- Search current calls for papers
- Try the Taylor & Francis Journal Suggester
We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy . By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
- How to publish your research
- Writing your paper
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
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
- 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: Tips and Examples
An article review format allows scholars or students to analyze and evaluate the work of other experts in a given field. Outside of the education system, experts often review the work of their peers for clarity, originality, and contribution to the discipline of study.
When answering the questions of what is an article review and how to write one, you must understand the depth of analysis and evaluation that your instructor is seeking.
What Is an Article Review
That is a type of professional paper writing which demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.
If you write a scientific review, you have to use database searches to portray the research. Your primary goal is to summarize everything and present a clear understanding of the topic you’ve been working on.
Writing Involves:
- Summarization, classification, analysis, critiques, and comparison.
- The analysis, evaluation, and comparison require use theories, ideas, and research, relevant to the subject area of the article.
- It is also worth nothing if a review does not introduce new information, but instead presents a response to another writer’s work.
- Check out other samples to gain a better understanding of how to review the article.
Types of Review
There are few types of article reviews.
Journal Article Review
Much like all other reviews, a journal article review evaluates strengths and weaknesses of a publication. A qualified paper writer must provide the reader with an analysis and interpretation that demonstrates the article’s value.
Research Article Review
It differs from a journal article review by the way that it evaluates the research method used and holds that information in retrospect to analysis and critique.
Science Article Review
Scientific article review involves anything in the realm of science. Often, scientific publications include more information on the background that you can use to analyze the publication more comprehensively.
Need an Article Review Written?
Just send us the requirements to your paper and watch one of our writers crafting an original paper for you.
Formatting an Article Review
The format of the article should always adhere to the citation style required by your professor. If you’re not sure, seek clarification on the preferred format and ask him to clarify several other pointers to complete the formatting of an article review adequately.
How Many Publications Should You Review?
- In what format you should cite your articles (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)?
- What length should your review be?
- Should you include a summary, critique, or personal opinion in your assignment?
- Do you need to call attention to a theme or central idea within the articles?
- Does your instructor require background information?
When you know the answers to these questions, you may start writing your assignment. Below are examples of MLA and APA formats, as those are the two most common citation styles.
Using the APA Format
Articles appear most commonly in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. If you write an article review in the APA format, you will need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use:
- Web : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
- Journal : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
- Newspaper : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.
Using MLA Format
- Web : Last, First Middle Initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
- Newspaper : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print.
- Journal : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
The Pre-Writing Process
Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you being unsure where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages to get you started:
Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow:
- Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
- Define the positive points — identify the strong aspects, ideas, and insightful observations the author has made.
- Find the gaps —- determine whether or not the author has any contradictions, gaps, or inconsistencies in the article and evaluate whether or not he or she used a sufficient amount of arguments and information to support his or her ideas.
- Identify unanswered questions — finally, identify if there are any questions left unanswered after reading the piece.
Step 2: Move on and review the article. Here is a small and simple guide to help you do it right:
- Start off by looking at and assessing the title of the piece, its abstract, introductory part, headings and subheadings, opening sentences in its paragraphs, and its conclusion.
- First, read only the beginning and the ending of the piece (introduction and conclusion). These are the parts where authors include all of their key arguments and points. Therefore, if you start with reading these parts, it will give you a good sense of the author’s main points.
- Finally, read the article fully.
These three steps make up most of the prewriting process. After you are done with them, you can move on to writing your own review—and we are going to guide you through the writing process as well.
Organization in an assignment like this is of utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you could outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts more coherently.
Outline and Template
As you progress with reading your article, organize your thoughts into coherent sections in an outline. As you read, jot down important facts, contributions, or contradictions. Identify the shortcomings and strengths of your publication. Begin to map your outline accordingly.
If your professor does not want a summary section or a personal critique section, then you must alleviate those parts from your writing. Much like other assignments, an article review must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Thus you might consider dividing your outline according to these sections as well as subheadings within the body. If you find yourself troubled with the prewriting and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.
Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:
- Pre-title page : here, you will want to list the type of the article that you are reviewing, the title of the publication, all the authors who contributed to it, author’s affiliations (position, department, institute, city, state, country, email ID)
- Optional corresponding author details : name, address, phone number, email, and fax number.
- Running head : Only in the APA format. It is the title of your paper shortened to less than 40 characters.
- Summary page : Optional, depending on the demands of your instructor. The summary should be maximum 800 words long. Use non-technical and straightforward language. Do not repeat text verbatim or give references in this section. Give 1) relevant background 2) explain why the work was done 3) summarize results and explain the method.
