how do you write a journal article review

To complete this section of the review think about:

1. The purpose - why was the article written

2.  The methodology  - what method did the authors use to gather their information and reach their conclusions e.g. literature review, interviews, a case study etc. 

3. Their findings – what were the results or findings of their research

4. Conclusions – what conclusions or recommendations did the author(s) come to about their research.

Example of part of a summary    

3. A critique, or a discussion about the key points of the journal article.

A critique is a discussion about the key points of the journal article. It should be a balanced discussion about the  strengths and weaknesses of the key points and structure of the article.

You will also need to discuss if the author(s) points are valid (supported by other literature) and robust (would you get the same outcome if the way the information was gathered was repeated).

Example of part of a critique

4. A conclusion - a final evaluation of the article

1. Give an overall opinion of the text.

2. Briefly summarise key points and determine if they are valid, useful, accurate etc.

3. Remember, do not include new ideas or opinions in the conclusion.

Pathways and Academic Learning Support

• << Previous: Read your article carefully
• Next: Remember to edit >>
• Last Updated: Apr 27, 2023 4:28 PM
• URL: https://libguides.newcastle.edu.au/how-to-write-a-journal-article-review

How to Write an Effective Journal Article Review

• First Online: 01 January 2012

Cite this chapter

• Dennis Drotar PhD 2 ,
• Yelena P. Wu PhD 3 &
• Jennifer M. Rohan MA 4  

5739 Accesses

2 Citations

The experience of reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals is an important one in professional development. Reviewing articles gives trainees familiarity with the peer review process in ways that facilitate their writing. For example, reviewing manuscripts can help students and early career psychologists understand what reviewers and editors look for in a peer-reviewed article and ways to critique and enhance a manuscript based on peer review. Experiences in review can facilitate early career faculty with early entry into and experience being a reviewer for a professional journal. The experience of journal reviews also gives students a broader connection to the field of science in areas of their primary professional interest. At the same time reviewing articles for scientific journals poses a number of difficult challenges (see Hyman, 1995; Drotar, 2000a, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2010, 2011; Lovejoy, Revenson, & France, 2011). The purpose of this chapter is to provide an introduction to the review process and give step by step guidance in conducting reviews for scientific journals. Interested readers might wish to read Lovejoy et al.’s (2011) primer for manuscript review, which contains annotated examples of reviews and an editor’s decision letter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions

Getting Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals: Advice for Student Authors

Submitting the Manuscript for Formal Review: Efficient and Effective Strategies

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association Science Student Council. (2007). A graduate students’ guide to involvement in the peer review process. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.apa.org/research/publishing/

APA Publications and Communications Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology. Why do we need them? What do they need to be? American Psychologist, 63 , 839–851.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2008). Putting research in context: Understanding confidence intervals from one or more studies. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 (9), 903–916.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2000a). Reviewing and editing manuscripts for scientific journals. In D. Drotar (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in clinical child and pediatric psychology (pp. 409–425). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2000b). Training professional psychologists to write and publish. The utility of a writer’s workshop seminar. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31 , 453–457.

Drotar, D. (2009a). Editorial: How to write effective reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 113–117.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2009b). Editorial: Thoughts in improving the quality of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: How to write a convincing introduction. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 1–3.

Drotar, D. (2009c). Editorial: How to report methods in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 227–230.

Drotar, D. (2009d). How to write an effective results and discussion section for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 339–343.

Drotar, D. (2010). Editorial: Guidance for submission and review of multiple publications derived from the same study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35 , 225–230.

Drotar, D. (2011). Editorial: How to write more effective, user friendly reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36 , 1–3.

Durlak, J. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 917–928.

Fiske, D. W., & Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper: Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 40 , 591–598.

Holmbeck, G. N., & Devine, K. A. (2009). Editorial: An author’s checklist for measure development and validation manuscripts. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 (7), 691–696.

Hyman, R. (1995). How to critique a published article. Psychological Bulletin, 118 , 178–182.

Journal of Pediatric Psychology mentoring policy & suggestions for conducting mentored reviews (2009). Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jpepsy/for_authors/msprep_submission.html

Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42 , 1–13.

Palermo, T. M. (2010). Editorial: Exploring ethical issues in peer review for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35 (3), 221–224.

Routh, D. K. (1995). Confessions of an editor, including mistakes I have made. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24 , 236–241.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2006). Reviewing scientific works in psychology . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stinson, J. N., McGrath, P. J., & Yamada, J. T. (2003). Clinical trials in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology : Applying the CONSORT statement. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28 , 159–167.

Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses . Medford, NY: Information Today, Inc.

Wu, Y. P., Nassau, J. H., & Drotar, D. (2011). Mentoring reviewers: The Journal of Pediatric Psychology experience. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36 , 258–264.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, MLC 7039, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Dennis Drotar PhD

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Yelena P. Wu PhD

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Jennifer M. Rohan MA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Drotar PhD .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel H, Davie Hall, Campus Box 3270, Chapel Hill, 27599-3270, North Carolina, USA

Mitchell J. Prinstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Drotar, D., Wu, Y.P., Rohan, J.M. (2013). How to Write an Effective Journal Article Review. In: Prinstein, M. (eds) The Portable Mentor. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_11

Published : 25 July 2012

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3993-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3994-3

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How to Write an Article Review: Practical Tips and Examples

Table of contents

• 1 What Is an Article Review?
• 2 Different Types of Article Review
• 3.1 Critical review
• 3.2 Literature review
• 3.3 Mapping review/systematic map
• 3.4 Meta-analysis
• 3.5 Overview
• 3.6 Qualitative Systematic Review/Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
• 3.7 Rapid review
• 3.8 Scoping review
• 3.9 Systematic review
• 3.10 Umbrella review
• 4 Formatting
• 5 How To Write An Article Review
• 6 Article Review Outline
• 7 10 Tips for Writing an Article Review
• 8 An Article Review Example

What Is an Article Review?

Before you get started, learn what an article review is. It can be defined as a work that combines elements of summary and critical analysis. If you are writing an article review, you should take a close look at another author’s work. Many experts regularly practice evaluating the work of others. The purpose of this is to improve writing skills.

This kind of work belongs to professional pieces of writing because the process of crafting this paper requires reviewing, summarizing, and understanding the topic. Only experts are able to compose really good reviews containing a logical evaluation of a paper as well as a critique.

Your task is not to provide new information. You should process what you have in a certain publication.

Different Types of Article Review

In academic writing, the landscape of article reviews is diverse and nuanced, encompassing a variety of formats that cater to different research purposes and methodologies. Among these, three main types of article reviews stand out due to their distinct approaches and applications:

• Narrative. The basic focus here is the author’s personal experience. Judgments are presented through the prism of experiences and subsequent realizations. Besides, the use of emotional recollections is acceptable.
• Evidence. There is a significant difference from the narrative review. An in-depth study of the subject is assumed, and conclusions are built on arguments. The author may consider theories or concrete facts to support that.
• Systematic. The structure of the piece explains the approach to writing. The answer to what’s a systematic review lies on the surface. The writer should pay special attention to the chronology and logic of the narrative.

Understanding 10 Common Types

Don`t rush looking at meta-analysis vs. systematic review. We recommend that you familiarize yourself with other formats and topics of texts. This will allow you to understand the types of essays better and select them based on your request. For this purpose, we`ll discuss the typology of reviews below.

Critical review

The critical review definition says that the author must be objective and have arguments for each thought. Sometimes, amateur authors believe that they should “criticize” something. However, it is important to understand the difference since objectivity and the absence of emotional judgments are prioritized. The structure of this type of review article is as follows:

• Introduction;
• Conclusion.

“Stuffing” of the text is based on such elements as methodology, argumentation, evidence, and theory base. The subject of study is stated at the beginning of the material. Then follows the transition to the main part (facts). The final word summarizes all the information voiced earlier.

It is a mistake to believe that critical reviews are devoid of evaluation. The author’s art lies in maneuvering between facts. Smooth transition from one argument to another and lays out the conclusions in the reader. That is why such texts are used in science. The critical reviews meaning is especially tangible in medical topics.

Literature review

Literature is the basis for this type of work ─ books, essays, and articles become a source of information. Thus, the author should rethink the voiced information. After that, it is possible to proceed to conclusions. The methodology aims to find interconnections, repetitions, and even “gaps” in the literature. One important item is the referencing of sources. Footnotes are possible in the work itself or the list of resources used.

These types of research reviews often explore myths since there are often inconsistencies in mythology. Sometimes, there is contrary information. In this case, the author has to gather all existing theories. The essence does not always lie in the confirmation of facts. There are other different types of reviews for this purpose. In literary reviews, the object of study may be characters or traditions. This is where the author’s space for discovery opens up. Inconsistencies in the data can tell important details about particular periods or cultures. At the same time, patterns reveal well-established facts. Make sure to outline your work before you write. This will help you with essay writing .

Mapping review/systematic map

A mapping review, also known as a systematic map, is a unique approach to surveying and organizing existing literature, providing a panoramic view of the research landscape. This paper systematically categorizes and maps out the available literature on a particular topic, emphasizing breadth over depth. Its primary goal is to present a comprehensive visual representation of the research distribution, offering insights into the overall scope of a subject.

