-associated, but controversial results were found in children [ 18 , 20 , 22 , 32 , 61 , 77 ]. Moreover, more studies reported that Dorea [ 39 , 46 , 49 , 77 ] and Ruminococcus [ 39 , 44 , 49 , 69 ] were obesity-associated in adults, while more studies reported them to be lean-associated in children [ 19 , 68 ]. Three studies consistently reported that Turicibacter was lean-associated in adults [ 44 , 66 , 69 ], but one study reported it to be obesity-associated in children [ 20 ]. Notably, three studies in adults reported that the genus Bifidobacterium was lean-associated [ 22 , 57 , 58 ], while controversial results were found in children (3 lean-associated and 2 obesity-associated) [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 38 , 68 ]. These findings suggested that microbiota in childhood obesity and metabolic disorders were more heterogeneous compared with adults.

Difference of microbiota between the East and the West

Large discrepancies in gut microbiome in obesity and metabolic disorders were observed in studies from the East and the West. Four studies exclusively consisting of populations in the West reported that the Family Coriobacteriaceae was obesity-associated [ 27 , 38 , 53 , 71 ] whereas none in the East reported significant change of this bacterial family between obese subjects and controls. Four studies in the East reported that the family Ruminococcaceae was lean-associated [ 22 , 60 , 61 , 63 ], but conflicting results were found in studies from the West (2 lean-associated and 2 obesity-associated) [ 27 , 36 , 43 , 68 ]. At the genus level, four studies reported that Prevotella was lean-associated in the East (3 lean-associated and 1 obesity-associated) [ 19 , 20 , 26 , 61 ], while other studies from the West have reported it to be obesity-associated (2 lean-associated and 5 obesity-associated) [ 38 , 55 , 67 , 68 , 72 , 73 , 75 ]. Three studies reported that Ruminococcus was lean-associated in the East [ 20 , 63 , 67 ], but most studies reported it to be obesity-associated in the West (1 lean-associated and 5 obesity-associated) [ 23 , 39 , 44 , 49 , 62 , 69 ]. Similar findings were observed for Roseburia (3 lean-associated in the east [ 30 , 63 , 66 ], 1 lean-associated and 2 obesity-associated in the west [ 53 , 68 , 69 ]). Notably, the common genus Lactobacillus was repeatedly reported to be obesity-associated in the West (1 lean-associated and 4 obesity-associated) [ 19 , 38 , 44 , 46 , 57 ]. Controversial results for Lactobacillus were also reported in the East (2 lean-associated and 2 obesity-associated) [ 21 , 59 , 60 , 63 ].

Quality of the evidence

The Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed that all 60 studies provided an adequate explanation in the definition and selection method for patients with obesity and metabolic disorders (Table 4 ). Fifty-five (91.7%) of 60 studies did the same process for controls. Twenty (33.3%) and 27 (45%) studies demonstrated comparable data of sex and age in patients with obesity / metabolic disorders and controls.

To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive systematic review in microbiota and obesity and metabolic disorders, as we extracted the data of each available bacterial group using the lowest taxonomic level based on NGS of each included study. We believe that the findings reflect the best available current evidence demonstrating the relationship between individual bacterial taxa and obesity or metabolic disorders.

Proteobacteria was the most consistently reported obesity-associated phylum. Several members of Proteobacteria, such as Proteus mirabilis and E. coli , were potential drivers of inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract [ 7 , 80 , 81 ]. Low-grade inflammation is a risk factor for developing metabolic diseases including atherosclerosis, insulin resistance, and diabetes mellitus [ 82 ]. Besides stool microbiota, obese subjects with T2DM also showed a high bacterial load with an increase in Enterobacteriaceae in plasma, liver, and omental adipose tissue microbiota [ 83 ].

Lactobacillus was reported to be an obesity-associated taxon and abundance was higher in the stool of patients with obesity and metabolic diseases. This food-derived probiotic genus showed relative low prevalence and abundance in the commensal gut microbiota [ 52 ]. Previous clinical trials of Lactobacillus , alone or in combination with Bifidobacterium, showed variable efficacy in weight loss in patients with obesity [ 9 ]. These inconsistent results indicated that the underlying mechanisms of Lactobacillus (at least some of its species) in the treatment of metabolic disorders warrant further investigation. Other commensal bacteria such as Bifidobacterium spp., Alistipes spp., and Akkermansia that constitute a large proportion of the gut microbiota were frequently observed to be higher in healthy individuals than obese, metabolically affected subjects. These species might therefore exert a more durable beneficial effect for the consideration in managing obesity compared with Lactobacillus .

Akkermansia muciniphila (Actinobacteria phylum), a species identified by NGS, was one of the most commonly reported lean-associated bacteria in obesity and metabolic diseases. A. muciniphila was reported to help modulate the gut lining which could promote gut barrier function and prevent inflammation caused by the “leaky” gut [ 84 ]. A clinical trial demonstrated that supplementation with A. muciniphila could reduce body weight and decrease the level of blood markers for liver dysfunction and inflammation in obese insulin-resistant volunteers [ 10 ]. Another proof-of-concept study showed that supplementation with five strains including A. muciniphila was safe and associated with improved postprandial glucose control [ 85 ]. These findings highlight the potential of specific live biotherapeutics in weight control in subjects with obesity and metabolic diseases.

Other genera that were consistently reported to be more abundant in lean healthy individuals than obese subjects were Alistipes (Bacteroidetes phylum) and Faecalibacterium (Firmicutes phylum). Alistipes could produce small amounts of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA, acetic, isobutyric, isovaleric, and propionic acid) [ 86 ] while Faecalibacterium is one of the major butyrate producers in the human gut [ 87 , 88 ]. SCFA have anti-inflammatory properties [ 89 ] and may promote weight loss through the release of glucagon-like peptide 1 that promotes satiety and the activation of brown adipose tissue via the gut–brain neural circuit [ 90 , 91 ]. Butyrate could activate the GPR43-AKT-GSK3 signaling pathway to increase glucose metabolism by liver cells and improve glucose control in diabetes mice [ 92 ]. They could also inhibit the expression of PPARγ, increase fat oxidation in skeletal muscle mitochondria, and reduce lipogenesis in high-fat diet (HFD) mouse model [ 93 ].

We have identified several genera, including Bifidobacterium , Roseburia , Prevotella , and Ruminococcus, that were consistently reported to be lean-associated exclusively in subjects from the East. Bifidobacterium spp. are widely used probiotics proven to be safe and well-tolerated and exhibited a significant effect in lowering serum total cholesterol both in mice and in humans [ 94 ]. Roseburia is another major butyrate-producing genus of the human gut [ 95 ]. R. intestinalis could maintain the gut barrier function through upregulation of the tight junction protein [ 96 ]. Supplementation of R. intestinalis and R. hominis could ameliorate alcoholic fatty liver disease in mice [ 97 ]. Ruminococcus bromii is a keystone species for the degradation of resistant starch in the human colon [ 98 ]. Prevotella copri (Bacteroidetes phylum) was found to improve aberrant glucose tolerance syndromes and enhance hepatic glycogen storage in animals via the production of succinate [ 99 ]. However, a recent study also showed that the prevalence of P. copri exacerbated glucose tolerance and enhanced insulin resistance which occur before the development of ischemic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes [ 100 ].

Only limited human studies in the current review reported an increased ratio of F/B in obesity. An increased ratio of F/B was shown in studies of the high-fat diet mouse model [ 6 ]. No taxon distinction was found to be specific for any type of metabolic disease. This was in line with a recent study that showed obesity, but not type 2 diabetes, was associated with notable alterations in microbiome composition [ 58 ].

The strength of this study is that we applied a robust method of grouping various types of disease-microbiome associations into “lean, metabolically healthy state” or “obese, metabolically diseased state.” Despite various metabolic disorders may affect the gut microbiota in different manners, the inter-study variation often supersedes the intra-study variation between disease and control groups [ 101 ]. Overall, the most striking observation is the lack of consistency in results between studies. This probably relates to the limitations of the studies included in this review. Also, it relies on the striking stability and individuality of adult microbiota, changing over time. Heterogeneity between studies is often a problem in systematic reviews. Several different methods were used to assess the microbiota, which makes it difficult to compare results between studies and likely contributes to the differences in results. While the standardization of study protocol (sample storage, DNA extraction, sequencing, analysis methods, and stringent subject recruitment criteria) could potentially result in comparable data between studies, this remains a big challenge across different regions. Moreover, we excluded studies that used species- or group-specific primers for microbiota assessment because such methods could only capture certain bacterial groups. This limits the total number of studies included. For robust microbiota results that are comparable among studies, there need to be efforts for standardization of sample storage, DNA extraction, sequencing, and analysis methods among groups undertaking gut microbiota studies. Finally, longitudinal studies would allow for a more robust association of changes in the microbiota to changes in obesity and metabolic disorders.