- Title page : full title, 250-word abstract followed by “Keywords:” and 4-6 keywords.
- Introduction
- Body : Include headings and subheadings
- Works Cited/References
- Optional Suggested Reading Page
- Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor.)
Do you need some help with your article review?
Count on the support of our essay writing service
Steps for Writing an Article Review
Here is a guide with critique paper format from our research paper writing service on how to write a review paper:
Step 1: Write the Title.
First of all, you need to write a title that reflects the main focus of your work. Respectively, the title can be either interrogative, descriptive, or declarative.
Step 2: Cite the Article.
Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper. For example, an article citation in the MLA style should look as follows:
Author’s last and first name. “The title of the article.” Journal’s title and issue(publication date): page(s). Print
Example: Abraham John. “The World of Dreams.” Virginia Quarterly 60.2(1991): 125-67. Print.
Step 3: Article Identification.
After your citation, you need to include the identification of your reviewed article:
- Title of the article
- Title of the journal
- Year of publication
All of this information should be included in the first paragraph of your paper.
Example: The report, “Poverty increases school drop-outs,” was written by Brian Faith – a Health officer – in 2000.
Step 4: Introduction.
Your organization in an assignment like this is of the utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you should outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts coherently.
- If you are wondering how to start an article review, begin with an introduction that mentions the article and your thesis for the review.
- Follow up with a summary of the main points of the article.
- Highlight the positive aspects and facts presented in the publication.
- Critique the publication through identifying gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions.
Step 5: Summarize the Article.
Make a summary of the article by revisiting what the author has written about. Note any relevant facts and findings from the article. Include the author's conclusions in this section.
Step 6: Critique It.
Present the strengths and weaknesses you have found in the publication. Highlight the knowledge that the author has contributed to the field. Also, write about any gaps and/or contradictions you have found in the article. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge. Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article.
Step 7: Craft a Conclusion.
In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study. Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:
- As you read the article, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they used to support that argument.
- While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point. This is best done using direct quotations.
- Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly. Take time to analyze the article adequately.
- Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation, use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article.
- Re-read your piece a day after you finish writing it. This will help you to spot grammar mistakes and to notice any flaws in your organization.
- Use a spell-checker and get a second opinion on your paper.
The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work
Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.
To proofread your paper properly, start with reading it fully and by checking the following points:
- Punctuation
- Other mistakes
Next, identify whether or not there is any unnecessary data in the paper and remove it. Lastly, check the points you discussed in your work; make sure you discuss at least 3-4 key points. In case you need to proofread, rewrite an essay or buy essay , our dissertation services are always here for you.
Example of an Article Review
Why have we devoted an entire section of this article to talk about an article review sample, you may wonder? Not all of you may recognize it, but in fact, looking through several solid examples of review articles is actually an essential step for your writing process, and we will tell you why.
Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:
- To get you introduced to the key works of experts in your field.
- To help you identify the key people engaged in a particular field of science.
- To help you define what significant discoveries and advances were made in your field.
- To help you unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of your field—which contributes to finding fresh solutions.
- To help you find solid references and arguments for your own review.
- To help you generate some ideas about any further field of research.
- To help you gain a better understanding of the area and become an expert in this specific field.
- To get a clear idea of how to write a good review.
As you can see, reading through a few samples can be extremely beneficial for you. Therefore, the best way to learn how to write this kind of paper is to look for an article review example online that matches your grade level.
View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!
Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?
Need a Hand From Professionals?
Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!
Related Articles
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
- View all journals
- Explore content
- About the journal
- Publish with us
- Sign up for alerts
- CAREER FEATURE
- 04 December 2020
- Correction 09 December 2020
How to write a superb literature review
Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 per month
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x
Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.
Updates & Corrections
Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.
Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).
Article Google Scholar
Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).
Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).