One of the strengths of systematic reviews is that they deeply focus on a research question with detailed analysis and synthesis, while mapping review prioritizes breadth. It identifies and categorizes a broad range of studies without necessarily providing in-depth critique or content synthesis. This approach allows for a broader understanding of the field, making it especially useful in the early stages of research. Mapping reviews excel in identifying gaps in the existing body of literature.

By systematically mapping the distribution of research, researchers can pinpoint areas where studies are scarce or nonexistent, helping to guide future research directions. This makes mapping reviews a valuable tool for researchers seeking to contribute meaningfully to a field by addressing unexplored or underexplored areas.

Meta-analysis

Meta-analysis is a powerful statistical technique. It systematically combines the results of multiple studies to derive comprehensive and nuanced insights. This method goes beyond the limitations of individual studies, offering a more robust understanding of a particular phenomenon by synthesizing data from diverse sources.

Meta-analysis employs a rigorous methodology. It involves the systematic collection and statistical integration of data from multiple studies. This methodological rigor ensures a standardized and unbiased approach to data synthesis. It is applied across various disciplines, from medicine and psychology to social sciences, providing a quantitative assessment of the overall effect of an intervention or the strength of an association.

In evidence-based fields, where informed decision-making relies on a thorough understanding of existing research, meta-analysis plays a pivotal role. It offers a quantitative overview of the collective evidence, helping researchers, policymakers, and practitioners make more informed decisions. By synthesizing results from diverse studies, meta-analysis contributes to the establishment of robust evidence-based practices, enhancing the reliability and credibility of findings in various fields. To present your research findings in the most readable way possible, learn how to write a summary of article .

If the key purpose of systematic review is to maximize the disclosure of facts, the opposite is true here. Imagine a video shot by a quadcopter from an altitude. The viewer sees a vast area of terrain without focusing on individual details. Overviews follow the same principle. The author gives a general picture of the events or objects described.

These types of reviews often seem simple. However, the role of the researcher becomes a very demanding one. The point is not just to list facts. Here, the search for information comes to the fore. After all, it is such reports that, in the future, will provide the basis for researching issues more narrowly. In essence, you yourself create a new source of information ─ students who worry that somebody may critique the author’s article love this type of material. However, there are no questions for the author; they just set the stage for discussions in different fields.

An example of this type of report would be a collection of research results from scientists. For example, statistics on the treatment of patients with certain diseases. In such a case, reference is made to scientific articles and doctrines. Based on this information, readers can speak about the effectiveness of certain treatment methods.

Qualitative Systematic Review/Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

One of the next types of review articles represents a meticulous effort to synthesize and analyze qualitative studies within a specific research domain.

The focus is synthesizing qualitative studies, employing a systematic and rigorous approach to extract meaningful insights. Its significance lies in its ability to provide a nuanced understanding of complex phenomena, offering a qualitative lens to complement quantitative analyses. Researchers can uncover patterns, themes, and contextual nuances that may elude traditional quantitative approaches by systematically reviewing and synthesizing qualitative data.

Often, you may meet discussion: is a systematic review quantitative or qualitative? The application of qualitative systematic reviews extends across diverse research domains, from healthcare and social sciences to education and psychology. For example, this approach can offer a comprehensive understanding of patient experiences and preferences in healthcare. In social sciences, it can illuminate cultural or societal dynamics. Its versatility makes it a valuable tool for researchers exploring, interpreting, and integrating qualitative findings to enrich their understanding of complex phenomena within their respective fields.

Rapid review

If you don’t know how to write an article review , try starting with this format. It is the complete opposite of everything we talked about above. The key advantage and feature is speed. Quick overviews are used when time is limited. The focus can go to individual details (key). Often, the focus is still on the principal points.

Often, these types of review papers are critically needed in politics. This method helps to communicate important information to the reader quickly. An example can be a comparison of the election programs of two politicians. The author can show the key differences. Or it can make an overview based on the theses of the opponents’ proposals on different topics.

Seeming simplicity becomes power. Such texts allow the reader to make a quick decision. The author’s task is to understand potential interests and needs. Then, highlight and present the most important data as concisely as possible. In addition to politics, such reports are often used in communications, advertising, and marketing. Experienced writers mention the one-minute principle. This means you can count on 60 seconds of the reader’s attention. If you managed to hook them ─ bravo, you have done the job!

Scoping review

If you read the official scoping review definition, you may find similarities with the systematic type of review. However, recall is a sequential and logical study in the second case. It’s like you stack things on a shelf by color, size, and texture.

This type of review can be more difficult to understand. The basic concept is to explore what is called the field of subjects. This means, on the one hand, exploring a particular topic through the existing data about it. The author tries to find gaps or patterns by drawing on sources of information.

Another good comparison between systematic and this type of review is imagining as if drawing a picture. In the first case, you will think through every nuance and detail, why it is there, and how it “moves the story.” In the second case, it is as if you are painting a picture with “broad strokes.” In doing so, you can explain your motives for choosing the primary color. For example: “I chose the emerald color because all the cultural publications say it’s a trend”. The same goes for texts.

Systematic review

Sometimes, you may encounter a battle: narrative review vs. systematic review. The point is not to compare but to understand the different types of papers. Once you understand their purpose, you can present your data better and choose a more readable format. The systematic approach can be called the most scientific. Such a review relies on the following steps:

• Literature search;
• Evaluating the information;
• Data processing;
• Careful analysis of the material.

It is the fourth point that is key. The writer should carefully process the information before using it. However, 80% of your work’s result depends on this stage’s seriousness.

A rigorous approach to data selection produces an array of factual data. That is why this method is so often used in science, education, and social fields. Where accuracy is important. At the same time, the popularity of this approach is growing in other directions.

Systematic reviews allow for using different data and methodologies,, but with one important caveat ─ if the author manages to keep the narrative structured and explain the reason for certain methods. It is not about rigor. The task of this type of review is to preserve the facts, which dictates consistency and rationality.

Umbrella review

An umbrella review is a distinctive approach that involves the review of existing reviews, providing a comprehensive synthesis of evidence on a specific topic. The methodology of an umbrella review entails systematically examining and summarizing findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

This method ensures a rigorous and consolidated analysis of the existing evidence. The application of an umbrella review is broad, spanning various fields such as medicine, public health, and social sciences. It is particularly useful when a substantial body of systematic reviews exists, allowing researchers to draw overarching conclusions from the collective findings.

It allows the summarization of existing reviews and provides a new perspective on individual subtopics of the main object of study. In the context of the umbrella method, the comparison “bird’s eye view” is often cited. A bird in flight can see the whole panorama and shift its gaze to specific objects simultaneously. What becomes relevant at a particular moment? The author will face the same task.

On the one hand, you must delve into the offshoots of the researched topic. On the other hand, focus on the topic or object of study as a whole. Such a concept allows you to open up new perspectives and thoughts.

Different types of formatting styles are used for article review writing. It mainly depends on the guidelines that are provided by the instructor, sometimes, professors even provide an article review template that needs to be followed.

Here are some common types of formatting styles that you should be aware of when you start writing an article review:

• APA (American Psychological Association) – An APA format article review is commonly used for social sciences. It has guidelines for formatting the title, abstract, body paragraphs, and references. For example, the title of an article in APA format is in sentence case, whereas the publication title is in title case.
• MLA (Modern Language Association): This is a formatting style often used in humanities, such as language studies and literature. There are specific guidelines for the formatting of the title page, header, footer, and citation style.
• Chicago Manual of Style: This is one of the most commonly used formatting styles. It is often used for subjects in humanities and social sciences, but also commonly found in a newspaper title. This includes guidelines for formatting the title page, end notes, footnotes, publication title, article citation, and bibliography.
• Harvard Style: Harvard style is commonly used for social sciences and provides specific guidelines for formatting different sections of the pages, including publication title, summary page, website publisher, and more.

To ensure that your article review paper is properly formatted and meets the requirements, it is crucial to adhere to the specific guidelines for the formatting style you are using. This helps you write a good article review.

• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

How To Write An Article Review

There are several steps that must be followed when you are starting to review articles. You need to follow these to make sure that your thoughts are organized properly. In this way, you can present your ideas in a more concise and clear manner. Here are some tips on how to start an article review and how to cater to each writing stage.

• Read the Article Closely: Even before you start to write an article review, it’s important to make sure that you have read the specific article thoroughly. Write down the central points and all the supporting ideas. It’s important also to note any questions or comments that you have about the content.
• Identify the Thesis: Make sure that you understand the author’s main points, and identify the main thesis of the article. This will help you focus on your review and ensure that you are addressing all of the key points.
• Formulate an Introduction: The piece should start with an introduction that has all the necessary background information, possibly in the first paragraph or in the first few paragraphs. This can include a brief summary of the important points or an explanation of the importance.
• Summarize the Article : Summarize the main points when you review the article, and make sure that you include all supporting elements of the author’s thesis.
• Start with Personal Critique : Now is the time to include a personal opinion on the research article or the journal article review. Start with evaluating all the strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed article. Discuss all of the flaws that you found in the author’s evidence and reasoning. Also, point out whether the conclusion provided by the author was well presented or not.
• Add Personal Perspective: Offer your perspective on the original article, do you agree or disagree with the ideas that the article supports or not. Your critical review, in your own words, is an essential part of a good review. Make sure you address all unanswered questions in your review.
• Conclude the Article Review : In this section of the writing process, you need to be very careful and wrap up the whole discussion in a coherent manner. This is should summarize all the main points and offer an overall assessment.

