how to start off a journal article review

To complete this section of the review think about:

1. The purpose - why was the article written

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

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

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

Example of part of a summary    

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

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

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

Example of part of a critique

4. A conclusion - a final evaluation of the article

1. Give an overall opinion of the text.

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

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

Pathways and Academic Learning Support

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

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 COLUMN
• 08 October 2018

How to write a thorough peer review

• Mathew Stiller-Reeve 0

Mathew Stiller-Reeve is a climate researcher at NORCE/Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway, the leader of SciSnack.com, and a thematic editor at Geoscience Communication .

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Scientists do not receive enough peer-review training. To improve this situation, a small group of editors and I developed a peer-review workflow to guide reviewers in delivering useful and thorough analyses that can really help authors to improve their papers.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06991-0

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged. You can get in touch with the editor at [email protected].

Related Articles

Engage more early-career scientists as peer reviewers

Help graduate students to become good peer reviewers

• Peer review

The human costs of the research-assessment culture

Career Feature 09 SEP 24

Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized

News 04 SEP 24

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

News 28 AUG 24

Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

The grassroots organizations continuing the fight for Ukrainian science

Career Feature 11 SEP 24

How a struggling biotech company became a university ‘spin-in’

Career Q&A 10 SEP 24

Faculty Position

The Institute of Cellular and Organismic Biology (ICOB), Academia Sinica, Taiwan, is seeking candidates to fill multiple tenure-track faculty position

Taipei (TW)

Institute of Cellular and Organismic Biology, Academia Sinica

Postdoctoral Associate

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Associate or Senior Editor, Nature Energy

Job Title: Associate or Senior Editor, Nature Energy Location: New York, Jersey City, Philadelphia or London — Hybrid Working Application Deadline:...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Open Rank Tenure-track/Tenured Faculty Positions in the Department of Genetic and Genomic Sciences

Seeking expertise in areas including Cancer Genetics; Artificial Intelligence; Drug Development & Clinical Trials; Functional Genomics; & Gene Editing

Mount Sinai Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences

Assistant Professor (Tenure Track) of Robotics

The Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering (D-MAVT, www.mavt.ethz.ch) at ETH Zurich invites applications for the above-mentioned position.

Zurich city

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

How to Write an Effective Journal Article Review

• First Online: 01 January 2012

Cite this chapter

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

5803 Accesses

2 Citations

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

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions

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

Submitting the Manuscript for Formal Review: Efficient and Effective Strategies

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Dennis Drotar PhD

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

Yelena P. Wu PhD

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

Jennifer M. Rohan MA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Drotar PhD .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

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

Mitchell J. Prinstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

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

Download citation

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

Published : 25 July 2012

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

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

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

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

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How to Write an Article Review That Stands Out

An article review is a critical assessment that aims to expand one’s knowledge by evaluating the original author’s research.

According to statistical research, 5.14 million research papers are published every year, including short surveys, article reviews, and conference proceedings.

The process of how to write an article review could be tricky, but a few expert tips and tricks can get you on the right track. So, ensure you read it till the end to make the most out of it.

Table of Contents

Who Needs To Know About Article Review Writing?

• Students are usually assigned to write article reviews in order to showcase their comprehension and critical analysis skills.
• Teachers who wanted to evaluate their student’s critical and analytical skills.
• Professionals who publish research articles on diverse topics.
• People who evaluate the quality of a research paper and article.
• People who are interested in writing critique.

How Important Are Article Reviews?

Learning how to write a review article is very important in order to present a comprehensive overview of the research paper. They tend to investigate the methodology, findings, current state of knowledge, and discuss future prospects of research on that topic.

They are also the indicators of how great and accurate an article is and pointing out what critical points the original writers have left.

The writer of this comprehensive guide shared, “Analyzing someone’s article seems easy at first but when you realize how comprehensive and analytical work is, it gets challenging. You need to have knowledge and practice of how to write an article review in order to do justice with someone’s years of research.”

Which Industry Has the Most Published Articles?

Before you write an article review, you have to determine the industry or sector you are going to choose the article to review. It can be anything of your interest and you should have your interest resonate with the industry you are picking an article from.