Download references
Related Articles
- Research management
Why science needs a protein emoji
Career Q&A 06 MAR 23
Chemistry course corrections tackle bias
Career Feature 06 MAR 23
These tools help visually impaired scientists read data and journals
Technology Feature 06 MAR 23
Fed up and burnt out: ‘quiet quitting’ hits academia
Career Feature 03 MAR 23
Light Curves and Colors of the Ejecta from Dimorphos after the DART Impact
Article 01 MAR 23
Visas: speed up processing to boost inclusivity
Correspondence 28 FEB 23
Bright pink ocean and rare wildflower super bloom — February’s best science images
News 01 MAR 23
OpenAI — explain why some countries are excluded from ChatGPT
Research Scientist - Chemistry Research & Innovation
MRC National Institute for Medical Research
Harwell Campus, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
POST-DOC POSITIONS IN THE FIELD OF “Automated Miniaturized Chemistry” supervised by Prof. Alexander Dömling
Palacky University (PU)
Olomouc, Czech Republic
Ph.D. POSITIONS IN THE FIELD OF “Automated miniaturized chemistry” supervised by Prof. Alexander Dömling
Czech advanced technology and research institute opens a senior researcher position in the field of “automated miniaturized chemistry” supervised by prof. alexander dömling.
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
Quick links
- Explore articles by subject
- Guide to authors
- Editorial policies
- Cancer Cell
- Cell Chemical Biology
- Cell Host & Microbe
- Cell Metabolism
- Cell Reports
- Cell Stem Cell
- Cell Systems
- Current Biology
- Developmental Cell
- Molecular Cell
- Biochemical Sciences
- Biotechnology
- Cell Biology
- Cognitive Sciences
- Ecology & Evolution
- Endocrinology & Metabolism
- Microbiology
- Molecular Medicine
- Neurosciences
- Parisitology
- Pharmacological Sciences
- Plant Science
- Biophysical Journal
- EBioMedicine
- Molecular Plant
- Molecular Therapy Family
- Stem Cell Reports
- Get Inspired
- Get Techncal
- Get Published
- Cell Mentor China
- And They're Scientists, Too
- Biology in 3D
- Careers Under the Microscope
- Cell Insider
- Emilie, Can I Ask You?
- Random Walk
- The Female Scientist
- The Scientific Communicator
- Cell Symposia
- Cell Press Reviews
- China Gateway
- Snapshot Archive
- Cell Picture Show
- Cell Press Podcast
- Cell Press Videos
- Cell Career Network
- CrossTalk Blog
- Cell Selections
- Spotlight on China
- Trends: Limited Edition
- Chemistry & Biology
- Parasitology
- For Advertisers
- For Librarians
- For Recruiters
How to get started writing a review article
So you've been invited to write a review article.
Congratulations! Some editor, somewhere, thinks you're the best person for the job, with the right expertise and something interesting to say. Maybe you've done your homework and read our advice for writing a review article that people will read , or perhaps you've watched our webinar " An editor’s guide to writing a review article " and read our answers to the audience’s questions . You've thought through the arguments that you want to make, and your favorite citation manager is full of the latest research on the topic.
Settling down to business and putting words on a page—taking that invitation from an editor and making it your own or fleshing out your proposal into a real article—can be intimidating. But we're here to help: I've asked the Trends editors, and a few other reviews editors from around Cell Press, to share their best tips to go from a blinking cursor on a blank page to a real manuscript.
Understand your audience
Even before you start writing, make sure you have a good sense of who is going to read the article. It may sound like an obvious point, but keeping a consistent tone throughout the manuscript is going to save you a lot of time in revision. Is this a tutorial review, aimed toward people who are totally new to the field? You'll want to include lots of context and define terms that may seem obvious to you. A historical perspective? Don't be afraid to dig far back in the literature to the seminal publications. A digest or highlight piece? Worry less about assembling every single paper on the topic and focus more on what the most interesting handful of results say right now.
Pengfei Kong, editor of Trends in Parasitology , suggests thinking about the scope of the review as a function of the expertise of the audience: if it's meant for readers actively engaged in a specific field, then you can go deeper, whereas if you want it to be more accessible to a general audience, you should go wider. Former Cell Stem Cell reviews editor Anh Nguyen also advises you to "make sure your article has the type of breadth and depth that the journal typically publishes."
Understand what the journal wants
Most journals, including the Trends journals, have a dense array of author guidelines that provide instructions on everything from how to format a glossary (put each term in bold the first time it appears in the main text) to how long an abstract can be (strictly no more than 120 words for longer formats and 50 words for shorter formats) to how to prepare print-quality figures (300 dpi, .tif format preferred). These items are important and may delay or preclude publication if they're not followed, but they're things that can be addressed as you're polishing a manuscript for submission.
Before you start writing, though, get a general sense of what the journal expects from you. In particular, Trends in Pharmacological Sciences editor Kushi Mukherjee emphasizes how understanding the journal's length requirements before you start writing can prevent significant frustration later on. Trends journals advise submitting Review articles between 3,000 and 3,500 words on initial submission. If you keep this goal in mind from the beginning and end up a few hundred words long or short, then it's relatively straightforward to cut or add to reach the appropriate length. But if you choose to ignore the instruction and end up with a 9,000-word albatross, then you'll have to discard 60% of your effort, in many cases before the journal will even send your manuscript out for review.