Make sure to stay impartial and provide proof to back up your assessment. By adhering to these guidelines, you can create a reflective and well-structured article review.

Article Review Outline

Here is a basic, detailed outline for an article review you should be aware of as a pre-writing process if you are wondering how to write an article review.

Introduction

• Introduce the article that you are reviewing (author name, publication date, title, etc.) Now provide an overview of the article’s main topic

Summary section

• Summarize the key points in the article as well as any arguments Identify the findings and conclusion

Critical Review

• Assess and evaluate the positive aspects and the drawbacks
• Discuss if the authors arguments were verified by the evidence of the article
• Identify if the text provides substantial information for any future paper or further research
• Assess any gaps in the arguments
• Restate the thesis statement
• Provide a summary for all sections
• Write any recommendations and thoughts that you have on the article
• Never forget to add and cite any references that you used in your article

10 Tips for Writing an Article Review

Have you ever written such an assignment? If not, study the helpful tips for composing a paper. If you follow the recommendations provided here, the process of writing a summary of the article won’t be so time-consuming, and you will be able to write an article in the most effective manner.

The guidelines below will help to make the process of preparing a paper much more productive. Let’s get started!

• Check what kind of information your work should contain. After answering the key question “What is an article review?” you should learn how to structure it the right way. To succeed, you need to know what your work should be based on. An analysis with insightful observations is a must for your piece of writing.
• Identify the central idea: In your first reading, focus on the overall impression. Gather ideas about what the writer wants to tell, and consider whether he or she managed to achieve it.
• Look up unfamiliar terms. Don’t know what certain words and expressions mean? Highlight them, and don’t forget to check what they mean with a reliable source of information.
• Highlight the most important ideas. If you are reading it a second time, use a highlighter to highlight the points that are most important to understanding the passage.
• Write an outline. A well-written outline will make your life a lot easier. All your thoughts will be grouped. Detailed planning helps not to miss anything important. Think about the questions you should answer when writing.
• Brainstorm headline ideas. When choosing a project, remember: it should reflect the main idea. Make it bold and concise.
• Check an article review format example. You should check that you know how to cite an article properly. Note that citation rules are different in APA and MLA formats. Ask your teacher which one to prioritize.
• Write a good introduction. Use only one short paragraph to state the central idea of ​​the work. Emphasize the author’s key concepts and arguments. Add the thesis at the end of the Introduction.
• Write in a formal style. Use the third person, remembering that this assignment should be written in a formal academic writing style.
• Wrap up, offer your critique, and close. Give your opinion on whether the author achieved his goals. Mention the shortcomings of the job, if any, and highlight its strengths.

If you have checked the tips and you still doubt whether you have all the necessary skills and time to prepare this kind of educational work, follow one more tip that guarantees 100% success- ask for professional assistance by asking the custom writing service PapersOwl to craft your paper instead of you. Just submit an order online and get the paper completed by experts.

An Article Review Example

If you have a task to prepare an analysis of a certain piece of literature, have a look at the article review sample. There is an article review example for you to have a clear picture of what it must look like.

Journal Article on Ayn Rand’s Works Review Example

“The purpose of the article is to consider the features of the poetics of Ayn Rand’s novels “Atlas Shrugged,” “We the living,” and “The Fountainhead.” In the analysis of the novels, the structural-semantic and the method of comparative analysis were used.

With the help of these methods, genre features of the novels were revealed, and a single conflict and a cyclic hero were identified.

In-depth reading allows us to more fully reveal the worldview of the author reflected in the novels. It becomes easier to understand the essence of the author’s ideas about the connection between being and consciousness, embodied in cyclic ideas and images of plot twists and heroes. The author did a good job highlighting the strong points of the works and mentioning the reasons for the obvious success of Ayn Rand.“

You can also search for other relevant article review examples before you start.

In conclusion, article reviews play an important role in evaluating and analyzing different scholarly articles. Writing a review requires critical thinking skills and a deep understanding of the article’s content, style, and structure. It is crucial to identify the type of article review and follow the specific guidelines for formatting style provided by the instructor or professor.

The process of writing an article review requires several steps, such as reading the article attentively, identifying the thesis, and formulating an introduction. By following the tips and examples provided in this article, students can write a worthy review that demonstrates their ability to evaluate and critique another writer’s work.

Learning how to write an article review is a critical skill for students and professionals alike. Before diving into the nitty-gritty of reviewing an article, it’s important to understand what an article review is and the elements it should include. An article review is an assessment of a piece of writing that summarizes and evaluates a work. To complete a quality article review, the author should consider the text’s purpose and content, its organization, the author’s style, and how the article fits into a larger conversation. But if you don’t have the time to do all of this work, you can always purchase a literature review from Papers Owl .

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

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

What is a review article?

Learn how to write a review article.

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 critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.

Why write a review article?

To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.

To explain the current state of knowledge.

To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.

To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

Did you know? 

There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.

Make sure you check the  aims and scope  of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.

How to write a review article

Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.

Check the journal’s aims and scope

Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.

Define your scope

Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field. 

As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.” 

Finding sources to evaluate

When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.” 

For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences,  read advice from NCBI . 

Writing your title, abstract and keywords

Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative. 

For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title  and our  researcher’s guide to search engine optimization . 

Introduce the topic

Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact. 

Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.

Include critical discussion

Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.

What researchers say

Angus Crake, researcher

As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.

Use a critical friend

Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission. 

You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.

Find out more about how  Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.

What is the difference between a research article and a review article?

Before you submit your review article…

Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:

Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?

Have you defined the scope of your article?

Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?

Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?

Did you start with an overview of the topic?

Have you presented a critical discussion?

Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?

Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services  offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to edit your paper

Writing a scientific literature review

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY

Writing an article REVIEW

• Writing an article CRITIQUE
• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A journal article review is written for a reader who is knowledgeable in the discipline and is interested not just in the coverage and content of the article being reviewed, but also in your critical assessment of the ideas and argument that are being presented by the author.

Your review might be guided by the following questions:

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

How to Write an Article Review (from Essaypro.com)

How to Review a Journal Article (from University of Illinois Springfield)

Writing Critical Reviews (from Queen's University Library)

• << Previous: Writing an article SUMMARY
• Next: Writing an article CRITIQUE >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

Journal Article Review in APA Style

Journal article reviews refer to the appraisal of potencies and limitations of an article’s opinion and subject matter. The article reviews offer the readers with an explanation, investigation and clarification to evaluate the importance of the article. A journal article review usually follows the APA style, which is in itself an exceptional mode of writing. Writing a journal article review in APA style requires a thorough reading of an article and then present our personal opinions on its subject matter.

In order to write a journal article review in APA style, one must necessarily conform to the detailed guidelines of APA style of writing. As such, a few tips for writing a journal article review in APA style have been provided in details below.

Tips for Writing Journal Article Review in APA Style

Getting started.

Read the complete article. Most journal articles use highly complicated and difficult language and wording. Thus, it is suggested to read the article thoroughly several times to understand it perfectly. Select a statement that effectively conveys the main idea of your review. Present the ideas in a rational order, keeping in mind that all opinions must sustain the main idea.

Start with a header with citation

Journal article reviews start with a header, including citation of the sources being reviewed. This citation is mentioned at the top of the review, following the APA style (refer to the APA style manual for more information). We will need the author’s name for the article, title of the article, journal of the published article, volume and issue number, publication date, and page numbers for the article.

Write a summary

The introductory paragraph of the review should provide a brief summary of the article, strictly limiting it to one to three paragraphs depending on the article length. The summary should discuss only the most imperative details about the article, like the author’s intention in writing the article, how the study was conducted, how the article relates to other work on the same subject, the results and other relevant information from the article.

Body of the review

The succeeding paragraphs of the review should present your ideas and opinions on the article. Discuss the significance and suggestion of the results of the study. The body of the article review should be limited to one to two paragraphs, including your understanding of the article, quotations from the article demonstrating your main ideas, discussing the article’s limitations and how to overcome them.

Concluding the review

The concluding paragraphs of the review should provide your personal appraisal of the journal article. Discuss whether the article is well-written or not, whether any information is missing, or if further research is necessary on the subject. Also, write a paragraph on how the author could develop the study results, what the information means on a large scale, how further investigation can develop the subject matter, and how the knowledge of this field can be extended further.

Citation and Revision

In-text citation of direct quotes or paraphrases from the article can be done using the author’s name, year of publication and page numbers (refer to the APA-style manual for citation guidelines). After finishing the writing of journal article review in APA style, it would be advised to re-visit the review after a few days and then re-read it altogether. By doing this, you will be able to view the review with a new perspective and may detect mistakes that were previously left undetected.

The above mentioned tips will help and guide you for writing a journal article review in APA style. However, while writing a journal article review, remember that you are undertaking more than just a narrative review. Thus, the article review should not merely focus on discussing what the article is about, but should reveal your personal ideas and opinions on the article.