This systematic review identified consistent evidence for several lean-associated genera that may have therapeutic potential for obesity and metabolic diseases. Besides A. muciniphila , species from genera Faecalibacterium , Alistipes , and Roseburia might also harbor therapeutic potentials against obesity and metabolic diseases. These results provided a guide for the future development of certain bacteria into live biotherapeutics that may be helpful for the management of obesity and metabolic disorders. Further in-vitro and in-vivo research are needed to elucidate their role in the management of obesity and metabolic diseases.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Type 2 diabetes

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Next-generation sequencing

Body mass index

Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

Obese with metabolic syndrome

Short-chain fatty acids

High-fat diet

Banack HR, Kaufman JS. The obesity paradox: understanding the effect of obesity on mortality among individuals with cardiovascular disease. Prev Med. 2014;62:96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.003 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

WHO. Obesity and overweight, World Health Organization. 2017. http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight . Accessed 12 Jan 2018.

Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature. 2006;444(7122):1027–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05414 .

Turnbaugh PJ, Hamady M, Yatsunenko T, Cantarel BL, Duncan A, Ley RE, et al. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature. 2009;457(7228):480–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07540 .

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Castaner O, Goday A, Park YM, Lee SH, Magkos F, Shiow SATE, et al. The gut microbiome profile in obesity: a systematic review. Int J Endocrinol. 2018;2018:4095789. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4095789 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Bisanz JE, Upadhyay V, Turnbaugh JA, Ly K, Turnbaugh PJ. Meta-analysis reveals reproducible gut microbiome alterations in response to a high-fat diet. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;26(2):265–72.e4.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Allegretti JR, Kassam Z, Mullish BH, Chiang A, Carrellas M, Hurtado J, et al. Effects of Fecal Microbiota transplantation with oral capsules in obese patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18(4):855–63.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.006 .

Yu EW, Gao L, Stastka P, Cheney MC, Mahabamunuge J, Torres Soto M, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation for the improvement of metabolism in obesity: the FMT-TRIM double-blind placebo-controlled pilot trial. PLoS Med. 2020;17(3):e1003051. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003051 .

Borgeraas H, Johnson LK, Skattebu J, Hertel JK, Hjelmesaeth J. Effects of probiotics on body weight, body mass index, fat mass and fat percentage in subjects with overweight or obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2018;19(2):219–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12626 .

Depommier C, Everard A, Druart C, Plovier H, van Hul M, Vieira-Silva S, et al. Supplementation with Akkermansia muciniphila in overweight and obese human volunteers: a proof-of-concept exploratory study. Nat Med. 2019;25(7):1096–103. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0495-2 .

Nam YD, Jung MJ, Roh SW, Kim MS, Bae JW. Comparative analysis of Korean human gut microbiota by barcoded pyrosequencing. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22109. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022109 .

Deschasaux M, Bouter KE, Prodan A, et al. Depicting the composition of gut microbiota in a population with varied ethnic origins but shared geography. Nat Med. 2018;24(10):1526.

Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature. 2012;486(7402):222.

Hayashi H, Sakamoto M, Benno Y. Fecal microbial diversity in a strict vegetarian as determined by molecular analysis and cultivation. Microbiol Immunol. 2002;46(12):819–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1348-0421.2002.tb02769.x .

Mueller S, Saunier K, Hanisch C, Norin E, Alm L, Midtvedt T, et al. Differences in fecal microbiota in different European study populations in relation to age, gender, and country: a cross-sectional study. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(2):1027–33. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.2.1027-1033.2006 .

Hollister EB, Riehle K, Luna RA, Weidler EM, Rubio-Gonzales M, Mistretta TA, et al. Structure and function of the healthy pre-adolescent pediatric gut microbiome. Microbiome. 2015;3(1):36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-015-0101-x .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Bmj. 2009;339(1):b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 .

Andoh A, Nishida A, Takahashi K, Inatomi O, Imaeda H, Bamba S, et al. Comparison of the gut microbial community between obese and lean peoples using 16S gene sequencing in a Japanese population. J Clin Biochem Nutr. 2016;59(1):65–70. https://doi.org/10.3164/jcbn.15-152 .

Bai J, Hu Y, Bruner DW. Composition of gut microbiota and its association with body mass index and lifestyle factors in a cohort of 7-18 years old children from the American Gut Project. Pediatr Obes. 2019;14(4):e12480. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12480 .

Chen X, Sun H, Jiang F, Shen Y, Li X, Hu X, et al. Alteration of the gut microbiota associated with childhood obesity by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. PeerJ. 2020;2020(1):8317. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8317 .

Article Google Scholar

Da Silva CC, Monteil MA, Davis EM. Overweight and obesity in children are associated with an abundance of Firmicutes and Reduction of Bifidobacterium in their gastrointestinal microbiota. Child Obes (Print). 2020;16(3):204–10. https://doi.org/10.1089/chi.2019.0280 .

Gao R, Zhu C, Li H, Yin M, Pan C, Huang L, et al. Dysbiosis signatures of gut microbiota along the sequence from healthy, young patients to those with overweight and obesity. Obesity. 2018;26(2):351–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22088 .

Gao X, Jia R, Xie L, Kuang L, Feng L, Wan C. A study of the correlation between obesity and intestinal flora in school-age children. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):14511. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32730-6 .

Haro C, Rangel-Zuniga OA, Alcala-Diaz JF, et al. Intestinal microbiota is influenced by gender and body mass index. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154090. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154090 .

Houttu N, Mokkala K, Laitinen K. Overweight and obesity status in pregnant women are related to intestinal microbiota and serum metabolic and inflammatory profiles. Clin Nutr. 2018;37(6):1955–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2017.12.013 .

Hu H-J, Park S-G, Jang HB, Choi MG, Park KH, Kang JH, et al. Obesity alters the microbial community profile in Korean adolescents. PloS One. 2015;10(7):e0134333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134333 .

Kaplan RC, Wang Z, Usyk M, Sotres-Alvarez D, Daviglus ML, Schneiderman N, et al. Gut microbiome composition in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos is shaped by geographic relocation, environmental factors, and obesity. Genome Biol. 2019;20(1):219. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1831-z .

Liu R, Hong J, Feng Q, et al. Gut microbiome and serum metabolome alterations in obesity and after weight-loss intervention. Nat Med. 2017;23(7):859–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4358 .

Lopez-Contreras BE, Moran-Ramos S, Villarruel-Vazquez R, et al. Composition of gut microbiota in obese and normal-weight Mexican school-age children and its association with metabolic traits. Pediatr Obes. 2018;13(6):381–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12262 .

Lv Y, Qin X, Jia H, Chen S, Sun W, Wang X. The association between gut microbiota composition and BMI in Chinese male college students, as analysed by next-generation sequencing. Br J Nutr. 2019;122(9):986–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114519001909 .

Mendez-Salazar EO, Ortiz-Lopez MG, Granados-Silvestre MDLA, Palacios-Gonzalez B, Menjivar M. Altered gut microbiota and compositional changes in firmicutes and proteobacteria in Mexican undernourished and obese children. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2494.

Nardelli C, Granata I, D’ Argenio V, et al. Characterization of the Duodenal mucosal microbiome in obese adult subjects by 16S rRNA sequencing. Microorganisms 2020; 8, 4, 485, https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8040485 .

Blasco G, Moreno-Navarrete JM, Rivero M, Pérez-Brocal V, Garre-Olmo J, Puig J, et al. The gut metagenome changes in parallel to waist circumference, brain iron deposition, and cognitive function. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(8):2962–73. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-00133 .

Davis SC, Yadav JS, Barrow SD, Robertson BK. Gut microbiome diversity influenced more by the Westernized dietary regime than the body mass index as assessed using effect size statistic. MicrobiologyOpen. 2017;6(4):e00476. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.476 .

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

Dominianni C, Sinha R, Goedert JJ, Pei Z, Yang L, Hayes RB, et al. Sex, body mass index, and dietary fiber intake influence the human gut microbiome. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124599 .

Escobar JS, Klotz B, Valdes BE, Agudelo GM. The gut microbiota of Colombians differs from that of Americans, Europeans and Asians. BMC Microbiol. 2015;14(1):311. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-014-0311-6 .

Kasai C, Sugimoto K, Moritani I, Tanaka J, Oya Y, Inoue H, et al. Comparison of the gut microbiota composition between obese and non-obese individuals in a Japanese population, as analyzed by terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism and next-generation sequencing. BMC Gastroenterol. 2015;15(1):100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-015-0330-2 .

Nirmalkar K, Murugesan S, Pizano-Zarate ML, et al. Gut microbiota and endothelial dysfunction markers in obese Mexican children and adolescents. Nutrients. 2018;10(12):2009. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10122009 .

Article CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ottosson F, Brunkwall L, Ericson U, Nilsson PM, Almgren P, Fernandez C, et al. Connection between BMI-related plasma metabolite profile and gut microbiota. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(4):1491–501. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-02114 .

Peters BA, Shapiro JA, Church TR, Miller G, Trinh-Shevrin C, Yuen E, et al. A taxonomic signature of obesity in a large study of American adults. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):9749. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28126-1 .