Figure out what you want to say
Danielle Loughlin, editor of Trends in Cell Biology , puts it well: "First, define the overall goal of the manuscript. What do you want to convey to the reader? What are the major points that you want to make?" Claudia Willmes from Trends in Molecular Medicine agrees: "Start with the motivation for why you're writing this review and make sure this is your running thread." Claudia explains this by encouraging authors to think back to where the idea for the review came from in the first place. For instance, if an editor invited you to write after listening to you give a talk, then it makes sense to write the review with a similar take-home message to the talk.
After you've decided what to convey to the reader, Anh reminds you to "make sure you are aware of other reviews in this area over the past few years to ensure yours offers a unique angle on the topic." It's worth re-examining the literature once you have a good sense of audience, journal requirements, and scope just to make sure that you're not inadvertently writing the same article that someone else published a few months ago.
Make an outline
This is the single most common piece of advice I got. Claudia says, "plan a structure to see what are the core topics that need to be addressed in dedicated sections," while Danielle's advice is to "create an outline, bullet point major areas or publications," and Kushi's is to "write out an outline of main subtopics that the article will cover." Trends in Cognitive Sciences editor Lindsey Drayton and I also covered the importance of the outline in our webinar on writing reviews , and you may have even created an outline if you proposed the review to the editor.
Nearly every editor who shared their thoughts brought up outlining in some capacity, so take heed. An outline doesn't have to be a hierarchical list of bullet points, though it certainly can be if that's what will help you organize. You might also consider a mind map or other diagram or simple clusters of publications that are related to each other. To structure smaller sections or single paragraphs, Trends in Microbiology editor Gail Teitzel (inspired by her 9-year-old son's homework) suggests that food-themed graphical organizers can be surprisingly useful for adult writers too.
Why outline? As Lindsey talked about in the webinar, the outline helps you understand the relationship between the different parts of the review and to elevate your review from a collection of results into a compelling narrative. Understanding which publications you want to cite in which section, or which elements of your argument you want to advance in which order, before you begin writing will let you focus on how to tell the most interesting story possible. Outlining beforehand will also help you to spot structural weaknesses in the manuscript before they become problems: if what you thought could be a main section only ends up with one paragraph's worth of content, you might consider reorganizing to bolster the section or move that paragraph elsewhere.
Think about figures
"Even if the actual design of the figures is left to a later stage," advises Moran Furman, editor of Trends in Neurosciences, "I think it can be helpful to start thinking about the figures from the outset." Anh agrees: "It's helpful to devise figures conceptually early on because schematics can be worth a thousand words and help you focus your text." Moran also advises against what we around the Cell Press office have taken to calling "Frankenfigures": "figures that tend to work well in Review or Opinion articles are ones that summarize findings or highlight new ideas, rather than just reproduce primary source data."
Start with the introductory section
Just as with research articles, there is no one correct place to begin writing, but the introduction came up frequently as a reasonable place to start. Consider the right level of specificity, again keeping your audience in mind: if you're writing a review of algal biofuels for a biomolecular engineering audience, you probably don't need to motivate the entire concept of biofuels.
There are three critical elements of introductory sections that I encourage every Trends in Biotechnology author to include: a basic scientific overview (for a biotechnology journal, this should encompass both the biological system being exploited as a technology and the practical problem that technology is intended to solve), the unique selling point of the review, and a preview of the specific content of the review.
Most authors do well with the scientific overview and the preview of the article. But the unique selling point often takes a little more encouragement. As an author, this should be the most exciting part: this is your chance to tell the world why it should be interested in what you have to say. If you can express this in a succinct and compelling manner, while also explaining how your review advances the conversation beyond any other reviews that may have been published on the topic, then you are putting yourself in a position to succeed as you compose the rest of the manuscript.
Engage co-authors, editors, and colleagues early and often
Finally, as we have explained before, never submit the first draft of your manuscript. Instead, read it again and expect to make significant revisions even before you submit: make sure that all of the sections feel like they're part of the same coherent work, terms are used consistently, and the level of scientific detail doesn't vary significantly from one paragraph to the next.