Related Posts

How to resurrect a rejected manuscript.

Rejection of your research paper by a journal does not necessarily imply that your research is fundamentally unsuitable for publication. This is because rejection depends on several factors that might not be solely linked to the main thrust of your research. Besides, the reviewers who evaluate your paper are not familiar with your credentials and […]

Proper Citation: A Key Norm in Academic Publishing

What to Cite? Academic publishing is important for the career enhancement of every researcher. A long string of publications under the belt of a researcher not only performs the constructive role of filling gaps in existing research, but also enhances the chances of the researcher being cited by other researchers. The number of times your […]

Professional help for a Rejected Manuscript

Getting a journal rejection is never easy. Even though rejections from editors or requests for revision from peer review is a very common happening in the publishing world, it is always a challenge for an author to rework their manuscript for re-submission. This is where a professional editor and proofreader can help immensely. In today’s […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

How to Write an Article Review: Examples and Tips

In today's information-rich world, mastering the skill of discerning valuable insights from the overwhelming noise is a game-changer. Whether you're a student striving for success or a professional aiming to stay sharp, knowing how to critique an article is your key.

Our article review writing service explains the intricacies of writing an article review, categorizes different types and shares insights into impactful formatting. It's not just theory – we'll guide you step by step, from pre-writing to a tangible review article example, and refine your abilities with essential proofreading tips.

What Is an Article Review?

An article review is more than a mere summary; it is a thoughtful analysis and critique that goes beyond the surface of the title. It's an intellectual exercise that challenges you to engage deeply with the author's ideas, question their methodology, and evaluate the significance of their findings.

Consider it as a journey through the landscape of someone else's thoughts. It's not just about where the writer takes you; it's about the path they choose, the landmarks they highlight, and the potential detours they overlook. An effective examination is a conversation with the author, a dialogue where you appreciate their insights, challenge assumptions, and perhaps even find alternative routes through the intellectual terrain they've explored.

As you start to understand how to review the article, encourage thought by asking questions.

• What assumptions underlie the author's arguments? 
• Are there alternative perspectives that could enrich the discussion?
• How does the author's methodology shape their conclusions, and are there potential biases to consider?
• How does the title contribute to the clarity and coherence of the author's arguments?
• In what ways does the title influence the reader's perception of the author's

At EssayHub, our book review writing service experts believe an article review is an opportunity not just to absorb information but to actively engage with it, to question, to ponder, and to contribute your own insights to the scholarly conversation.

Types of Review

When tackling article reviews, there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach; it's a task that allows for versatile strategies. Think of understanding the different types of reviews as having a multifaceted toolkit ready for use. In this part, we'll guide you through the varied types of a review article, each showing a unique viewpoint and serving a specific purpose. Whether you're analyzing a scholarly piece on your own or asking someone to 'write an article review for me,' you'll get valuable insights.

Journal Article Review

A journal article review involves critically evaluating and analyzing scholarly pieces published in an academic journal. It requires a thorough understanding of the author's research, methodology, results, and conclusions. The reviewer assesses the journal's contributions to the field, its theoretical framework, and the validity of the research methods employed. The goal is to provide a comprehensive summary and critique that highlights both the strengths and limitations of the piece.

Research Article Review

A research article review focuses on the evaluation of a scientific or academic research paper. This type of examination involves examining the research question, experimental design, data collection methods, statistical analysis, and the interpretation of findings. For example, it can be research on teen vaping statistics , which includes all of above. The reviewer assesses the reliability and validity of the research, considers the implications of the study, and offers insights into its potential impact on the broader academic community.

Science Article Review

A science article review encompasses a critical analysis of a piece in the field of science, covering disciplines such as physics, chemistry, biology, or any other scientific domain. This review type involves assessing the clarity of scientific concepts presented, the validity of experimental procedures, and the significance of the study's findings. According to our literature review writing service , reviewers may also consider the article's potential contributions to advancing scientific knowledge and its relevance to current scientific debates or issues.

Article Review Format

Ensuring the proper formatting of an article examination is crucial, and it should consistently align with the citation style specified by your instructor. If you're uncertain, don't hesitate to ask us - write my article review for me, along with additional guidelines to effectively structure your piece.

Meanwhile, here are some questions to consider:

• What citation style (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.) should you employ?
• What is the recommended length for your article review?
• Should your assignment encompass a summary, critique, or include personal opinions?
• Is it necessary to highlight a theme or central idea from the articles?
• Does your instructor expect background information to be incorporated?

APA Format Article Review

An APA review sticks to the rules of the American Psychological Association. When unsure how to write an article review in APA format, remember that it carefully cites the article, using a title page, intro, summary, critique, conclusion, and references. Citations follow the author-date format, focusing on being clear and objective. The review digs into the article's methods, results, and overall impact.

When you write an article review in APA, your in-text citation might read: (Anderson & Ramirez, 2019)

The corresponding entry in the reference list would be: Anderson, L., & Ramirez, C. (2019). Unveiling the Dynamics of Urban Green Spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 112-128.

MLA Format Article Review

For an MLA writing review, it follows the Modern Language Association's style. It's important to know how sources are cited in the text and in the Works Cited page. The structure usually has an intro, summary, critique, and conclusion. MLA citations often have the author's last name and page number in brackets in the text. This review might highlight the document's literary or humanities aspects, such as style, language, and cultural context.

In an MLA format publication, the citation within the text could look like: (Anderson and Ramirez 112)

The Works Cited entry for this publication: Anderson, Laura, and Carlos Ramirez. 'Exploring the Impact of Urban Green Spaces on Well-being.' Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 25, no. 3, 2019, pp. 112-128.

Review Article Outline

As you read your writing piece, organize your thoughts into sections in an outline. Note down key facts, contributions, and any contradictions. Identify strengths and weaknesses, and start mapping your outline.

If your professor doesn't want a summary or personal critique, skip those parts. Like other assignments, your examination needs an introduction, body, and conclusion. Consider dividing your outline accordingly, with subheadings in the body. If you need help starting, find a sample outline.

Your article assessment should have the following:

• Pre-Title Page: Essential details like publication type, publication title, author names with affiliations, and corresponding author info.
• Running Head (APA format): A concise title for consistent formatting.
• Summary Page (optional but useful): Summarize the document in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology.
• Title Page: Full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
• Introduction: Engage your reader with an overview.
• Body: Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
• Works Cited/References: Properly cite all sources.
• Optional Suggested Reading Page: If allowed, suggest further readings.
• Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed): Include visuals when requested for clarity.

Writing an Article Review in 7 Steps

Use our essay writer service or move on to understanding how to write a review paper covering everything from creating the title to summarizing key points. This step-by-step guide breaks it down into seven simple steps, making the entire process more manageable.

Step 1: Create the Title

The very first question you might have is how to start an article review. It's crucial to develop a title that not only captures the essence of the publication but also reflects your perspective. For instance, consider the title: ' Decoding Data: A Critical Exploration of Privacy Concerns in Online Health Platforms. ' This title not only introduces the main theme but also hints at the critical evaluation that will unfold in the writing. It sets the tone for your analysis and sparks interest from the outset.

Step 2: Reference the Article

In the second step, it's essential to ensure accurate citation by providing specific details. Take a look at this example:

• Author: Rodriguez, M., & Chen, L.
• Title: 'Privacy Matters: Analyzing the Impact of Health Apps on User Data'
• Publication Date: 2023
• Source: Journal of Digital Ethics, 8(2), 87-105.

By including these details, you not only acknowledge the authors and the publication but also provide your readers with the necessary information to locate and verify the article. This step lays the foundation for a credible and well-referenced examination.

Step 3: Article Identification

Identify key elements of the publication, such as the writer's main argument, methodology, and key findings. Pinpoint any theoretical frameworks or models used in the title.

For example: The writing by Garcia and Kim examines the correlation between social media usage and mental health outcomes among adolescents. The authors employ a longitudinal study approach, utilizing surveys and interviews to gather data.

Step 4: Make an Introduction

In your introduction, provide a brief overview of the title's subject and purpose. Capture the reader's attention and clearly state your thesis or main point related to the title. For instance, you might start your article review template like this.

In the digital age, the impact of social media on mental health has become a topic of increasing concern. Garcia and Kim's recent study delves into this issue, aiming to uncover the nuanced relationship between social media engagement and the psychological well-being of adolescents. This writing piece critically analyzes the methodology, findings, and implications of their research.

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Summarize the main points of your assessment, highlighting key arguments, evidence, and results. Offer a concise overview without adding personal opinions.

Example: Garcia and Kim's study reveals a significant positive association between increased social media use and heightened levels of anxiety and depression among the adolescent population. The longitudinal study tracked participants over a two-year period, employing both quantitative and qualitative measures to assess mental health outcomes.

Step 6: Provide Critique

Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the writing. Well, how to critique an article , you might wonder. Discuss aspects such as methodology, data interpretation, and potential biases.

Example: While the study offers valuable insights, the reliance on self-reported data may introduce response bias. Additionally, the research predominantly focuses on mainstream social media platforms, potentially overlooking the impact of emerging platforms. Despite these limitations, the study's comprehensive approach contributes to the ongoing discourse surrounding the intersection of social media and mental health.