Ppatil D, Pdhotre D, Gchavan S, et al. Molecular analysis of gut microbiota in obesity among Indian individuals. J Biosci. 2012;37(4):647–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-012-9244-0 .

Article CAS Google Scholar

Rahat-Rozenbloom S, Fernandes J, Gloor GB, Wolever TMS. Evidence for greater production of colonic short-chain fatty acids in overweight than lean humans. Int J Obes. 2014;38(12):1525–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2014.46 .

Riva A, Borgo F, Lassandro C, Verduci E, Morace G, Borghi E, et al. Pediatric obesity is associated with an altered gut microbiota and discordant shifts in Firmicutes populations. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19(1):95–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13463 .

Vieira-Silva S, Falony G, Belda E, et al. Statin therapy is associated with lower prevalence of gut microbiota dysbiosis. Nature. 2020;581(7808):310–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2269-x .

Ville A, Levine E, Zhi D, Lararia B, Wojcicki JM. Alterations in the gut microbiome at 6 months of age in obese Latino infants. J Am Coll Nutr. 2020;39(1):47–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2019.1606744 .

Yasir M, Angelakis E, Bibi F, Azhar EI, Bachar D, Lagier JC, et al. Comparison of the gut microbiota of people in France and Saudi Arabia. Nutr Diabetes. 2015;5(4):e153. https://doi.org/10.1038/nutd.2015.3 .

Yun Y, Kim HN, Kim SE, Heo SG, Chang Y, Ryu S, et al. Comparative analysis of gut microbiota associated with body mass index in a large Korean cohort. BMC Microbiol. 2017;17(1):151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-017-1052-0 .

Zacarias MF, Collado MC, Gomez-Gallego C, et al. Pregestational overweight and obesity are associated with differences in gut microbiota composition and systemic inflammation in the third trimester. PloS One. 2018;13(7):e0200305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200305 .

Allin KH, Tremaroli V, Caesar R, et al. Aberrant intestinal microbiota in individuals with prediabetes. Diabetologia. 2018;61(4):810–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-018-4550-1 .

Barengolts E, Green SJ, Eisenberg Y, et al. Gut microbiota varies by opioid use, circulating leptin and oxytocin in African American men with diabetes and high burden of chronic disease. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194171.

Leite AZ, Rodrigues NC, Gonzaga MI, et al. Detection of increased plasma interleukin-6 levels and prevalence of Prevotella copri and Bacteroides vulgatus in the feces of type 2 diabetes patients. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1107.

Qin J, Li Y, Cai Z, Li S, Zhu J, Zhang F, et al. A metagenome-wide association study of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes. Nature. 2012;490(7418):55–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11450 .

Karlsson FH, Tremaroli V, Nookaew I, Bergström G, Behre CJ, Fagerberg B, et al. Gut metagenome in European women with normal, impaired and diabetic glucose control. Nature. 2013;498(7452):99–103. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12198 .

Larsen N, Vogensen FK, van den Berg FW, et al. Gut microbiota in human adults with type 2 diabetes differs from non-diabetic adults. PLoS One. 2010;5(2):e9085. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009085 .

Ahmad A, Yang W, Chen G, Shafiq M, Javed S, Ali Zaidi SS, et al. Analysis of gut microbiota of obese individuals with type 2 diabetes and healthy individuals. PLoS One. 2019;14(12):e0226372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226372 .

Koo SH, Chu CW, Khoo JJC, Cheong M, Soon GH, Ho EXP, et al. A pilot study to examine the association between human gut microbiota and the hostʼs central obesity. JGH Open. 2019;3(6):480–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12184 .

Sroka-oleksiak A, Mlodzinska A, Bulanda M, et al. Metagenomic analysis of duodenal microbiota reveals a potential biomarker of dysbiosis in the course of obesity and type 2 diabetes: a pilot study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):369. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020369 .

Thingholm LB, Ruhlemann MC, Koch M, et al. Obese individuals with and without type 2 diabetes show different gut microbial functional capacity and composition. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;26(2):252–64.e10.

Zhao Y, Zhou J, Liu J, Wang Z, Chen M, Zhou S. Metagenome of gut microbiota of children with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Front Pediatr. 2019;7:518. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00518 .

Jiang W, Wu N, Wang X, Chi Y, Zhang Y, Qiu X, et al. Dysbiosis gut microbiota associated with inflammation and impaired mucosal immune function in intestine of humans with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):8096. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08096 .

Shen F, Zheng R-D, Sun X-Q, Ding W-J, Wang X-Y, Fan J-G. Gut microbiota dysbiosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2017;16(4):375–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-3872(17)60019-5 .

Sobhonslidsuk A, Chanprasertyothin S, Pongrujikorn T, Kaewduang P, Promson K, Petraksa S, et al. The association of gut microbiota with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in Thais. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:9340316–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9340316 .

Wang B, Jiang X, Cao M, Ge J, Bao Q, Tang L, et al. Altered fecal microbiota correlates with liver biochemistry in nonobese patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):32002. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32002 .

Li F, Sun G, Wang Z, Wu W, Guo H, Peng L, et al. Characteristics of fecal microbiota in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease patients. Sci China Life Sci. 2018;61(7):770–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-017-9303-9 .

Nistal E, Saenz de Miera LE, Ballesteros PM, et al. An altered fecal microbiota profile in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) associated with obesity. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2019;111(4):275–82. https://doi.org/10.17235/reed.2019.6068/2018 .

Yun Y, Kim HN, Lee EJ, Ryu S, Chang Y, Shin H, et al. Fecal and blood microbiota profiles and presence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in obese versus lean subjects. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0213692. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213692 .

Michail S, Lin M, Frey MR, Fanter R, Paliy O, Hilbush B, et al. Altered gut microbial energy and metabolism in children with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2015;91(2):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiu002 .

Zhu L, Baker SS, Gill C, Liu W, Alkhouri R, Baker RD, et al. Characterization of gut microbiomes in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) patients: a connection between endogenous alcohol and NASH. Hepatology. 2013;57(2):601–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.26093 .

Chavez-Carbajal A, Nirmalkar K, Perez-Lizaur A, et al. Gut microbiota and predicted metabolic pathways in a sample of Mexican women affected by obesity and obesity plus metabolic syndrome. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(2):438. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20020438 .

De La Cuesta-Zuluaga J, Corrales-Agudelo V, Carmona JA, Abad JM, Escobar JS. Body size phenotypes comprehensively assess cardiometabolic risk and refine the association between obesity and gut microbiota. Int J Obes. 2018;42(3):424–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2017.281 .

Gallardo-Becerra L, Cornejo-Granados F, Garcia-Lopez R, et al. Metatranscriptomic analysis to define the Secrebiome, and 16S rRNA profiling of the gut microbiome in obesity and metabolic syndrome of Mexican children. Microb Cell Factories. 2020;19(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-020-01319-y .

Gozd-Barszczewska A, Koziol-Montewka M, Barszczewski P, Mlodzinska A, Huminska K. Gut microbiome as a biomarker of cardiometabolic disorders. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2017;24(3):416–22. https://doi.org/10.26444/aaem/75456 .

Kashtanova DA, Tkacheva ON, Doudinskaya EN, Strazhesko I, Kotovskaya Y, Popenko A, et al. Gut microbiota in patients with different metabolic statuses: Moscow study. Microorganisms. 2018;6(4):98. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6040098 .

Lippert K, Kedenko L, Antonielli L, Kedenko I, Gemeier C, Leitner M, et al. Gut microbiota dysbiosis associated with glucose metabolism disorders and the metabolic syndrome in older adults. Benefic Microbes. 2017;8(4):545–56. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2016.0184 .

Feinn R, Kravetz AM, Galuppo B, et al. Effect of gut microbiota and PNPLA3 rs738409 variant on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in obese youth. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(10):e3585. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa382 .

Li R, Liang X, Su M, Lai KP, Chen J, Huang X. Integrated omics analysis reveals the alteration of gut microbe-metabolites in obese adults. Brief Bioinforma. 2021;22(3):bbaa165. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbaa165 .

Yuan X, Chen R, Zhang Y, Lin X, Yang X, McCormick KL. The role of the gut microbiota on the metabolic status of obese children. Microb Cell Factories. 2021;20(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-021-01548-9 .

Gomez-Acebo I, Dierssen-Sotos T, de Pedro M, et al. Epidemiology of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs consumption in Spain. The MCC-Spain study. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1134.

Manosalva AGL, Yntema T, Chen L, Garmaeva S, Hu S, Koster M, et al. Omeprazole-induced dysbiosis impacts bile acid metabolism in mice and humans. Atherosclerosis. 2019;287:e120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2019.06.349 .

Rhodes JM. The role of Escherichia coli in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. 2007;56(5):610–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2006.111872 .

Zhang J, Hoedt EC, Liu Q, et al. Elucidation of Proteus mirabilis as a key bacterium in Crohnʼs disease inflammation. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(1):317–30.e11.