You're not writing a review in a vacuum. Often, you'll be writing in collaboration with co-authors, who should ideally be involved with every stage of writing, but especially when they’re contributing specific technical expertise. If you're writing for Trends, you're working with an editor whose job it is to help you write the best review possible. And you almost certainly have colleagues who are educated and interested in science yet not subject-matter experts in the precise topic of the review. Use these resources to make sure that the article you’ve started writing captures the most recent and exciting literature, conforms to the journal’s specifications, and is comprehensible to a wide audience.
As Cell Leading Edge Editor (and former editor of Trends in Biochemical Sciences ) Nicole Neuman rightly points out, writing a review is much different from editing one, so we would love to hear additional suggestions from our authors: how do you embark on the review-writing process?
Posted by Matt Pavlovich Matt is the editor of Trends in Biotechnology , Cell Press's home for reviews in the applied biological sciences. His background is not so secretly in engineering rather than biology, but he hopes you won't hold that against him. He can often be found crafting and enjoying fine beverages (which is definitely biotechnology) and blogging about strategy game design (which is surprisingly similar to managing a reviews journal).
Filed to Reviews , Cell Stem Cell , Trends in Cognitive Sciences , Trends in Molecular Medicine , Trends in Neurosciences , Cell , Trends in Biotechnology , Trends in Cell Biology , Trends in Parasitology , Trends in Pharmacological Sciences , Get published , Cell Mentor
About Cell Mentor
Cell Mentor—an online resource from Cell Press and Cell Signaling Technology—empowers early-career researchers with career insights, publishing advice, and techniques on experimental processes and procedures. Now it’s even easier to tap into the knowledge and experience of experts who’ve walked in your shoes.
Subscribe to Cell Mentor
Browse cell mentor by topic and type.
- Get Technical
Contact Cell Mentor
Explore cell mentor:, stay connected:.
Research Journals
- Cell Genomics
- Cell Reports Medicine
- Cell Reports Methods
- Chem Catalysis
- STAR Protocols
Trends Reviews Journals
Partner journals.
- HGG Advances
- Plant Communications
- The Innovation
Collections
- Best of Cell Press
- Cell Press Selections
- Consortia Hub
- Nucleus Collections
- SnapShot Archive
- Trends Limited Editions
EVOLVING THE ARTICLE
- STAR Methods
- Read-It-Now
- Recommend to Librarian
Information
- Terms & Conditions
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
BEYOND THE JOURNAL
- Cell Mentor
Science in Society
- Coloring and Comics
- Research Arc
- About Cell Press
- Help & Support
- Publication Alerts
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties
- Research Process
Writing a good review article
- 3 minute read
Table of Contents
As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.
Types of review articles
Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.
A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more.
A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings.
Tips for writing a good review article
Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:
- Define your question: Take your time to identify the research question and carefully articulate the topic of your review paper. A good review should also add something new to the field in terms of a hypothesis, inference, or conclusion. A carefully defined scientific question will give you more clarity in determining the novelty of your inferences.
- Identify credible sources: Identify relevant as well as credible studies that you can base your review on, with the help of multiple databases or search engines. It is also a good idea to conduct another search once you have finished your article to avoid missing relevant studies published during the course of your writing.
- Take notes: A literature search involves extensive reading, which can make it difficult to recall relevant information subsequently. Therefore, make notes while conducting the literature search and note down the source references. This will ensure that you have sufficient information to start with when you finally get to writing.
- Describe the title, abstract, and introduction: A good starting point to begin structuring your review is by drafting the title, abstract, and introduction. Explicitly writing down what your review aims to address in the field will help shape the rest of your article.
- Be unbiased and critical: Evaluate every piece of evidence in a critical but unbiased manner. This will help you present a proper assessment and a critical discussion in your article.
- Include a good summary: End by stating the take-home message and identify the limitations of existing studies that need to be addressed through future studies.
- Ask for feedback: Ask a colleague to provide feedback on both the content and the language or tone of your article before you submit it.
- Check your journal’s guidelines: Some journals only publish reviews, while some only publish research articles. Further, all journals clearly indicate their aims and scope. Therefore, make sure to check the appropriateness of a journal before submitting your article.
Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!
- Manuscript Preparation
What are Implications in Research?
How to write the results section of a research paper
You may also like.
Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers
Navigating the Reproducibility Crisis: A Guide to Analytical Method Validation
Why is data validation important in research?
Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?
Research Designs: Types and Differences
The Top 5 Qualities of Every Good Researcher
What do reviewers look for in a grant proposal?
Informed Consent – Making Research Conscientious
Input your search keywords and press Enter.