We are sharing data of 3 decades from different industries to find out which industry publishes the most articles as per ResearchGate. Let’s take a look at which industry can give you more options for article review.

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

Master the art of how to write a review article with this step-by-step guide from professional paper help providers. 

Step 1: Select the Right Article 

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

For Example:

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

Step 2: Read and Understand the Article

How to write an article review with complete accuracy? It’s super important to read and understand the article before writing your review. Read the article a few times and jot down the notes as you go.

No matter what is the  length of a literature review , go through it and focus on the main arguments, major points, evidence, and how it’s structured. 

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

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

Step 3: Structure and Introduction

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

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

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

Step 4: Summarize the Article

In this part of how to write an article review process, you’ll need to quickly go over the main points and arguments from the article. Make it short but must cover the most important elements and the evidence that backs them up. Leave your opinions and analysis out of it for now. Practice with a practice article review example to learn summarizing in a better way. 

For instance, you could write:

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

Smith’s research reveals a significant correlation between increased social media consumption and higher rates of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem among teenagers. 

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

Step 5: Critically Analyze and Evaluate

Now that you’ve given a rundown of the article, it’s time to take a closer look. It will help you learn how to evaluate an article to discover what the author did well and what could have been done better. Most students confuse it but reviewing articles has a different process than  how to write a reflection paper  process. 

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

Article Review Example

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

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

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

Step 6: Express Your Perspective

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

Continuing with the Previous Example

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

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

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

Step 7: Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The final step of how to write an article review process is to wrap it up with a brief and powerful conclusion. Give a summary of your main points and overall thoughts about the article. 

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

For instance

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

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

By addressing the research gaps and implementing targeted interventions:

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

Step 8: Editing and Proofreading

Before submission, set aside some time for editing and proofreading. Make sure that you use a  spell checker  to maintain accuracy and everything makes sense and everything is correct. Check out how it reads and if your points come across clearly.

Get feedback from other people to get a different point of view and make it even better. Proofreading and ensuring the quality is one of the best practices to learn how to evaluate an article. 

Types of Article Reviews

Before you learn how to write an article review, you need to have an understanding of it;s types. In college, you might be asked to write different types of review articles, including: 

Narrative Review

This type of review needs you to look into the author’s background and experiences. You have to go through the specialist’s theories and practices and compare them. 

For the success of a narrative review, ensure that your arguments are qualitative and make sense.

We have some comprehensive narrative articles and  narrative essay examples , you can go through them to understand the narrative approach in reviews. 

Evidence Review 

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

Systematic Review

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

Tips For How To Write An Article Review Outstandingly

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

• It will help you catch up on the key points.
• It will give you a better understanding of the article you’re looking at.
• It will help people read your review and get a good idea of what it’s about. Don’t hesitate to use a  grammar checker  to ensure quality and accuracy. 
• It should help readers get a better grasp of the topic.

Standard Outline for How To Write An Article Review 

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

Introduction

– Begin with a summary of the article 

– Put in background knowledge of the topic 

– State why you are writing the review 

– Give an overview of the article’s main points 

– Figure out why the author choose to write something 

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

– Highlight the shortcomings in the article

– Restate why you are writing the review 

– Sum up the main points in a few sentences 

– Suggest what could be achieved in the future research 

Resources To Solve The Biggest Challenge of Article Review Writing

One of the biggest challenges faced by students in the process of how to write an article review effectively, is to find the best topic for it.

Not every article is suitable for review because of the research methodologies and the nature of the thesis statements of different articles.

Below we have shared some of the most popular journals that have thousands of quality published articles that you can shortlist according to your interest.

Important Take Away For How To Write An Article Review

How should i structure my article review.

When writing an article review, it’s best to go in with a plan. Start with the basics – title, author, date published, and what the article’s about. 

Then, give a quick summary of the main points and note the main arguments and facts.

After that, point out the good and bad of the article. How it was written, any possible biases, etc.

Finally, wrap it up with your opinion on the article and what it might mean. Feel free to get help from  professional college paper writers  to go through the process without headache.

Review Article Example: How To Write An Article Review

Article Review sample for Brene Brown’s Daring Greatly

What is an article review?

How to write a good review article.

Think about different features of the article when you analyze it. Like its importance, the sources it uses, how it's put together, and if it's a good read. 