Ellulu MS, Patimah I, Khazaʼai H, Rahmat A, Abed Y. Obesity and inflammation: the linking mechanism and the complications. Arch Med Sci. 2017;13(4):851–63. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.58928 .

Anhe FF, Jensen BAH, Varin TV, et al. Type 2 diabetes influences bacterial tissue compartmentalisation in human obesity. Nat Metab. 2020;2(3):233–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-020-0178-9 .

Ansaldo E, Slayden LC, Ching KL, Koch MA, Wolf NK, Plichta DR, et al. Akkermansia muciniphila induces intestinal adaptive immune responses during homeostasis. Science. 2019;364(6446):1179–84. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw7479 .

Perraudeau F, McMurdie P, Bullard J, Cheng A, Cutcliffe C, Deo A, et al. Improvements to postprandial glucose control in subjects with type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, double blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial of a novel probiotic formulation. Bmj Open Diab Res Ca. 2020;8(1):e001319. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001319 .

Parker BJ, Wearsch PA, Veloo ACM, Rodriguez-Palacios A. The genus Alistipes: gut bacteria with emerging implications to inflammation, cancer, and mental health. Front Immunol. 2020;11:906. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00906 .

Walker AW, Duncan SH, Louis P, Flint HJ. Phylogeny, culturing, and metagenomics of the human gut microbiota. Trends Microbiol. 2014;22(5):267–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2014.03.001 .

De Vuyst L, Leroy F. Cross-feeding between bifidobacteria and butyrate-producing colon bacteria explains bifdobacterial competitiveness, butyrate production, and gas production. Int J Food Microbiol. 2011;149(1):73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.03.003 .

Oliphant K, Allen-Vercoe E. Macronutrient metabolism by the human gut microbiome: Major fermentation by-products and their impact on host health. Microbiome. 2019;7(1):91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-019-0704-8 .

Canfora EE, Jocken JW, Blaak EE. Short-chain fatty acids in control of body weight and insulin sensitivity. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2015;11(10):577–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2015.128 .

Li Z, Yi CX, Katiraei S, Kooijman S, Zhou E, Chung CK, et al. Butyrate reduces appetite and activates brown adipose tissue via the gut-brain neural circuit. Gut. 2018;67(7):1269–79. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314050 .

Zhang WQ, Zhao TT, Gui DK, Gao CL, Gu JL, Gan WJ, et al. Sodium butyrate improves liver glycogen metabolism in type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Agric Food Chem. 2019;67(27):7694–705. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b02083 .

den Besten G, Bleeker A, Gerding A, van Eunen K, Havinga R, van Dijk TH, et al. Short-chain fatty acids protect against high-fat diet-induced obesity via a PPARgamma-dependent switch from lipogenesis to fat oxidation. Diabetes. 2015;64(7):2398–408. https://doi.org/10.2337/db14-1213 .

Xiao JZ, Kondo S, Takahashi N, Miyaji K, Oshida K, Hiramatsu A, et al. Effects of milk products fermented by Bifidobacterium longum on blood lipids in rats and healthy adult male volunteers. J Dairy Sci. 2003;86(7):2452–61. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73839-9 .

Duncan SH, Hold GL, Barcenilla A, Stewart CS, Flint HJ. Roseburia intestinalis sp. nov., a novel saccharolytic, butyrate-producing bacterium from human faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002;52(Pt 5):1615–20. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-52-5-1615 .

Hiippala K, Jouhten H, Ronkainen A, et al. The potential of gut commensals in reinforcing intestinal barrier function and alleviating inflammation. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):988. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10080988 .

Seo B, Jeon K, Moon S, et al. Roseburia spp. abundance associates with alcohol consumption in humans and its administration ameliorates alcoholic fatty liver in mice. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;27(1):25.

Ze X, Duncan SH, Louis P, Flint HJ. Ruminococcus bromii is a keystone species for the degradation of resistant starch in the human colon. Isme j. 2012;6(8):1535–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2012.4 .

De Vadder F, Kovatcheva-Datchary P, Zitoun C, Duchampt A, Bäckhed F, Mithieux G. Microbiota-produced succinate improves glucose homeostasis via intestinal gluconeogenesis. Cell Metab. 2016;24(1):151–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2016.06.013 .

Pedersen HK, Gudmundsdottir V, Nielsen HB, Hyotylainen T, Nielsen T, Jensen BAH, et al. Human gut microbes impact host serum metabolome and insulin sensitivity. Nature. 2016;535(7612):376–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18646 .

Sze MA, Schloss PD. Looking for a signal in the noise: revisiting obesity and the microbiome. MBio. 2016;7(4):e01018-16.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

It was funded by InnoHK, The Government of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

Author information

Zhilu XU and Wei JIANG contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Institute of Digestive Disease, State Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, LKS Institute of Health Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Zhilu XU, Wei JIANG, Wenli HUANG, Yu LIN, Francis K.L. CHAN & Siew C. NG

Center for Gut microbiota research, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Zhilu XU, Wenli HUANG, Yu LIN, Francis K.L. CHAN & Siew C. NG

Microbiota Innovation Centre (MagIC Centre), Hong Kong, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data, the writing and critical revision of manuscript at all stages of development. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siew C. NG .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

Francis Chan and Siew Ng are co-founders and in the board of GenieBiome Ltd. Siew Ng has served as an advisory board member for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, and Abbvie and a speaker for Ferring, Tillotts, Menarini, Janssen, Abbvie, and Takeda. She has received research grants from Olympus, Ferring, and Abbvie. Francis Chan has served as an advisor and lecture speaker for Eisai Co. Ltd., AstraZeneca, Pfizer Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., and Takeda (China) Holdings Co. Ltd. XU Zhilu is an employee of GenieBiome Ltd. All other authors declare that there are no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Supplementary Table 1. Differentially abundant taxa at each taxonomic level in patients with obesity and metabolic diseases reported in individual studies. Supplementary Table 2. Differentially abundant taxa at class, order, and family level in obesity / metabolic diseases. Supplementary Table 3. Microbiota diversity and F/B Ratio in Obesity / metabolic diseases.

Appendix. Searching strategy

1 obese.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

2 obesity.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

3 overweight.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

4 microbiota.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

5 microbiome.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

6 fecal.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

7 faecal.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

8 gut.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

9 intestinal.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

10 1 or 2 or 3

12 6 or 7 or 8 or 9

13 10 and 11 and 12

14 metagenomics.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

15 metagenomic.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

16 16s.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

17 14 or 15 or 16

18 13 and 17

19 remove duplicates from 18

20 metabolic disease.mp. [mp=ti, ab, hw, tn, ot, dm, mf, dv, kw, fx, dq, nm, kf, ox, px, rx, an, ui, sy]

21 10 or 20

22 11 and 12 and 21

23 17 and 22

24 remove duplicates from 23

25 limit 24 to full text

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

XU, Z., JIANG, W., HUANG, W. et al. Gut microbiota in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders — a systematic review. Genes Nutr 17 , 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12263-021-00703-6

Download citation

Received : 23 August 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 29 January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12263-021-00703-6

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

Metabolic disorder

Genes & Nutrition

ISSN: 1865-3499

General enquiries: [email protected]

Case report
Open access
Published: 05 April 2024

Acute invasive fungal sinusitis with orbital tip syndrome in patients on long-term use of ruxolitinib: a case report

Zhiyuan Tang 1 &
Zhaohui Shi 2 , 3

Journal of Medical Case Reports volume 18 , Article number: 199 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

61 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Introduction

A long-term ruxolitinib-treated patient with primary myelofibrosis, who was co-infected with aspergillosis infection during a short period, developed acute invasive fungal sinusitis with consequent orbit apex syndrome. This may be the first reported case in the world.

This is a 75-year-old Chinese man; the patient was admitted with 2-month history of headache accompanied by numbness and 8-day history of vision loss. The preliminary clinical diagnoses were suspected acute invasive fungal sinusitis or adenoid cystic carcinoma. We performed endoscopic debridement and antifungal therapy. About 90 days after surgery, magnetic resonance imaging revealed no recurrence of pathological tissue.

One of the bases for the occurrence of invasive fungal sinusitis may be the patient’s long-term use of ruxolitinib for essential thrombocythemia. Some patients with invasive fungal sinuses have atypical nasal symptoms and are referred to the corresponding departments with eye and headache as the first symptoms. It is suggested that enhanced magnetic resonance imaging should be performed at an early stage. Surgical treatment in combination with antifungal and enhanced immunotherapy can effectively prevent the spread of infection and reduce the risk of death.

Peer Review reports

Case presentation

Ruxolitinib is a novel potent biologic agent that inhibits Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and Janus kinase 2 (JAK2), reserved for patients with myeloproliferative diseases [ 1 ]. Although it is effective and improves survival in such patients, the immunosuppressive agent may increase the risk of acquiring opportunistic infections. However, very little data are available regarding the infectious complications while on this agent. Previous studies have reported bacteria, Mycobacterium tuberculosis , Cryptococcus neoformans , Pneumocystis jirovecii , herpes simplex, and varicella-zoster virus to be etiologic agents that had been isolated from patients receiving ruxolitinib [ 2 ]. Here, we report a long-term ruxolitinib-treated patient with primary myelofibrosis, who was coinfected with aspergillosis infection during a short period and developed acute invasive fungal sinusitis with consequent orbit apex syndrome.