Get Started
Take the first step and invest in your future.
Online Programs
Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.
Prairie Stars
Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.
Find your Fit
UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.
Arts & Culture
Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.
Give Like a Star
Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.
Bragging Rights
UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.
- Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Registration Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance
Request Info
- United in Safety
- Vaccine Information
- COVID-19 Testing Information
- United in Safety News
- Our Approach to Safety
- COVID-19 FAQ
- U of I System Vaccination Guidelines
- Weekly COVID Briefings
How to Review a Journal Article
- Request Info Request info for.... Undergraduate/Graduate Online Study Away Continuing & Professional Education International Student Services General Inquiries
For many kinds of assignments, like a literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your qualified opinion and evaluation of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple summary of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.
IMPORTANT NOTE!!
Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.
Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes, annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.
Questions to Consider
To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.
Evaluating Purpose and Argument
- How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
- How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
- How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
- How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
- How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?
Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information
- How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
- Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
- How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
- What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
- How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
- How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?
Evaluating Methods
- How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
- How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
- Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?
Evaluating Data
- Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
- Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
- How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
- What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?
Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.
Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an annotated bibliography .
In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.
The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.
This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.
Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.
Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.
Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.
Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.
The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.
This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.
This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.
- EXPLORE Coupons Tech Help Pro Random Article About Us Quizzes Contribute Train Your Brain Game Improve Your English Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
- HELP US Support wikiHow Community Dashboard Write an Article Request a New Article More Ideas...
- EDIT Edit this Article
- PRO Courses New Tech Help Pro New Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Coupons Quizzes Upgrade Sign In
- Browse Articles
- Quizzes New
- Train Your Brain New
- Improve Your English New
- Support wikiHow
- About wikiHow
- Easy Ways to Help
- Approve Questions
- Fix Spelling
- More Things to Try...
- H&M Coupons
- Hotwire Promo Codes
- StubHub Discount Codes
- Ashley Furniture Coupons
- Blue Nile Promo Codes
- NordVPN Coupons
- Samsung Promo Codes
- Chewy Promo Codes
- Ulta Coupons
- Vistaprint Promo Codes
- Shutterfly Promo Codes
- DoorDash Promo Codes
- Office Depot Coupons
- adidas Promo Codes
- Home Depot Coupons
- DSW Coupons
- Bed Bath and Beyond Coupons
- Lowe's Coupons
- Surfshark Coupons
- Nordstrom Coupons
- Walmart Promo Codes
- Dick's Sporting Goods Coupons
- Fanatics Coupons
- Edible Arrangements Coupons
- eBay Coupons
- Log in / Sign up
- Education and Communications
- Critical Reviews
How to Write an Article Review
Last Updated: January 31, 2023 References Approved
This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. This article received 83 testimonials and 91% of readers who voted found it helpful, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 2,896,270 times.
An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.
Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."
Things You Should Know
- Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
- Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
- Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.
Preparing to Write Your Review
- Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
- An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
- An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.
- Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
- Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
- Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.
- Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
- Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.
- Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.
- With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
- After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course. [7] X Research source
- Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.
- What does the article set out to do?
- What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
- Are the central concepts clearly defined?
- How adequate is the evidence?
- How does the article fit into the literature and field?
- Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
- How clear is the author's writing? [8] X Research source Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.
Writing the Article Review
- For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print.
- For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.
- Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review. [12] X Research source
- End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom. [13] X Research source www.richard.jewell.net/WforC/WRITEREAD/CritReview/samples.htm
- Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
- Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.
- Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
- The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense. [15] X Research source
- Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article. [16] X Research source
- Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.
- This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
- For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility. [17] X Research source www.richard.jewell.net/WforC/WRITEREAD/CritReview/samples.htm
- Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article. [18] X Research source
Sample Article Reviews
Expert Q&A
You Might Also Like
- ↑ https://academicskills.anu.edu.au/node/492
- ↑ http://www.history.vt.edu/undergraduate/article_review.htm
- ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
- ↑ http://blog.efpsa.org/2012/09/01/how-to-write-a-good-title-for-journal-articles/
- ↑ www.richard.jewell.net/WforC/WRITEREAD/CritReview/samples.htm
About This Article
If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No
- Send fan mail to authors
Reader Success Stories
Prince Asiedu-Gyan
Apr 22, 2022
Did this article help you?
Sammy James
Sep 12, 2017
Juabin Matey
Aug 30, 2017
Sidelil Junior
A'Myria Bennett
Sep 24, 2022
Featured Articles
Trending Articles
Watch Articles
- Terms of Use
- Privacy Policy
- Do Not Sell or Share My Info
- Not Selling Info
Get all the best how-tos!
Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy
- A Research Guide
- Writing Guide
- Article Writing
- How To Write an Article Review - Tips and Explanation
How To Write an Article Review – Tips and Explanation
In this guide you will find out:
- What is an article review
- Article review format
- How to write a good article review
What is an article review?
An article review is a piece of writing where you summarize and assess another person’s article. It entails a logical evaluation of the central theme of the article, supporting arguments and implications for further research. It is essential to understand the main points and arguments of the article for accuracy during summation.
A review may either be a critical review or a literature review. A critical analysis is a type of text dealing with a particular article or book in detail while a literature review is a broader kind of document. An article review is both an evaluation and summary of another writer’s article, and it has a specific format and guidelines to write.
An article review is essential because:
- It corrects vague terms. In writing of your article, there may be instances of usage of inappropriate words or unclear statements. It helps the writer to decide on whether to change the terms.
- It helps to clarify questions.
- It allows the author to see other people’s views and perspectives on the raised issues. After reading the review, the author can get out of personal biases.
- It allows you to improve your grammar and also facilitate conscience writing.
- It encourages the author to perform better the next time since the review provides suggestions or criticism of the article.
Article review format – how to apply it correctly
- Abstract: It should contain approximately 200 to 300 words. It includes a summary of the review question, the primary study reviewed and conclusions of the study. Note that you should not cite references in the abstract.
- Introduction: Write the topic of the study, which serves as the identification sentence. It should indicate what the article contains. Clearly outline the order in which every sub-topic will be discussed to give the reader background information needed to understand the sections in the article.
- Body: This includes the subtopics that you are addressing.
- Conclusion: It should briefly state your rationale for your review and the purpose of the article.
- Literature cited: Use a standardized reference system. Use MLA style.
Benefits of looking through article review examples
It is important to read on article review samples as this helps learners of a particular field to get introduced to the work of experts in that specific field. The article reviews examples help in different ways such as:
- To identify recent and significant advances and discoveries in a particular field of study.
- To determine the main people working in a specific field.
- To help identify essential gaps in research to find solutions.
- They are used in current debates for references
- They are good for generating ideas about next field of research
- They also help the learner to become an expert in a particular area of study.
Check out our full review: read about best essay writing service review more
How to write a good article review?
For an excellent article review, one should first prepare then write the review.
Preparation includes the following steps:
- Step 1: Understanding what the article review is.
You should be aware that the audience of the review has knowledge on the subject matter and is not just a general audience.
You need to summarize the main ideas of the article, arguments, positions, and findings. Also, critique the contributions of the material and overall effectiveness of the field. Note that,
- The review only responds to the research of the author and does not involve new research.
- It evaluates and summarizes the article.
- Step 2: Identify the organization of the review.
You need to know the setup of your article review to understand how to read the article. Following these steps will help you in writing a useful review:
- Summarize the article.
It includes essential points, claims and information in the article.
- Discuss the positive aspects.
It entails the author’s good points and insight observations
- Identify the gaps, contradictions, and inconsistencies in the article done by the author. Also, identify if there is enough research or data to support the claims of the author.
Look for unanswered questions in the article.
- Step 3: Preview the article.
Look at the title of the article, abstract, introduction, headings, opening sentences of paragraphs and conclusion.
Read the first few paragraphs and conclusion to note the author’s main points and arguments.
Read the article entirely.
- Step 4: Read the article carefully.
Read it several times making notes on essential sections. Just highlight central points and the supporting facts. You should write notes and state cross-references on the essential points.
- Step 5: Put the article in your own words.
Ensure you write all the essential points accurately in a clear and logical manner.
Review your summary to remove unnecessary items.
- Step 6: Create your evaluation outline.
After reviewing the summary outline, identify the significant aspects such as instances of effective writing, contributions to the field and areas which are to be improved in the article. Also, indicate strengths and weaknesses. For instance, an advantage may be the way the author presents an issue while a gap may be that the article does not offer solutions to a problem or lacks enough information on a particular subject.
Make sure that you use specific references and examples.
Read also: How do you write an evaluation essay ?
After the preparation, you can finally write the review, and it includes the following steps:
Step 1: Write the title.
A title can either be a descriptive one, a declarative or an interrogative one. It depends on the focus of your review.
Step 2: Cite the article.