Step 7: Conclude

In the conclusion, summarize your overall assessment of the article and restate your main points. Offer insights into the broader implications of the research and suggest areas for future exploration. 

For example: To conclude, Garcia and Kim's study sheds light on the complex relationship between social media use and adolescent mental health. Despite certain methodological limitations, the research underscores the need for continued investigation in this field. As we navigate the digital landscape, understanding these dynamics becomes crucial for devising effective interventions and support systems for the well-being of our youth.

Example of an Article Review

Why are we taking the time to discuss article review examples in this article? It might not be immediately apparent, but exploring a well-crafted article review sample is a vital step in the writing process for the following reasons:

• Introduction to Key Works: Helps you to familiarize yourself with the important works of experts in your field.
• Identification of Key Figures: You can recognize key figures contributing to a specific scientific field.
• Understanding Field Advancements: Helps you define significant discoveries and advances made in your area of study.
• Identification of Knowledge Gaps: You can uncover major gaps in existing knowledge, contributing to the formulation of fresh solutions.
• Reference and Argumentation Resources: You discover solid references and arguments that can enhance your own writing.
• Idea Generation: Helps you generate ideas for potential future research directions.
• Becoming an Expert: Assists in gaining a deeper understanding of the subject area, moving towards expertise.
• Writing Guidance: You acquire a clear idea of how to craft a well-structured review.

Can Anyone Write an Article Review for Me?

Is writing a review article worth it, how to write an apa format article review, how do you write an article review from the beginning, what is the proper article review format.

Ryan Acton is an essay-writing expert with a Ph.D. in Sociology, specializing in sociological research and historical analysis. By partnering with EssayHub, he provides comprehensive support to students, helping them craft well-informed essays across a variety of topics.

• Plagiarism Report
• Unlimited Revisions
• 24/7 Support

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

• They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

• Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
• Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

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

• About Waterloo
• Faculties & academics
• Offices & services
• Support Waterloo

Article review

An article review is a critical evaluation of an article. To write an article review, you select and read an article carefully, and summarize the author’s main ideas and research findings. You then provide your own evaluation and critique based on your analysis of the article and your knowledge of the topic.

Step 1: Get started

A. understand the assignment.

Read the assignment instructions carefully to determine the topic, purpose, audience, format, and length. For more information, see  Understand your assignment .

B. Choose your research article

Use the article provided by your professor or search for academic essays on the required topic. Select 3-5 articles to choose from. To find articles, you may use one of the following:

Library catalogue

Research guides  (look for the "articles" tab within a guide)

After reading the abstract and introduction of each article, choose one article that

is relevant to the course,

is of interest to you, and 

• you understand.

Step 2: Read the article

A. first reading.

Determine the author’s research question, thesis, and findings.

B. Subsequent readings

Analyse the author’s methodology, observations, techniques, and conclusions. For help, see Reading and listening critically .

Step3: Evaluate the article

A. establish the research context.

Who conducted this research and what are his or her credentials?

What is the purpose of this research?

Does the author identify existing literature on the subject?

What are the implications for further study?

See Evaluating information sources  for help.

B. Judge the success or failure of the article

Does the author identify the limitations of the study?

Do you notice any other shortcomings, biases, or flaws?

Does the author argue the thesis successfully?

Step 4: Plan and write

A. write a citation for the article.

• Verify which style is required for the assignment (e.g., APA, Chicago, MLA)

For more information on how to cite properly see:

APA style guide (PDF)

Chicago style guide (PDF)

IEEE style guide (PDF)

MLA style guide

B. Plan your first draft

Remember, the body of an article review ordinarily consists of two parts: a summary of the article, and your critique of the article.

List the points to include in your summary of the article.

Outline your arguments concerning the success or failure of the article. For help see Two ways to create an outline .

Develop a draft thesis statement. For more information see Thesis statements .

C. Write your first draft

Write your critical analysis of the article. Be sure to evaluate the source and convey your own original impressions of the research.

Write the introduction, article summary, and conclusion.

Check out these strategies for Writing a first draft .

Step 5: Revise and proofread

A. revise your draft.

Print out your review and work from a hard copy. Read it carefully and look for high-order problems first.

• Does your argument flow logically?
• Do you support your arguments with relevant evidence?
• Do you present your material in the best order?

For help with these issues, check out tips for revision .

Narrow your focus to paragraph-level issues such as flow and transitions. See  Transition words for help.

B. Proofread and format

• Last step! Read carefully to catch all those small errors. Here are some tips on Proofreading strategies .
• Make sure your paper adheres to the conventions of the style you're using. Think about titles, margins, page numbers, reference lists, and citations.
• See the Writing and Communication Centre Resources page for specific help in revising and proofreading.

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
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

How to Write an Article Review: A Simple Step-by-Step Guide

Common Types of Review Writing

Formatting Tips

Prewriting Steps

Template & Outline

Step-by-Step Writing Guide

Proofreading and Editing

14 Dos and Don’ts

Paper Writing Help

An article review is one of those academic tasks students face quite often during their education. At first glance, it may seem like a very simple and straightforward task. But article review writing has its peculiarities and pitfalls that can make the process extremely challenging. Knowing how to avoid them can help you save lots of time and nerves and, at the same time, ensure an excellent result. But, how to do it?

If you were assigned to do such a task and have no clue how to write a review of an article, you’ve come to the right place! In this article, we will share with you the most effective tips and tricks that will make writing simple and enjoyable. Let’s dive in with our research paper writer !

What Is an Article Review?

An article review is quite a common form of academic assignment in schools and colleges. In a nutshell, this paper requires students to read a specific article, critically evaluate it, and write their observations in the review.

Basically, your review is a constructive, critical assessment of someone else’s work. It explores the strong and weak points of the given piece, gaps, inconsistencies, and other issues, and gives the whole piece an objective evaluation based on all these points.

Working on such an assignment requires excellent analytical and critical thinking skills, as well as the ability to present ideas and arguments in a well-structured way. Therefore, handling this task can be rather difficult.

To help you get on the right track, here are the basic features of article review writing:

• It always includes summarization, classification, in-depth analysis, comparison, and critiques.
• The evaluation and analysis should use research, ideas, and theories relevant to the subject matter.
• Important: A review of an article should not provide new information. Instead, it should explore and evaluate the work of another writer.

Common Types of Article Review

All reviews follow a similar structure and pursue the same goal. However, there are different types of reviews that require a different approach to each.

All in all, we can distinguish three types of this paper based on the kind of article that is being reviewed.

Journal Article Review

If you are reviewing a journal article, you should focus on assessing the strong and weak points of the piece. You should share your own interpretation of the article and provide its in-depth analysis to highlight the value and importance of the piece.

This type of work is probably the easiest and least formal of all.

Research Article Review

When writing a review of the research article, you also have to read, analyze, and evaluate the piece. However, this type of paper needs to have more depth to it compared to a review of a journal article.

The biggest distinctive feature of this work is that along with assessing the strong and weak sides of the article, the author should also evaluate the research methods and use this assessment to conduct further analysis and critique.

Science Article Review

Finally, the last and the most complex type of review is a review of a scientific article. Since scientific articles provide more information on the background of the subject matter, you can use this info to make a more thorough analysis of the piece.

Article Review Format Tips

If you are wondering which format to use for your critical review of an article, the first thing you should do is check with your professor. Typically, a professor should provide you with clear guidelines for your paper writing . If you didn’t get any guidelines or something is unclear, don’t hesitate to ask your professor to clarify it for you.

Some of the main questions you should ask in terms of formating are:

• What citation style is preferred?
• What is the required word count?
• Are you to include a summary, critique, or your personal opinion in the review?
• Are you expected to drive attention to the main idea or theme within the articles?
• Are you to provide background information?

Having the answers to these questions will help you create a high-quality paper that fully meets the requirements of your professor. So, be sure to clarify them.

Just to give you an idea of how everything should look, let’s consider the two most common formats for this type of work. Below, you can find examples of MLA and APA format article review.

APA Article Review

APA style article review is one of the two most common formats. In a nutshell, if you were assigned to write an article review APA, it means that you will need to format your citations according to this style manual. The rest of the paper will have standard formatting.

If you are wondering how to write a review in APA style, here are some tips that will help you create correct bibliographical entries for the most commonly-used sources:

• Web: Author’s last name, initials. (Year, month date of publication). Title. Retrieved from (link to your source)
• Journal: Author’s last name, initials. (Year of publication). Publication title . Periodical title, volume (issue), pp.-pp.
• Newspaper: Author’s last name, initials. (Year, month date of publication). Publication title. The magazine title , pp. xx-xx.

MLA Article Review

The second common style is MLA. Here is how to format your citations if you are assigned to write an article review in MLA:

• Web: Author’s last name, first name middle name initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
• Journal:   Author’s last name, first name middle name initial. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
• Newspaper:   Author’s last name, first name middle name initial. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print.

Preparing for Writing an Article Review

Of course, writing a review itself is the biggest part of the task. However, as we all know, no task can be completed well without some basic planning and preparation. The pre-writing process is necessary to get you ready for the writing stage and that’s why it is so important.

So, what do you need to prepare?