Patient information

This is a 75-year-old Chinese man; the patient was admitted with a 2 month history of headache accompanied by numbness and an 8 day history of vision loss.

From November 2021 onward, the patient experienced right-sided toothache and sought treatment at other hospitals. Computed tomography (CT) examination suggested possible temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder; however, conservative management proved ineffective as the patient developed persistent swelling pain and unbearable temporal pain. Subsequently, he was admitted to the pain department where he received a diagnosis of TMJ pain and trigeminal neuralgia.

After conservative treatment proved ineffective and the patient experienced persistent head and facial numbness, as well as gradually worsening head and facial pain that became unbearable, they sought medical attention at multiple hospitals but were unable to receive a proper diagnosis or effective symptomatic treatment. In mid-November, the above-mentioned symptoms significantly exacerbated, accompanied by intermittent confusion. The diagnosis was great occipital neuralgia in the pain department for localized treatment followed by minimally invasive surgery.

Although head and facial pain were substantially alleviated, numbness gradually intensified while swelling, protrusion, and decreased vision manifested in the right eye. In early January 2022, he was admitted to the ophthalmology hospital owing to a decrease in visual acuity in his right eye. The orbital CT scan revealed bilateral proptosis without evidence of extraocular muscle thickening. Sinus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated inflammation in the right maxillary, bilateral ethmoid, and sphenoidal sinuses with increased orbital fat.

The right eye experienced a loss of light sensation and subsequently became blind within a few days. He was admitted with the diagnosis of “a space-occupying lesion in the infratemporal fossa and skull base: suspected acute invasive fungal sinusitis and adenoid cystic carcinoma" and “orbital apex syndrome (right).” The patient was diagnosed with thrombocythemia in 2006 and was initially treated with hydroxyurea for 10 years. Since 2017, he had received ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis for 4 years. He had received long term blood transfusions with diabetes denial.

Clinical findings

Physical examination revealed stable vital signs, including a temperature of 36.5 °C and a normal level of consciousness. The right eyelid was droopy, swollen, and could not elevate properly, accompanied by a bulging eyeball, conjunctival chemosis, and a transparent cornea. The pupil of the right eye was dilated by 5 mm, and the right direct and indirect reflexes were lost. The pupil size of the left eye was 3 mm, with normal reflexes. The right middle face and upper lip were numb, while the sensation from the tongue and in the lower lip was normal (Fig. 1 ). Examination of the nose revealed a pale nasal mucosa, swelling of both inferior turbinates, and no secretion or lump. An internal endoscopic examination of the nose showed a deviated nasal septum, dilation of vessels, swelling of the mucosa in the nasopharynx, and a lump with a smooth surface arising from the roof and posterior wall of the nasopharynx.

Eye examination of patients before surgery

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the sinuses indicated a right maxillary and sphenoid lesion extending to the pterygopalatine fossa, orbital apex, infratemporal fossa, extraconal fat, right cavernous sinus, and meninges situated in the bilateral anterior and middle skull base (Fig. 2 B). We suspected neoplasms (adenoid cystic carcinoma) and chronic invasive fungal sinusitis. The random blood glucose level was between 7.42 and 9.56 mmol/L. Urinalysis revealed that the amount of glucose in urine was more than 1 mmol/L. Glycated hemoglobin was more than 6.0%. Combined with the medical history, the preliminary clinical diagnoses were as follows: (1) a space-occupying lesion in the infratemporal fossa and skull base: suspected acute invasive fungal sinusitis or adenoid cystic carcinoma; (2) orbital apex syndrome (right); (3) severe anemia; (4) myelofibrosis; and (5) diabetes.

Comparison of magnetic resonance images of the sinuses before and after treatment: A 3 months after treatment; B before treatment

Therapeutic and intervention

The preoperative evaluation was done before undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery. The endoscopic transethmoidal sphenoidotomy with maxillary antrostomy was performed for surgical excision of lesions, which were suspected to be located on the right side of the pterygopalatine fossa, infratemporal fossa, skull base, orbital apex, or cavernous sinus, accompanied by the partial removal of the right middle turbinate, right medial orbital wall, right maxillary bone, and right inferior turbinate bone.

During surgery, fungal balls were seen in the maxillary sinus with evident edema of the sinus mucosa. Bone fragments of the maxillary sinus posterior wall and the lateral orbital wall were broken off. Necrosis was seen in the lateral pterygoid muscle and numerous soft tissue masses, and purulent discharge was visible in the tissue spaces. The necrotic bone of the pterygopalatine fossa eroded through the inferior orbital fissure and extended to the orbital floor and orbital apex. Apart from necrosis of the maxillary nerve, the lesion led to muscle necrosis and the extension of the fracture from the inferior and medial walls of the orbit to the orbital apex, where necrosis of the muscle fascia and orbital contents was partially observable.

Through the right optic canal, a pale and necrotic optic nerve was found. Combined with intraoperative and postoperative fungal antigen detection in blood and tissue (Fig. 3 ). Postoperatively, the patient was treated with ceftriaxone at 2.0 g/day, voriconazole at 400 mg/day (200 mg twice a day) on the first day [followed by 200 mg/day (100 mg twice a day)], and human immunoglobulins at 10 g/day. At 5 days after surgery, he was referred to the division of hematology to continue antifungal treatments for myelofibrosis.

DNA of pan Aspergillus detected in diseased tissue: A pan Aspergillus detection curve; B internal extraction control DNA detection curve

Follow-up and outcomes

Oral voriconazole was continued after surgery. About 90 days after surgery, the MRI revealed no recurrence of pathological tissue (Fig. 2 A). The upper eyelid of the affected eye was able to be fully elevated, and conjunctival edema resolved; however, regrettably, the patient’s right pupil dilated by 5 mm, and the elimination of both direct and indirect light reflections was observed, resulting in complete loss of vision (Fig. 4 ). This may be attributed to the rapid progression of acute invasive fungal rhinosinusitis resulting in misdiagnosis during the early stages and irreversible optic nerve damage.

Eye examination of patients about 90 days after surgery

Discussion and conclusion

Fungi produce large numbers of asexual spores called conidia that are released into the air. Humans inhale hundreds to thousands of these infectious propagules every day. In immunocompetent individuals, the cooperation of the respiratory epithelium, lung-resident macrophages, and recruited neutrophils and monocytes clear conidia efficiently. However, in immunocompromised states, it can lead to invasive fungal infections. It has been reported that in patients with myelofibrosis, the hazard ratio of bacterial infections was 1.9 times as high as that of normal people, viral infections were 2.1 times as high, and fungal infections were the highest at about 2.9 times [ 3 ].

Myelofibrosis, belonging to a group of diseases called myeloproliferative disorders, is a type of blood cancer characterized by chronic hematologic malignancies [ 3 , 4 ]. The deregulation of the JAK/signal transducers and activators of transcription pathway leads to myelofibrosis that can be treated by ruxolitinib. However, a growing body of clinical data suggests that ruxolitinib exerts potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects [ 5 ], interferes with the signaling of several cytokines and growth factors associated with the immune system, and decreases levels of proinflammatory cytokines in patients with myelofibrosis [ 6 ]. Furthermore, several studies indicate that ruxolitinib is associated with Treg cell-mediated downregulation, impaired dendritic cell function [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ], and reduction in natural killer (NK) cell numbers. Although the exact relationship between its effects on immune function and the incidence of infection remains to be elucidated, these immunosuppressive mechanisms may contribute to the increased risk of infection in patients treated with ruxolitinib. A study conducted by Polverelli et al . of 507 patients with myelofibrosis showed a 15% correlation between the use of ruxolitinib and aspergillosis as well as other severe infections [ 11 ]. Nevertheless, no cases of acute invasive fungal sinusitis owing to aspergillosis in patients with myelofibrosis with ruxolitinib treatment have been reported in literature.

The patient in this case had a history of myelofibrosis with long-term ruxolitinib treatment, which may have been the main cause of acute invasive fungal sinusitis.

Orbital apex syndrome is a rare ocular complication usually resulting from infection, inflammation, neoplasms, and vascularity, which can lead to damage to the superior orbital fissure and optic canal, resulting in optic nerve dysfunction. Immunocompromised patients, such as those with diabetes or receiving immunosuppressive drugs, are susceptible to fungal infections. Orbital apex syndrome owing to aspergillosis has been reported in an immunocompromised patient with persistent methylprednisolone treatment during chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer [ 12 , 13 ]. However, no cases of orbital apex syndrome caused by aspergillosis have been reported in patients undergoing long-term treatment with ruxolitinib.