Check out the arguments made by the author, looking at the facts they give. You should also look at the writing style, organization, and how it's communicated. 

Give a fair review and back up what you say with examples and references to improve it.

Order Original Papers & Essays

Your First Custom Paper Sample is on Us!

Timely Deliveries

No Plagiarism & AI

100% Refund

Try Our Free Paper Writing Service

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

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

• < Previous

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

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

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

• Permissions Icon Permissions

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

• narrative discourse

Society of Breast Imaging members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

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

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

How to Review a Journal Article

For many kinds of assignments, like a  literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your  qualified opinion  and  evaluation  of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple  summary  of the article and evaluate it on a deeper 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.

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

How to Review & Evaluate a Journal Publication

Last Updated: April 20, 2024 Fact Checked

Active Reading

Critical evaluation, final review.

This article was co-authored by Richard Perkins . Richard Perkins is a Writing Coach, Academic English Coordinator, and the Founder of PLC Learning Center. With over 24 years of education experience, he gives teachers tools to teach writing to students and works with elementary to university level students to become proficient, confident writers. Richard is a fellow at the National Writing Project. As a teacher leader and consultant at California State University Long Beach's Global Education Project, Mr. Perkins creates and presents teacher workshops that integrate the U.N.'s 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the K-12 curriculum. He holds a BA in Communications and TV from The University of Southern California and an MEd from California State University Dominguez Hills. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 152,692 times.

Whether you’re publishing a journal article review or completing one for a class, your critique should be fair, thorough, and constructive. Don't worry—this article will walk you through exactly how to review a journal article step-by-step. Keep reading for tips on how to analyze the article, assess how successful it is, and put your thoughts into words. 

• Familiarizing yourself with format and style guidelines is especially important if you haven’t published with that journal in the past. For example, a journal might require you to recommend an article for publication, meet a certain word count, or provide revisions that the authors should make.
• If you’re reviewing a journal article for a school assignment, familiarize yourself the guidelines your instructor provided.

• While giving the article a closer read, gauge whether and how well the article resolves its central problem. Ask yourself, “Is this investigation important, and does it uniquely contribute to its field?”
• At this stage, note any terminological inconsistencies, organizational problems, typos, and formatting issues.

• How well does the abstract summarize the article, the problem it addresses, its techniques, results, and significance? For example, you might find that an abstract describes a pharmaceutical study's topic and skips to results without discussing the experiment's methods with much detail.
• Does the introduction map out the article’s structure? Does it clearly lay out the groundwork? A good introduction gives you a clear idea of what to expect in the coming sections. It might state the problem and hypothesis, briefly describe the investigation's methods, then state whether the experiment proved or disproved the hypothesis.

• If necessary, spend some time perusing copies of the article’s sources so you can better understand the topic’s existing literature.
• A good literature review will say something like, "Smith and Jones, in their authoritative 2015 study, demonstrated that adult men and women responded favorably to the treatment. However, no research on the topic has examined the technique's effects and safety in children and adolescents, which is what we sought to explore in our current work."

• For example, you might observe that subjects in medical study didn’t accurately represent a diverse population.

• For example, you might find that tables list too much undigested data that the authors don’t adequately summarize within the text.

• For example, if you’re reviewing an art history article, decide whether it analyzes an artwork reasonably or simply leaps to conclusions. A reasonable analysis might argue, “The artist was a member of Rembrandt’s workshop, which is evident in the painting’s dramatic light and sensual texture.”

• Is the language clear and unambiguous, or does excessive jargon interfere with its ability to make an argument?
• Are there places that are too wordy? Can any ideas be stated in a simpler way?
• Are grammar, punctuation, and terminology correct?

• Your thesis and evidence should be constructive and thoughtful. Point out both strengths and weaknesses, and propose alternative solutions instead of focusing only on weaknesses.
• A good, constructive thesis would be, “The article demonstrates that the drug works better than a placebo in specific demographics, but future research that includes a more diverse subject sampling is necessary.”

• The introduction summarizes the article and states your thesis.
• The body provides specific examples from the text that support your thesis.
• The conclusion summarizes your review, restates your thesis, and offers suggestion for future research.