‍ First and foremost, you need to understand the essence of this task. It is vital that you know what an article review is, what purpose it has, and what is expected of you. Once you know this, there are a few more pre-writing steps to take.

Figure Out How to Organize Your Paper

Before you can get to reading and evaluating the given article, you should have a clear idea of the organization of your future review. Knowing how your paper will be structured will give you an idea of what you should focus on when reading the article.

To help you get started, here is how your review should be set up:

• Summary of the article. Begin your review by summarizing the article, its key ideas, statements, and information.
• Discussion of the strong points. Next, focus on the positive things. Tell the readers what the author does well, what good ideas he or she brings up, and share some insightful observations.
• Discussion of drawbacks, gaps, contradictions, and inconsistencies of the article . To complete your review, tell the readers about the negative aspects you’ve noticed. Discuss if there is an information gap, lack of research, or unanswered questions.

Go Over the Text

Start by quickly skimming the article. During your first reading, don’t cling to any details. Instead, go over the article’s title and abstract, study the headings, opening sentences of the paragraphs, etc. Then only read the first several paragraphs and jump to the concluding paragraph. These tricks will help you quickly grasp the overall idea of the article and the main points the author makes.

Next, read the entire article to get a complete picture. Here are a few tips to help you make the first reading as effective as possible:

• Look for the general idea and key points.
• Note down any terms, concepts, or words that are not familiar to you.
• Write down all questions you get while reading the article.
• Before you move to the next step, be sure to look up the definitions of the unfamiliar words.

Read the Text Attentively

After you give it the first round of superficial reading and note down everything that seems unclear, you can finally read the article closely.

Follow these tips to make the most of this stage:

• Read the article multiple times to ensure that you got the main idea right.
• Make notes on everything that sounds important or unclear.
• Highlight the most important points and helpful quotes that you can refer to later.
• Connect the content of the article with your own knowledge of the topic. Define if the article agrees or disagrees with what you already know.

Interpret the Article In Your Own Words

Putting the article into your own words is a great trick that will help you define how well you understood the main points. Also, this is a good practice for your writing stage.

After writing down your own interpretation of the article, highlight the main parts that you’d like to discuss in your review. 

Based on your interpretation and highlighted points, make a preliminary outline. Then review your outline to cross out everything unnecessary or unimportant.

Create a Detailed Outline

The last stage of preparation is making an outline. Get back to your notes, summary, and preliminary outline to define what to include in your review. Based on this, create a clear, well-organized, and detailed outline. In the next section of our guide, we will give you more tips for making an effective outline.

Your professor has given you an assignment, but you don't know how to write a reflection paper ? Our authors have created a great guide that is sure to help you.

Just don't feel like it? Let us handle your task and go on with your life!

Article Review Template & Outline

Writing an outline is the best way to organize all your thoughts and create a solid base for your future paper. It will help you follow the right structure and focus on the right points in your review. Also, an outline will help you see if anything is missing or, on the contrary, if there is anything else you should exclude from your paper.

How to create a good outline? First of all, ensure you are well aware of your teacher’s requirements. There are two sections of the review that are optional - a personal critique and a summary section. You should define if your professor wants you to include these sections or not. If yes, you will also have to add them to your outline. If not, you can follow a standard template.

What parts are included in an outline? The review itself, like any other academic paper, should consist of an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. However, additionally, you may need to include some other sections to your review, such as:

• Pre-title page that shares full information about the article that is being reviewed (i.e. the type of the article, author(s), the title of the publication, etc.)
• Optional author’s contact details (e.g. email, address, phone number, etc.)
• Running head (this element only applies to papers in the APA format)
• Summary page (used to communicate the background, define why the work was done, sum up results and discuss methods)
• Works Cited or References
• Suggested Reading Page (optional)
• Tables and Figure Legends (if required)

Need more help with making an article review outline? Here is a basic sample outline that can serve as a template for your future review:

• Introduction
• Background information
• Article classification
• A brief summary 
• Paragraph 1: A strong point or insightful observation + analysis and critique + supporting evidence
• Paragraph 2: A strong point or insightful observation + analysis and critique + supporting evidence
• Paragraph 3: A drawback, gap, inconsistency, or another weak point + analysis and critique + supporting evidence
• Paragraph 4…
• Summary of all discussed points
• Critical evaluation of the author’s work

A Step-by-Step Guide to Article Review Writing

• Choose the Title

First, create a relevant title that goes in line with the core focus of your paper. Make sure it is clear and concise, but attention-grabbing.

• Cite the Article

Next, you will need to cite the article you are reviewing according to the required citation style.

Here is a sample citation in the MLA style:

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

• Article Identification

Following the citation, you need to provide the identification details of the article, such as:

• Name of the journal
• Year of publication

The article, “The World of Dreams,” was written by John Abraham and published in Virginia Quarterly in 1991.

• ‍ Make a Good Introduction

To create a great introduction, start with the basic info about the article and the thesis for your paper. Move on to a brief summary of the article and its main points. 

• Summarize the Article

Provide a more thorough summary of the article. Pay close attention to the key statements, ideas, theories, and findings offered by the author.

• Critique It

Make a critical assessment of the article. First, discuss the positive aspects of the work, explain what the author did well, and support your ideas with arguments. After the positive aspects, discuss what gaps, inconsistencies, and other drawbacks are present in the article.

• Write a Conclusion

Revisit all the points you’ve discussed in your review and shape a clear and logical conclusion.

You might be interested in reading the religion essay topics . Many of our readers find the article helpful.

The Last Stage: Proofreading and Editing

If you take a look at a truly well-written example of an article review, you will not find any typos or grammar mistakes there. Although the content of your review plays a big role in your success, the quality of the text is also vital.

Although many students still prefer to skip the post-writing process, they make a huge mistake here. If you don’t bother to proofread and edit your review, you risk getting a low grade just because you didn’t fix the errors. That would be a pity, right? That’s true, so here you have all the reasons to devote some more time and energy to revise your draft.

But how to proofread and edit your review effectively? Here are some key tips that should help:

• First of all, be sure to give yourself a few days to rest after you are done with writing. Often, when you start proofreading the text right after you finished it, you are too tired to notice all the mistakes that might be there. So, it is always a good idea to let it rest for a few days.
• One more tip is to read your review several times. As a rule, reading it only once is not enough to notice all the drawbacks.
• Focus on one type of mistake at a time. When revising your work for all types of mistakes at once, you will most likely miss something. But, if you focus on one specific type of mistake during each round of revision, you will be able to identify and eliminate all the errors.
• Use available tools. Finally, we encourage you to make use of the tools you have to simplify and speed up the process. There are many great tools for proofreading and editing that can come in handy. Don’t rely on them completely, but let them save you some time.

Checklist for Revision

Now that you have all the tips for effective proofreading, here is a checklist that will help you define whether you checked everything:

• Text structure
• Tone of voice
• Sentence structure
• Presentation
• Punctuation
• Referencing and citations

Writing an Article Review: 14 Dos and Don’ts

If you have never dealt with this type of assignment before, you are probably wondering how to write article review the right way and avoid common mistakes. We already told you about the main steps in writing and shared some handy article review examples to help you get started. But, we have even more tips in store and we are willing to share them with you.

In the list below, we’ve gathered some of the main tips on what you should and should not do when writing.

• Read the article several times to define its main idea and understand it fully.
• Take notes while you are reading.
• Focus on the impression the article makes.
• If there are any unknown terms, be sure to look them up before writing.
• Base your work on an analysis with insightful observations.
• Check at least one example to know what it should look like.
• Write in the third person and stick to the formal style.
• Make an emphasis on your introduction to engage the readers and make a strong thesis statement.
• Don’t think it is enough to read the article only once.
• Don’t neglect the importance of creating an outline.
• Don’t go with just any title, brainstorm ideas to find a title that is both concise and attention-grabbing.
• Don’t focus only on the positive or, on the contrary, only the negative sides of the article. Instead, make an all-rounded review that highlights both strong points and drawbacks.
• Don’t skip the proofreading and editing stage.
• Don’t be afraid to ask for help if you really need it.

The Bottom Line

If after reading all the guidelines, tips, and examples you are still not sure how to review an article, we’ve got something else for you! There is one more solution to your academic matters that always guarantees 100% success - it is turning for professional help to the team of PaperWriter.

PaperWriter is a professional article review writing service with a huge pool of top-rated writers. Here, students of all academic levels can get any kind of help they need. Whether you need mathematics homework help or any other assistance - PaperWriter has got you covered. Trust us to take care of your article review and we will make sure that you get the highest grade with literally no effort.

Top Research Topics for Students

How to Write a Nursing Essay: The Definitive Guide

How to Write a French Revolution Essay Guide

How to Write an Economics Essay: Key Steps for Writing

Best AI Essay Writer Tools

How to Write a Reflective Essay?

How to Write a Persuasive Essay that Spurs Action - Expert Tips

How to Write an Illustration Essay?

How to Write an Essay: Advice From Professionals

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Finding and Reading Journal Articles

• Journal Articles: Why You Use Them

Why are articles so important to research?