The patient typically presented with proptosis, rapid vision loss leading to eventual blindness, visual fixation, a 5 mm dilated pupil in the right eye, loss of direct and indirect light reflexes, and droopy eyelids. On the other hand, the head MRI identified multiple foci on both sides of the face and cavernous sinuses, as well as the right side of the sphenoid sinus, ethmoid sinus, temporal lobe, and retrobulbar space. Infectious lesions and abscesses were diagnosed on the basis of the former comprehensive investigation. We found that the extension of fungal infection from the sinuses to the orbital apex was the pivotal reason for orbital apex syndrome in this case, with the disease progressing aggressively.

In this case, aspergillosis was generally caused by Aspergillus niger , Aspergillus fumigatus , and Aspergillus flavus . The lesion extended to the orbital apex resulting in orbital apex syndrome, thus making the condition complex and difficult to treat. In terms of treatment, we suggested that early surgical intervention was of paramount importance. Prompt surgical care after the patient’s admission and investigations, as well as timely removal of fungal masses and necrotic tissue from the nasal cavity and sinuses, is the key to treatment, which can effectively limit the further extension of the infection. Early empirical antifungal treatment and debridement can potentially reduce morbidity and mortality [ 14 ]. Antifungal agents that have been reported to be used successfully include itraconazole and fluconazole to treat aspergillosis [ 15 ]. However, patients with myelofibrosis have associated autoimmunity and hypoproteinemia, which contribute to aspergillosis. Hence, simultaneous enhancement of patient immunity in treatment with combination antifungal therapy of voriconazole with human immunoglobulins significantly strengthens the anti- Aspergillus effects.

In spite of timely surgery and 6 weeks of antifungal treatment, it is still difficult to predict prognosis. After discharge, computed tomography (CT) scans should be performed every 3–4 months, as well as nasal endoscopy every 2–3 months, to check for local recurrence or recurrence of lesions in the eye, brain, and adjacent organs [ 16 ].

From the experience of this case, we have learned that we should carefully evaluate the possible potential risk of infection before ruxolitinib initiation. Currently, this is the first case of aspergillosis with acute invasive fungal sinusitis in a patient undergoing treatment with ruxolitinib for primary myelofibrosis. This case highlights the possibility of acute invasive fungal sinusitis with more serious complications in immunosuppressed patients, especially those receiving long-term ruxolitinib treatment.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Dioverti MV, Abu Saleh OM, Tande AJ. Infectious complications in patients on treatment with ruxolitinib: case report and review of the literature. Infect Dis (Lond). 2018;50(5):381–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2017.1390248 .

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Landtblom AR, Andersson TM, Dickman PW, Smedby KE, Eloranta S, Batyrbekova N, Samuelsson J, Björkholm M, Hultcrantz M. Risk of infections in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms-a population-based cohort study of 8363 patients. Leukemia. 2021;35(2):476–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-020-0909-7 . ( Epub 2020 Jun 16 ).

Barbui T, Thiele J, Gisslinger H, Finazzi G, Vannucchi AM, Tefferi A. The 2016 revision of WHO classification of myeloproliferative neoplasms: clinical and molecular advances. Blood Rev. 2016;30:453–9.

Hultcrantz M, Ravn Landtblom A, Andreasson B, Samuelsson J, Dickman PW, Kristinsson SY, et al . Incidence of myeloproliferative neoplasms—trends by subgroup and age in a population-based study in Sweden. J Intern Med. 2020;287:448–54.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

McLornan DP, Khan AA, Harrison CN. Immunological consequences of JAK inhibition: friend or foe? Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2015;10(4):370–9.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Quintas-Cardama A, Kantarjian H, Cortes J, et al . Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of myeloproliferative neoplasias and beyond. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(2):127–40.

Heine A, Brossart P, Wolf D. Ruxolitinib is a potent immunosuppressive compound: is it time for anti-infective prophylaxis? Blood. 2013;122(23):3843–4.

Heine A, Held SA, Daecke SN, et al . The JAK-inhibitor ruxolitinib impairs dendritic cell function in vitro and in vivo. Blood. 2013;122(7):1192–202.

Lussana FD, Ianni M, Rambaldi A. Tregs: hype or hope for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation? Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52:1225–32.

Massa M, Rosti V, Campanelli R, et al . Rapid and long-lasting decrease of T-regulatory cells in patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib. Leukemia. 2014;28(2):449–51.

Polverelli N, Breccia M, Benevolo G, et al . Risk factors for infections in myelofibrosis: role of disease status and treatment. A multicenter study of 507 patients. Am J Hematol. 2017;92:37–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.24572 .

Miyamoto Y, Sakamoto Y, Ohuchi M, Tokunaga R, Shigaki H, Kurashige J, Iwatsuki M, Baba Y, Yoshida N, Watanabe M, Baba H. Orbital apex syndrome caused by invasive aspergillosis as an adverse effect of systemic chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a case report. Anticancer Res. 2016;36(2):821–3.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Willermain F, Bradstreet C, Kampouridis S, et al . Different presentations of ophthalmic aspergillosis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008;18(5):827–30.

Yuan M, Tandon A, Li A, Johnson E, Greer C, Tooley A, Tran AQ, Godfrey KJ, Dinkin M, Oliveira C. Orbital apex syndrome secondary to invasive aspergillus infection: a case series and literature review. J Neuroophthalmol. 2021;41(4):e631–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNO.0000000000001105 .

Farina C, Gotti E, Mouniée D, Boiron P, Goglio A. Phaeoacremonium parasiticum subcutaneous infection in a kidney-transplanted patient successfully treated by surgery. Transpl Infect Dis. 2007;9:253–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3062.2007.00206.x .

Biswas SS, Al-Amin Z, Razib FA, Mahbub S. Acute invasive fungal rhinosinusitis: our experience in immunocompromised host. Mymensingh Med J. 2013;22(4):814–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Ms.Yanjie Luo and Ms. Xiaoyi Liu provided professional translation and editing services.

Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (Grant No. JCYJ20210324121413037).

Special Fund for Economic and Technological Development of Longgang District, Shenzhen (Grant No. LGKCYLWS2021000029).

Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen (SZSM202003003).

Shenzhen Science and Technology Plan funded key basic research projects of Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Commission (JCYJ20200109114244249).

These funds supported the collection and analysis of case data, surgical procedures, patient follow-up, and translation and editing services.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Shenzhen University General Hospital, Shenzhen, 518055, China

Zhiyuan Tang

Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Allergy, Naso-Orbital-Maxilla and Skull Base Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510630, Guangdong, China

Zhaohui Shi

Departmentof Otolaryngology, Shenzhen Longgang Otolaryngology Hospital & Shenzhen Otolaryngology Research Institute, Shenzhen, 518172, Guangdong, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.T collated and analyzed the case data. Z.S performed the surgery and followed up the patient after surgery. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhaohui Shi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Informed consent

The patient gave verbal informed consent.

Competing interests

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

Cite this article.

Tang, Z., Shi, Z. Acute invasive fungal sinusitis with orbital tip syndrome in patients on long-term use of ruxolitinib: a case report. J Med Case Reports 18 , 199 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04486-3

Download citation

Received : 11 January 2024

Accepted : 01 March 2024

Published : 05 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04486-3

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

Acute invasive fungal sinusitis
Orbital tip syndrome
Ruxolitinib

Journal of Medical Case Reports

ISSN: 1752-1947

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

Phone Finder

Huawei MatePad Pro 13.2 review

Comments (84)
User reviews
MatePad Pro 13.2
1. Introduction, specs, unboxing
2. Design and build, accessories
3. Our lab tests - display, battery life, charging, speakers
4. Software, performance
5. Camera, verdict, pros and cons
Huawei MatePad Pro 13.2 specification
User opinions and reviews
Review comments (84)

Huawei Tablets Android

Introduction

Huawei's latest event brought us the international version of the MatePad Pro 13.2 tablet. It's a large and powerful slate with an OLED screen, the mysterious Kirin 9000S chip, powerful Harmony OS 4, and first-party accessories like the Smart Magnetic Keyboard with a touchpad and M-Pencil 3 stylus.

The centerpiece of the MatePad Pro 13.2 is a 13.2-inch OLED screen with 2,880 x 1,920 pixels, 1B colors and 144Hz refresh rate. It is a notched panel, so it can accommodate a front 16MP camera and a ToF 3D setup for secure facial unlock.

The MatePad Pro 13.2 is powered by Huawei's first Kirin chipset after the US ban - the Kirin 9000S. It features a proprietary 8-core processor with multi-threading, a 4-core custom GPU, LPDDR5X RAM and UFS 3.1 storage support. It should provide a mid-range performance but offers 5G for the first time since the US troubles. At the time of writing, Huawei had not announced a SIM version of the slate-like it did with previous MatePads, though.

Moving on, the MatePad Pro 13.2 will be available with 12GB RAM, while the storage options are 256GB and 512GB. There is a 16GB/1TB version, but it is exclusive to China.

There are two cameras at the back of the MatePad Pro 13.2 - a 13MP primary and an 8MP ultrawide.