Write the citation of the article in a proper style just after the title of your review. For instance, in MLA citation, your example will look like this: Abraham John. “The World of Dreams.” Virginia Quarterly 60.2(1991): 125-67. Print.
Step 3: Article identification. Write it by stating:
- Title of the article
- Author of the article
- Title of the journal
- Year of publication
Write this in the first paragraph.
An example will look like this: The report, “Poverty increases school drop-outs,” was written by Brian Faith, a Health officer. 2000.
Step 4: Write the introduction.
It starts with the identification sentence. The introduction of the article review also entails the central themes of the article. You should include the author’s claims and arguments, too.
Things to note when writing an introduction:
- You may need to determine the thesis yourself since it may not be evident in the article and sometimes the argument has multiple choices.
- You should not write the statements in the first person (“I”)
- Overall impression of the article should be written using the third person (“he” or “she”), and it should have the formal academic style.
- The introduction should only take 10% to 25% of your whole review.
- It should end with your thesis which must address the above issues. For instance, an example of the argument should look like this:
Although there are good points in the article, it contains misinterpretation of data and bias from others authors’ analysis on the causes of school drop-outs.
Step 5: W rite the summary of the article.
Write the main points, arguments, and findings in your own words. Also, show how the article supports its claims and write the conclusion.
Things to note in writing the summary:
- Write in several paragraphs, the length depending on the publisher’s or instructor’s requirements.
- Include specific examples, statistics or background information familiar to the experts of the particular field you are focusing on.
- Make sure to write the main points of every section.
- Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
- For accuracy, reread your summary several times correcting every mistake.
Step 6: Write the critique.
Write how well the author addressed the topic using your opinions.
Also, write your opinion on how thorough and useful the explanation of the subject you found in the article is. Indicate the contributions and the importance of the article to the field. Write arguments and central points in the article. Also, write if the points of the author assisted in the argument. Indicate if there are any biases. Specify whether you agree with the writer and if yes, give reasons why you support him/her and if no also give cause for your decision. Indicate the type of audience that would benefit from reading the article.
Step 7: Write the conclusion of the article review.
Summarize the main points in a paragraph. Write your opinions about the clarity, accuracy, and significance of the article in this paragraph. You can also comment on the implications if relevant. It can be helpful for further research. Note that the conclusion should only be 10% of your overall essay. The conclusion is a short summary of all your research. If you are writing an essay about online gambling it can contain information on how to find 10 deposit bonus casino offers.
Step 8: Proofread your work.
Reread your article review to check on grammar, mechanics and any mistakes and then correct them where possible. Remove any unnecessary information. Note that for a good review, you should identify and discuss 3-4 critical issues in the article.
With this guide you are sure to come up with the best article review. However, if you still have any doubts about writing article review yourself, don’t hesitate and reach out for academic guidance:
Get Writing Help
By clicking "Log In", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.
Sign Up for your FREE account
Diana from A Research Guide Don't know how to start your paper? Worry no more! Get professional writing assistance from our partner. Click to learn more
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The main guideline for basic letter writing, such as a business letter, is to follow the standard format, which includes the sender’s and recipient’s address, the date, salutation, body of the letter and closing. Writers should choose a fon...
Article 48 was an amendment to the Weimar Constitution that allowed the president of the Weimar Republic in Germany to work around Parliament to carry out duties that protected the people in times of crisis.
To write an article review in APA format, start by formatting the citation of the article. Read through the article and identify the standard APA sections, such as the abstract, introduction, method, study and results. An APA article ends w...
How to write a review article · Check the journal's aims and scope · Define your scope · Finding sources to evaluate · Writing your title, abstract and keywords.
For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined. Discussions
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review · Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience · Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature · Rule 3: Take
Steps for Writing an Article Review · Step 1: Write the Title. · Step 2: Cite the Article. · Step 3: Article Identification. · Step 4: Introduction.
How to write a superb literature review · WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon · BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style · ANKITA
How to get started writing a review article · Understand your audience · Understand what the journal wants · Figure out what you want to say · Make
Describe the title, abstract, and introduction: A good starting point to begin structuring your review is by drafting the title, abstract, and introduction.
However, many tips in this guideline are transferable to these text types. What is the function of a review article? • to organize literature. • to evaluate
How to Review a Journal Article · How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis? · How appropriate and clear is the
Preparing to Write Your Review · Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information. · Discuss the positive aspects of the article.
Article review format – how to apply it correctly · Title page · Title · Your name · Date · Abstract: It should contain approximately 200 to 300 words. · Introduction