• Subject Databases: Organizing Research Conversations
• Databases We Recommend For You
• Sources in the Disciplines
• Reading in the Disciplines

Journal articles are the academic's stock in trade, t he basic means of communicating research findings to an audience of one’s peers. That holds true across the disciplinary spectrum, so no matter where you land as a concentrator, you can expect to rely on them heavily. 

Regardless of the discipline, moreover,  journal articles perform an important knowledge-updating function .

Textbooks and handbooks and manuals will have a secondary function for chemists and physicists and biologists, of course. But in the sciences, articles are the standard and  preferred publication form. 

In the social sciences and humanities , where knowledge develops a little less rapidly or is driven less by issues of time-sensitivity , journal articles and books are more often used together.

Not all important and influential ideas warrant book-length studies, and some inquiry is just better suited to the size and scope and concentrated discussion that the article format offers.

Journal articles sometimes just present the most  appropriate  solution for communicating findings or making a convincing argument.  A 20-page article may perfectly fit a researcher's needs.  Sustaining that argument for 200 pages might be unnecessary -- or impossible.

The quality of a research article and the legitimacy of its findings are verified by other scholars, prior to publication, through a rigorous evaluation method called peer-review . This seal of approval by other scholars doesn't mean that an article is the best, or truest, or last word on a topic. If that were the case, research on lots of things would cease. Peer review simply means other experts believe the methods, the evidence, the conclusions of an article have met important standards of legitimacy, reliability, and intellectual honesty.

Searching the journal literature is part of being a responsible researcher at any level: professor, grad student, concentrator, first-year. Knowing why academic articles matter will help you make good decisions about what you find -- and what you choose to rely on in your work.

Think of journal articles as the way you tap into the ongoing scholarly conversation , as a way of testing the currency of  a finding, analysis, or argumentative position, and a way of bolstering the authority (or plausibility) of explanations you'll offer in the papers and projects you'll complete at Harvard. 

• Next: Subject Databases: Organizing Research Conversations >>

Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

The Guide to Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• The Purpose of Literature Reviews
• Guidelines for Writing a Literature Review
• How to Organize a Literature Review?
• Software for Literature Reviews
• Using Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews
• How to Conduct a Literature Review?
• Common Mistakes and Pitfalls in a Literature Review
• Methods for Literature Reviews
• What is a Systematic Literature Review?
• What is a Narrative Literature Review?
• What is a Descriptive Literature Review?
• What is a Scoping Literature Review?
• What is a Realist Literature Review?
• What is a Critical Literature Review?
• Meta Analysis vs. Literature Review
• What is an Umbrella Literature Review?
• Differences Between Annotated Bibliographies and Literature Reviews
• Literature Review vs. Theoretical Framework
• How to Write a Literature Review?
• How to Structure a Literature Review?
• How to Make a Cover Page for a Literature Review?
• Importance of a literature review abstract

How to write a literature review abstract?

Key reminders when writing a literature review abstract.

• How to Write a Literature Review Introduction?
• How to Write the Body of a Literature Review?
• How to Write a Literature Review Conclusion?
• How to Make a Literature Review Bibliography?
• How to Format a Literature Review?
• How Long Should a Literature Review Be?
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• How to Present a Literature Review?
• How to Publish a Literature Review?

How to Write a Literature Review Abstract?

A well-crafted abstract is the initial point of contact between your research and its potential audience. It is crucial to present your work in the best possible light. A literature review abstract is a concise summary of the key points and findings of a literature review that is published as a full paper. It serves as a snapshot of the review, providing readers with a quick overview of the research topic, objectives, main findings, and implications.

Unlike the full literature review, the abstract does not delve into detailed analysis or discussion but highlights the most critical aspects. An abstract helps readers decide whether the full article is relevant to their interests and needs by encapsulating the essence of the literature review. A literature review abstract offers a condensed version of the study that helps researchers identify the review's relevance to their work. This is important in academic settings, where individuals often revise numerous journal articles and papers to find pertinent information. A clear and informative abstract saves time and effort.

Here are the steps we recommend when writing abstracts for literature reviews:

Introduce the research topic : Begin by stating the subject of your literature review. Explain its significance and relevance in your field. Provide context that highlights the broader impact and necessity of your review. For example, "This literature review focuses on the impact of climate change on coastal ecosystems and its significance in developing sustainable management strategies."

State objectives : Clearly outline the literature review's main objectives or purposes. Specify what you aim to achieve, such as identifying gaps in the literature, synthesizing existing research, or proposing new directions for future studies. For instance, "This review aims to identify key areas where climate change impacts coastal ecosystems and to propose future research directions."

Summarize key findings : Provide a concise summary of the data collection methods and results. Include primary findings, trends, or insights from your review. Highlight the most important conclusions and previous research contributions, and explain their implications for the field. An example might be, "The review reveals significant changes in species composition due to rising sea temperatures, suggesting the need for adaptive management strategies."

Use clear and concise language : Ensure your abstract covers the main points of your literature review, using straightforward language and avoiding complex terminology or jargon. Write in the third person to maintain objectivity, and structure your abstract logically to improve readability. For example, avoid first-person phrases like "I found that..." and use "The review indicates that..." Keep your abstract concise, typically between 150-250 words. Make it comprehensive, offering a clear view of the review’s scope and significance without overwhelming readers with too much detail. Conciseness is key in abstract writing, as it allows readers to quickly grasp the essence of your review without wading through unnecessary information.

Optimize search engines : Incorporate relevant search terms and phrases to enhance discoverability through search engines. Choose a descriptive title that includes key phrases from your literature review. This makes your work more likely to appear with the search results and makes it more accessible to potential readers. With the example above, a researcher may use keywords like "literature review," "climate change," and "coastal ecosystems" to attract the right audience.

Quality literature reviews start with ATLAS.ti

Make your literature reviews stronger, ATLAS.ti is there for you at every step. See how with a free trial.

When writing your abstract, double-check it covers the critical points of your literature review. This includes the research topic, significance, objectives, data extraction methods, main findings, and implications for additional research. Avoiding ambiguity and complex terminology makes your abstract accessible to a wider audience, including those who may not be specialists in your field. Here are some important tips to keep in mind when writing abstracts:

Avoid using complex terminology or scientific jargon that might confuse readers. A good abstract should be accessible to a broad range of potential readers, including researchers and policymakers.

Avoid using quotations in your abstract; paraphrase the information to maintain clarity and conciseness. Write in the third person to ensure your abstract remains professional and focused.

Choose a descriptive title for your article mentioning key phrases from your literature review. Optimize the title for search engines to enhance its visibility and shareability. A well-crafted title can significantly impact the reach and impact of your research. Incorporating keywords into your title improves search engine optimization (SEO) and attracts readers' attention, making your work more discoverable.

Focus on the most important information, avoiding unnecessary details. Ensure a logical flow of ideas with clear and active language. Each sentence should contribute to explaining your literature review's key points. A well-structured abstract guides readers through your review logically, making it easier to follow and understand. It also leads readers through your review smoothly.

Make sure that your abstract accurately reflects the content of your literature review. Use relevant keywords and phrases to ensure your abstract remains focused and pertinent to your research. Accuracy is vital to maintain the interest of your readers and to guide those who read the full review to find the information they expect.

Proofread your abstract carefully to check for grammatical and typographical errors. Ensure that it is well-structured, polished, and error-free.

A well-written literature review abstract is vital for the effective dissemination of your research. It serves as the first impression of your work which engages readers and provides a succinct overview of your study's significance and findings. You will create an abstract that attracts readers and reaches a broader audience by introducing your topic, stating your objectives, summarizing key findings, and using clear language. Writing clear abstracts enhances the visibility, accessibility, and impact of your literature reviews.

Develop powerful literature reviews with ATLAS.ti

Use our intuitive data analysis platform to make the most of your literature review.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Drag queens shine at Olympics opening, but ‘Last Supper’ tableau draws criticism

Controversial social media personality Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan held a demonstration near the French Embassy in Bucharest on Sunday. The pair were protesting the opening ceremony of the 2024 Paris Olympics, claiming the Last Supper parody during the ceremony “mocked Christianity”. (AP video shot by Nicolae Dumitrache)

Drag queen Piche prepares to perform, at the Debilly Bridge in Paris, during the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics, Friday, July 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi)

• Copy Link copied

Floriane Issert, a Gendarmerie non-commissioned officer of the National Gendarmerie, rides on a horse while leading volunteers carrying flags of Olympic teams on the Iena Bridge in Paris, France, during the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics, Friday, July 26, 2024. (Ludovic Marin/Pool Photo via AP)

Drag queens prepare to perform on the Debilly Bridge in Paris, during the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics, Friday, July 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi)

PARIS (AP) — In an unprecedented display of inclusivity, drag queens took center stage at the Paris Olympics opening ceremony, showcasing the vibrant and influential role of the French LGBTQ+ community — while also attracting criticism over a tableau reminiscent of “The Last Supper.”

Held along the Seine River, the spectacular four-hour event featured global stars such as Celine Dion and Lady Gaga, both considered queer icons. The ceremony blended historic and modern French culture with a touch of kitsch, culminating in a flotilla of barges carrying thousands of Olympians.