One of the most notable features of this MatePad Pro is its six powerful speakers with Huawei Sound proprietary enhancement. We will make sure to put those to the test.

Finally, the MatePad Pro 13.2 features a massive 10,100mAh battery and the tablet supports up to 88W fast wired charging.

Huawei MatePad Pro 13.2 specs at a glance:

Body: 289.1x196.1x5.5mm, 580g; glass front, metal frame, plastic back; Stylus support.
Display: 13.20" OLED, 1B colors, 144Hz, 1000 nits (peak), 2880x1920px resolution, 6:9 aspect ratio, 262ppi.
Chipset: Kirin 9000S (7 nm): Octa-core (1x2.62 GHz Taishan Main & 3x2.15 GHz Taishan Mid & 4x1.53GHz Cortex-A510); Maleoon 910 MP4 GPU.
Memory: 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 12GB RAM, 1TB 16GB RAM, UFS3.1.
OS/Software: Harmony OS 4.0.
Rear camera: Wide (main) : 13 MP, f/1.8, PDAF; Ultra wide angle : 8 MP, f/2.2.
Front camera: Wide (main) : 16 MP, f/2.2; Depth : TOF 3D.
Video capture: Rear camera : 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps; Front camera : 1080p@30fps.
Battery: 10100mAh; 88W wired, 85% in 40 min (advertised).
Connectivity: Wi-Fi 6; BT 5.2.
Misc: Accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass; stereo speakers (6 speakers), Face ID.

It is a Huawei tablet running on Harmony OS, which means no Google Mobile Services - no Play Store, no Google Location, no Google Account, etc. You can bypass this limitation with Gbox or similar solution, if you want, at least for now.

Huawei hasn't announced a SIM-enabled version of the MatePad 13.2 Pro yet and we think this is the only potential deal breaker we can think of right now. Other than the Google ordeal, that is.

Unboxing the Huawei MatePad Pro 13.2

The Huawei MatePad Pro 13.2 arrives in a thick white box. It contains a unique 88W power adapter and a 6A-rated USB-A-to-C cable.

The SuperCharge adapter is compatible with all recent Huawei smartphones, tablets, and laptops. It has both a USB-C port and a USB-A port, which is neat!

Accessories

We also received the Smart Magnetic Keyboard for this MatePad Pro 13.2 and the M-Pencil 3rd Gen. They arrive in thin boxes of their own, accompanied by some paperwork.

The keyboard has an integrated touchpad, and it's a two-piece accessory. First, you attach the keyboard to the edge of the tablet, and then you must put the back cover, which doubles as a stand. That is convenient because the MatePad Pro 13.2 doesn't need to be with the keyboard all the time. You can detach it and use it from further away or merely use the stand to enjoy multimedia.

Huawei MatePad Pro 13.2 review - Reader comments

18 Mar 2024

It said, "but if you use those apps via the GBox virtual machine, you will get 1080p HDR10 streaming" Does anyone know how to install this GBox virtual machine? Is it the same with GBox in AppGallery (I've tried but streaming is s...

11 Jan 2024

if you use it for media consumption, design tool and light laptop replacement maybe. the design is very good also huawei asking price usually bundled with charger, keyboard cover and pen which cost another 500$ ++ for samsung. At this size both doesn...

08 Jan 2024

I am pro nothing, I don't care about this. What is important for me is reliability, innovation and performance. I found all of this with Huawei. What is the best between the us spyware or the cn spyware?

Read all comments
Post your comment

Home News Reviews Compare Coverage Glossary FAQ RSS feed Youtube Facebook Twitter Instagram

Screen Rant

Naruto's beginning is better and worse than you remember.

The start of Naruto's journey is filled with top-tier character writing and surprisingly deep emotional themes, but it's not without problems.

Naruto's beginning defies expectations and ninja stereotypes with his brilliant character introduction.
The Shadow Clone technique became one of Naruto's iconic skills, masking his loneliness and showcasing the power of teamwork.
Despite minor flaws, Naruto's story starts by setting the stage for emotional depth and epic action.

Naruto is an emotional and epic ninja-filled tale about a once annoying blonde orphan who inspired the world through empathy. While the beginning of the story helped launch a franchise beloved by millions, it wasn't without a few road bumps and missed opportunities. Author Masashi Kishimoto had several manga ideas rejected before Naruto became a hit, and even some of the series' earliest ideas failed to leave a big enough impact to stay around .

Shonen Jump began publishing the Naruto manga in 1999. Like other popular series, Dragon Ball and One Piece , Naruto released one new chapter weekly in the Japanese magazine. Within the story's first chapter, Kishimoto effectively introduced the sprawling ninja world and the Village Hidden in the Leaves. However, the general public's expectations of what a ninja should be are quickly dashed with the masterful introduction to the titular Naruto .

Naruto's introduction in the manga goes against almost every preconceived notion someone would expect from a ninja. Honorable, stealthy, and subtle describe many cast members from the series, but its main character quickly establishes himself as someone who goes against the grain and stands out for all the wrong reasons. Enter Uzumaki Naruto, the class clown whose determination can melt almost any heart once you get to know him.

Iruka Taught Naruto Empathy, An Ability Mightier Than Shadow Clones

Naruto manga by masashi kishimoto, anime produced by studio pierrot.

The beginning of Naruto 's story paints the picture of a tragic orphan boy acting out to gain any sort of attention. While most people grew up with at least one attention-seeking and immature colleague during school, the truth behind Naruto's thirst for acknowledgment would go on to fuel the franchise's story . However, the young boy demonstrated through morally questionable tricks and selfish behavior that he had much growing to do, growing that would require the help of others to reach.

In the first chapter, Naruto learned something better than Shadow Clones: empathy, a skill he used to melt the anger so many of his future foes held.

Help finally reaches the young student through his teacher, Iruka. Although Naruto housed the Nine Tails Fox Spirit that killed his parents, Iruka ultimately saw Naruto for who he was: an innocent and lonely soul hungry for any sort of acknowledgment. From what audiences could tell, Naruto had no guardians and was shunned by all the villagers for no reason that he was aware of. He had no one, and Iruka knew that pain after he lost his parents. The two characters' bond was an early indication that Naruto 's character writing was a step above a standard Shōnen action series.

Despite Naruto's adventures seeing him learn several powerful attacks, Iruka taught Naruto an even more valuable and powerful skill: empathy . Because of the village's cruel and senseless pact to keep the reason for Naruto's shunning a secret from him, he's shown no kindness from others until Iruka. After finally feeling a sense of companionship due to their shared loneliness, Naruto gained the skill of empathy that he used to melt the anger so many of his future foes held. While Naruto 's story is filled with emotionally heavy subject material, it also hosts epic and intelligently constructed action.

Shadow Clones Are Genius On Many Levels

The shadow clone technique is also known as the art of the shadow doppelgänger in some translations.

On the surface level, Naruto's learning of the Shadow Clone Ninjutsu works narratively because it is the primary jutsu he needed to master in order to graduate from his class. However, after being blackmailed by a devious Leaf shinobi named Mizuki, Naruto stole a forbidden ninja scroll and proved his cunning from the start by beating the Third Hokage with a Sexy Transformation Jutsu . The young outcast then gained the ultimate ability to make clones of himself, an effective tool that also masked his own desperate loneliness.

Naruto 's Shadow Clones ninjutsu became one of the series' most iconic techniques. It allows him to create physical clones of himself that divide his chakra amongst each one, which disappears after taking damage, depleting that chakra. However, there are several reasons why it works on so many levels. Naruto houses colossal amounts of chakra due to the Nine-Tails spirit inside him and his heritage, which the franchise does not reveal until much later in its run. Because of this, he can use the Shadow Clones to a much higher degree than almost any ninja in the franchise's history.

Naruto's Strongest Jutsus Were Secretly Hinted at in the First Chapter

Another reason the Shadow Clone jutsu is one of Shonen manga's best techniques is how well it ties into one of the Naruto series' main themes — accomplishing great things with the help of others compared to the efforts of a single person , which connects brilliantly with a narrative level with Naruto's character. Another is how many opportunities its versatility provides the writers to surprise audiences. Not long after learning his iconic technique, Naruto saved his and Iruka's lives with another brilliant choice that teased the depths of his powers with a particularly satisfying beatdown.

The incredibly effective first chapter of Naruto ends with him spawning countless amounts of Shadow Clones thanks to his tremendous amounts of latent chakra to overcome Mizuki with an overwhelming amount of angry orphan clones. By creating the clones, Naruto effectively passed his school's final test with flying colors, allowing him to become an entry-level genin ninja. The emotional moment of Iruka giving Naruto the ninja headband he'd toiled over for so long proved Kishimoto was capable of delivering a wide range of emotions in a short time. As remarkable as Naruto 's introductory chapter was, it was not perfect.

Even Shonen Jump's Best Series' Are Not Perfect

An effective first chapter or episode of a new series has a lot of heavy lifting to do to captivate an audience early. While Naruto 's beginning does a lot of things right when introducing its characters, setting up its world, and the seeds of its overarching plot, certain aspects were introduced that did not play a massive role in the story in the future. One of those issues was Iruka's character, who should have played a more prominent role in the series than he did.

Unfortunately, Iruka and Naruto's bond would take a backseat throughout the rest of the series , which felt like a mistake in the grand scheme of things. Characters introduced later, like Kakashi, Jiraiya, and Sasuke, would go on to push Naruto into several complex relationships and engaging plotlines. However, for being such an essential character in Naruto's life, Iruka has no bearing on 99% of the story. His inclusion seems more superfluous when the series later reveals that Naruto and Sasuke began to form a bond through their shared loneliness as young kids before chapter #1 took place.

A common side-effect of releasing a weekly manga series is that aspects of its story and characters change as the story is being written. Several vital details introduced at the beginning of the story worked better than others, and it's clear which ones failed to stick around. Still, it only took a few more chapters and vital character introductions until Naruto 's profound themes became more apparent. Naruto 's introduction did a lot more right narratively than wrong before it found its way onto the right track to become the legendary manga it's known as today.

Source: vizmedia /YouTube

Read the Naruto manga on Manga Plus and Viz Media

Read On Manga Plus

Naruto is a franchise spawned from the manga series penned by Masashi Kishimoto that began in 1999. Generating several tv series, games, movies, and more, Naruto follows the exploits of a young outcast ninja harboring the spirit of a demon fox who seeks to become the Hokage, the leader of his ninja village, to break the stigma against him. Upon the conclusion of the initial series, Naruto expanded into Boruto, following many series protagonists' children and returning faces.

Naruto (1999)

Naruto (2002).

IMAGES

How to write a literature review in research paper
50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab
how to write a journal article introduction
Article Review Template For Students
Difference Between Introduction and Literature Review
Critical Theory / Review Articles: An Introduction

VIDEO

Introduction and Review
How to Write an Article Review
How to write an introduction of a research article in simple way
INTRODUCTION & TYPES OF ARTICLE PART 1 ........ एक अलग ही अंदाज़ में
Introduction: Paradoxical Leadership Masterclass
What is a Review Article

COMMENTS

How to Write an Article Review (with Sample Reviews)
Identify the article. Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest. 4.
How to Write an Article Review (with Sample Reviews)
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 ...
How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples
Article Review vs. Response Paper . Now, let's consider the difference between an article review and a response paper: If you're assigned to critique a scholarly article, you will need to compose an article review.; If your subject of analysis is a popular article, you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper.; The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of ...
How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples
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.
How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)
These sections serve to establish a scholarly basis for the research or discussion within the paper. In a standard 8000-word journal article, the literature review section typically spans between 750 and 1250 words. The first few sentences or the first paragraph within this section often serve as an introduction.
How to Write an Article Review: Types, Format, & Examples
Article Review Outline. 1. Introduction. Introduce the article under review. Provide the article's title, author, and publication date. Briefly outline the main theme or purpose of the article. State your thesis or the main point you will be analyzing. 2. Summary. Summarize the article's main points, arguments, and key findings.
How to Write an Article Review
Write the main point of a review along with introducing the topic. It should help readers get a better grasp of the topic. Outline for Writing a Good Article Review. Here's an outline to write an excellent article review. Introduction - Begin with a summary of the article - Put in background knowledge of the topic
How To Write an Article Review
Article review format. The formatting of an article review will always come down to what type of assignment you plan to write and your citation style. Still, you should provide a title page, the course title, your name, and the work date. In certain cases, it may be required to include an abstract of 200 to 300 words.
Writing Help: The Article Review
How to Write an Article Review. For an article review, your task is to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. You are being asked to make judgments, positive or negative, about the content of the article. The criteria you follow to do this will vary based upon your particular academic discipline ...
How to write a superb literature review
The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic. It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the ...
How to Review a Journal Article
For many kinds of assignments, like a literature review, you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article.This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your qualified opinion and evaluation of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research.That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple summary of the article and evaluate it on a deeper ...
How to Write an Article Review: Tips, Outline, Format
Article Identification. Start the first paragraph of your review with concise and clear article identification that specifies its title, author, name of the resource (e.g., journal, web, etc.), and the year of publication. Intro. Following the identification, write a short introductory paragraph.
How to Write an Article Review Like a Pro & Examples
A review article is a type of professional essay writing. So you need to study its subject carefully. Use multiple sources and highlight the main arguments. Then form your own opinion on the given topic. In conclusion of your article review, you should bring new arguments for or against the author's opinion.
A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article
Scientific review articles provide a focused and comprehensive review of the available evidence about a subject, explain the current state of knowledge, and identify gaps that could be topics for potential future research. ... The components of the article include an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with the majority devoted to the ...
How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
How to Write Critical Reviews
To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work-deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole. Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain ...
Writing a Literature Review
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 ...
How to write a review article?
Title: Title: 1 Identify the article as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both: Summary: Structured summary: 2 Write a structured summary including, as applicable, background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, treatments, study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; and systematic review ...
An Introduction to Writing Review Articles
A good review article might aim to: summarise key research findings. highlight 'must-read' articles in the field. act as educational material. However, an excellent review article will also: be timely. provide critique of studies. highlight areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates.
What is a review article?
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
Basics of Writing Review Articles
A well-written review article must summarize key research findings, reference must-read articles, describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, depict unanswered questions, and suggest directions for future research ( 1 ). During the last decades, there has been a great expansion ...
Winning Intro Examples For Article Reviews
How to Start an Article Review. Example Introduction for Article Review. Example 1: Example 2: Example 3: Conclusion. Writing an article review is a great way to analyze and evaluate the work of other experts in your field. It is typically done to demonstrate clarity, originality, and how significant a certain article's contribution is.
Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for
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 . Authors may begin the introduction with brief general statements—which provide background knowledge on the subject matter—that lead to more specific ones ...
Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing
Introduction. Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research.1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education.
Gut microbiota in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders
Previous observational studies have demonstrated inconsistent and inconclusive results of changes in the intestinal microbiota in patients with obesity and metabolic disorders. We performed a systematic review to explore evidence for this association across different geography and populations. We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE (OvidSP) and Embase (OvidSP) of articles published from ...
Acute invasive fungal sinusitis with orbital tip syndrome in patients
Introduction A long-term ruxolitinib-treated patient with primary myelofibrosis, who was co-infected with aspergillosis infection during a short period, developed acute invasive fungal sinusitis with consequent orbit apex syndrome. This may be the first reported case in the world. This is a 75-year-old Chinese man; the patient was admitted with 2-month history of headache accompanied by ...
Huawei MatePad Pro 13.2 review
Introduction. Huawei's latest event brought us the international version of the MatePad Pro 13.2 tablet. It's a large and powerful slate with an OLED screen, the mysterious Kirin 9000S chip ...
Naruto's Beginning Is Better And Worse Than You Remember
Naruto's introduction did a lot more right narratively than wrong before it found its way onto the right track to become the legendary manga it's known as today. Source: vizmedia/YouTube Read the Naruto manga on Manga Plus and Viz Media Read On Manga Plus. Naruto Naruto is a franchise spawned from the manga series penned by Masashi Kishimoto ...

How to Write an Article Review

Things You Should Know

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the Article Review

Sample Article Reviews

Expert Q&A

You Might Also Like

About This Article

Reader Success Stories

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

The Tech Edvocate

20 Ways to Reduce Your Overall Body Fat

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

Matthew Lynch

3 Ways to Have a Deep Connection With Your Boyfriend

14 Easy Ways to Join a Girl Group

4 Ways to Write a Follow Up Email for a Job Application

3 Effective Ways to Clean a Fiberglass Tub

3 Ways to Fix a Broken Fishing Rod

3 Ways to Snell a Hook

How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

❓ What Is an Article Review?

📑 Article Review Format

Popular Vs. Scholarly Articles

Article Review vs. Response Paper

✍️ How to Write an Article Review: Step by Step

Read the Article

Summarize the Article

Evaluate the Article

Write the Text

Article Review in APA

Article Review in MLA

✅ Article Review Template

📝 Article Review Examples

📃 Men, Women, & Money

📃 When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism

📃 Sleep Deprivation

✏️ Article Review FAQ

How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

Short Description

What Is an Article Review: Grasping the Concept

Types of Review

Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

Science Article Review

Need a Hand From Professionals?

Formatting an Article Review

How Many Publications Should You Review?

Using the APA Format

Using MLA Format

The Pre-Writing Process

Outline and Template

Example of an Article Review

View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!

Steps for Writing an Article Review

Step 1: Write the Title

Step 2: Cite the Article

Step 3: Article Identification

Step 4: Introduction

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Step 6: Critique It

Step 7: Craft a Conclusion

The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work

Need an Article REVIEW WRITTEN?

What Is A Review Article?

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

Academic literature review paper

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation

Example 1: An effective introduction for an academic literature review paper

Example 2: An effective introduction to a literature review section in an academic paper

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

PhD thesis literature review chapter introduction

PhD thesis literature review introduction

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!