Nicky Doll, known for competing on the 12th season of “RuPaul’s Drag Race” and hosting “Drag Race France,” participated in a high-octane fashion runway segment along with “Drag Race France” Season 1 winner Paloma, Season 3’s Piche, and Giselle Palmer. Initially, they stood alongside the runway, gazing fiercely at the strutting models. Later, they joined in, showcasing their own style.

Le Filip, the recent winner of “Drag Race France,” expressed their positive “surprise” and “pride” at the ceremony’s scale and representation.

“I thought it would be a five-minute drag event with queer representation. I was amazed. It started with Lady Gaga, then we had drag queens, a huge rave, and a fire in the sky,” they said. “It felt like a crowning all over again. I am proud to see my friends and queer people on the world stage.”

Among their bold performances was a scene that seemed to evoke Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper,” featuring the drag queens and other performers in a configuration reminiscent of Jesus Christ and his apostles. This segment drew significant attention — and mixed reactions.

“The (French) government knows what it’s doing. They want to show themselves in the best way possible. They showed no restraints in expression,” Le Filip told The Associated Press.

On the other hand, prominent far-right politician Marion Maréchal denounced the performance on social media.

“To all the Christians of the world who are watching the Paris 2024 ceremony and felt insulted by this drag queen parody of the Last Supper, know that it is not France that is speaking but a left-wing minority ready for any provocation,” she posted on the social platform X, a sentiment that was echoed by religious conservatives internationally.

“... because decapitating Habsburgs and ridiculising central Christian events are really the FIRST two things that spring to mind when you think of #OlympicGames,” Eduard Habsburg, Hungary’s ambassador to the Vatican, posted on X, also referencing a scene depicting the beheading of Marie Antoinette.

Thomas Jolly, the artistic director of the opening ceremony, afterward drew attention away from “The Last Supper” references, saying that hadn’t been his intention.

Le Filip responded to the criticism of the scene with a touch of humor and sorrow.

“It feels like the words of somebody who didn’t get on the guest list. We could all be laughing together. It’s sad to me, honestly,” they said.

Inter-LGBT President James Leperlier was more circumspect, arguing that France still has significant strides to make in inclusivity.

“We know in the LGBTQ community in France we are far from what the ceremony showed. There’s much progress to do in society regarding transgender people. It’s terrible that to legally change their identity they are forced to be on trial,” Leperlier said.

He also highlighted the disparity in acceptance, saying that the community is not visible in other official ceremonies and “has difficulty being heard.”

“If you saw the opening ceremony last night you’d think it was like that normally, but it’s not. France tried to show what it should be and not what it is,” he said.

The opening ceremony came as drag and the voguing nightclub scene in France has experienced a revival. The cabaret club Madame Arthur, founded in 1946 in the ashes of World War II, is one of the world’s oldest continually running LGBTQ+ theaters. It opened as Europe was only just beginning to understand the extent of the widespread murder of members of the queer community in WWII and is currently experiencing a massive renaissance.

Drag is not just a pastime; for many minority French communities who feel alienated over tensions arising from divisive politics and scars from the anti-gay marriage protests a decade ago, it’s a statement of defiance. Many gay Black and Arab youths — especially those from Paris’ less affluent and religiously conservative suburbs — and others who feel a sense of disconnect with French society find voguing and drag events safe places where their identities can be expressed without fear of reprisal.

Despite the backlash, Le Filip believes the opening ceremony will ultimately transcend controversy.

“The message of the show is freedom, and it’s a good postcard for France,” they concluded.

Associated Press journalist John Leicester contributed reporting.

For more coverage of the Paris Olympics, visit https://apnews.com/hub/2024-paris-olympic-games .

Press Herald

Account Subscription: ACTIVE

Questions about your account? Our customer service team can be reached at [email protected] during business hours at (207) 791-6000 .

• Arts & Entertainment

At Circus Smirkus, coming to Maine on Aug. 5-6, kids entertain kids

The Vermont-based family circus will stage shows in Cumberland, Kennebunkport and Fryeburg.

You are able to gift 5 more articles this month.

Anyone can access the link you share with no account required. Learn more .

With a Press Herald subscription, you can gift 5 articles each month.

It looks like you do not have any active subscriptions. To get one, go to the subscriptions page .

Loading....

Sayad Moudachirou brought his daughters to see Circus Smirkus last year, figuring it would be a fun family thing to do.

It was. But he also left the show with a couple aspiring circus performers on his hands.

CIRCUS SMIRKUS

WHEN : 1 and 6 p.m. Aug. 5 and 6

WHERE : Cumberland Fairgrounds, Cumberland

HOW MUCH : $25 to $40

INFO : portlandovations.org

WHAT ELSE : Circus Smirkus will also be performing Aug. 8-9 in Kennebunkport and Aug. 11-13 in Fryeburg. For more info, go to smirkus.org.

“As soon as the show ended, they wanted to enroll in circus camp. They appreciated that all the performers are still kids, and that makes it so relatable,” said Moudachirou of Scarborough.

Circus Smirkus will be back in Maine for more than a dozen shows under the big top this summer. The Maine tour begins with four shows at Cumberland Fairgrounds on Aug. 5 and 6.  There will also be four shows at Rockin’ Horse Stables in in Kennebunkport on Aug. 8-9 and five shows at Fryeburg Fairgrounds on Aug. 11-13.

Moudachirou will be there with his daughters, Maya, 9 and Shoshana, 7. Both are interested in taking classes at their local neighborhood circus school, The Gym Dandies Circus School of Maine. Last year, when Moudachirou and his family saw Circus Smirkus, the show was at Payson Park in Portland. But this year, the presenter of the Portland-area shows, Portland Ovations, picked the Cumberland Fairgrounds to provide more parking and a better site for the giant tent, which holds 750 people.

Circus Smirkus features performers between 10 and 18 years old.   Photo by Justin Miel

Circus Smirkus is a traveling advertisement for the new generation of circuses, focused on young, skilled performers who take classes and study things like juggling, acrobatics or unicycling. The days when circuses were known largely for lion tamers and elephant riders are gone. Advertisement

Circus Smirkus was founded in 1987, as an arts and education organization, training performers, offering camps and classes, and putting on family shows. It’s based in Vermont.

The performers are between 10 and 18 years old, and this year’s tour theme is “The Imaginarium,” a magical toy shop that comes to life with performers taking the roles of tumbling teddy bears, high-flying marionettes or a jumpy Jack-in-the-Box.

One of the performers coming to Maine is Cora Williams, 18, of Ithaca, New York, in her third summer season with the circus. She took lessons at a circus school near her home, then studied at a circus school in Montreal.

Circus Smirkus, based in Vermont, is a circus for kids by kids. Photo by Justin Miel

She remembers seeing traditional circuses as a kid, including Ringling Bros. and Big Apple Circus. But when she first saw Circus Smirkus, she realized entertaining people under the big top was something she could do sooner, rather than later.

Williams said she loves the fact that when she does a show, she could be inspiring the next generation of circus performers.

“The nice thing is this is a show for kids by kids, but we don’t dumb it down. I love it when the kids (in the audience) come and talk to us,” said Williams. “We have lots of little kids who come up to us. That’s how I got into it. We teach them some tricks, and we get lots of hugs.” Advertisement

Williams says it took her three or four months to learn unicycle tricks. She can do spins and pirouettes and “wheel walking,” where it seems as if the cycle’s one wheel is walking, one step at a time. She’s also an acrobat, standing on others’ shoulders and being flipped and tossed through the air.

Because she’s 18, Williams is “graduating” from Smirkus. She’s excited to be part of a “new generation reimagining what circus is” without animals and without limits. She says that young performers go on to careers using their circus skills in a variety of places and fields, including with touring circuses, as part of cruise ship shows, or in companies that put on shows for businesses.

Circus Smirkus is coming to Maine this month. Photo by Justin Miel

Moudachirou said his is one of about five Scarborough families he knows that are going to the show this year. Some went last year, and some heard from others about how engaging the performances are for kids.

He said that, as a parent, he’s glad to see groups like Circus Smirkus and The Gym Dandies offering a fun activity and a chance to learn a skill, besides the traditional offerings of sports or music lessons for kids. He also thinks that from what he’s seen so far at Circus Smirkus, the performers learn more than just juggling or acrobatics.

“For me, as a parent, it was great to see the performers taking ownership of what they were doing. It goes beyond performing; it’s almost about leadership,” Moudachirou said of the show he saw last year. “They were going into the crowd and talking to people, sharing their excitement.”

Modify your screen name

Join the Conversation

Please sign into your Press Herald account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe . Questions? Please see our FAQs .

Your commenting screen name has been updated.

Send questions/comments to the editors.

« Previous

Members of Talking Heads, Styx and Foreigner all perform in Maine this week

Next »

My Perfect Day: Baked goods and lobster rolls are must-haves for Portland Chamber Music Festival director

Woman killed, 3 injured in Portland shooting. Police scant on details.

Yard south developer files for rezoning of south portland waterfront property, why do police keep information close to the chest after shootings, town of mechanic falls mourns, seeks answers after 3 found dead over weekend, julia gagnon’s birth mother, who helped inspire her ‘american idol’ journey, has died, member log in.

Please enter your username and password below. Already a subscriber but don't have one? Click here .

Not a subscriber? Click here to see your options