• Make sure your writing is clear, concise, and logical. If you mention that an article is too verbose, your own writing shouldn’t be full of unnecessarily complicated terms and sentences.
• If possible, have someone familiar with the topic read your draft and offer feedback.

Community Q&A

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.science.org/content/article/how-review-paper
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://library.queensu.ca/inforef/criticalreview.htm

About This Article

If you want to review a journal article, you’ll need to carefully read it through and come up with a thesis for your piece. Read the article once to get a general idea of what it says, then read it through again and make detailed notes. You should focus on things like whether the introduction gives a good overview of the topic, whether the writing is concise, and whether the results are presented clearly. When you write your review, present both strengths and weaknesses of the article so you’re giving a balanced assessment. Back up your points with examples in the main body of your review, which will make it more credible. You should also ensure your thesis about the article is clear by mentioning it in the introduction and restating it in the conclusion of your review. For tips on how to edit your review before publication, keep reading! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Jun 30, 2019

Did this article help you?

Laura Drawls

Aug 26, 2017

Oct 29, 2019

Sep 27, 2018

Sarah Corduroy

Dec 5, 2022

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

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

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

How to Write an Article Review: Examples and Tips

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

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

What Is an Article Review?

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Review

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

Journal Article Review

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

Research Article Review

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

Science Article Review

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

Article Review Format

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

Meanwhile, here are some questions to consider:

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

APA Format Article Review

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

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

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

MLA Format Article Review

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

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

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

Review Article Outline

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

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

Your article assessment should have the following:

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

Writing an Article Review in 7 Steps

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

Step 1: Create the Title

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

Step 2: Reference the Article

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

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

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

Step 3: Article Identification

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

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

Step 4: Make an Introduction

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

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

Step 5: Summarize the Article

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

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

Step 6: Provide Critique

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

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

Step 7: Conclude

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

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

Example of an Article Review

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

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

Can Anyone Write an Article Review for Me?

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

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

• Plagiarism Report
• Unlimited Revisions
• 24/7 Support

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• How to Order

Article Review

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

People also read

Learn How to Write an Editorial on Any Topic

Best Tips on How to Avoid Plagiarism

How to Write a Movie Review - Guide & Examples

A Complete Guide on How to Write a Summary for Students

Write Opinion Essay Like a Pro: A Detailed Guide

Evaluation Essay - Definition, Examples, and Writing Tips

How to Write a Thematic Statement - Tips & Examples

How to Write a Bio - Quick Tips, Structure & Examples

How to Write a Synopsis – A Simple Format & Guide

How to Write a Comparative Essay – A Complete Guide

Visual Analysis Essay - A Writing Guide with Format & Sample

List of Common Social Issues Around the World

Writing Character Analysis - Outline, Steps, and Examples

11 Common Types of Plagiarism Explained Through Examples

A Detailed Guide on How to Write a Poem Step by Step

Detailed Guide on Appendix Writing: With Tips and Examples

Struggling to write a review that people actually want to read? Feeling lost in the details and wondering how to make your analysis stand out?

You're not alone!

Many writers find it tough to navigate the world of article reviews, not sure where to start or how to make their reviews really grab attention.

No worries! 

In this blog, we're going to guide you through the process of writing an article review that stands out. We'll also share tips, and examples to make this process easier for you.

Let’s get started.

• 1. What is an Article Review?
• 2. Types of Article Reviews
• 3. Article Review Format
• 4. How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps
• 5. Article Review Outline
• 6. Article Review Examples
• 7. Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

What is an Article Review?

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

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

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

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Types of Article Reviews

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

Here are some common types of article reviews:

Journal Article Review

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

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

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

Example of Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

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

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

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

Here is a sample for you to get an idea.

Example of Research Article Review

Science Article Review

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

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

Take a look at the following example.

Example of Science Article Review

Critical Review

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

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

Critical Review Example

Article Review Format

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

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

How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps

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

Step 1: Understand the Assignment

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

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

Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly

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

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

Step 3: Create a Summary

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

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

Step 4: Identify the Author's Thesis

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

This will serve as a foundation for your critique.

Step 5: Evaluate the Author's Evidence and Methodology

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

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

Step 6: Analyze the Author's Writing Style

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

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

Step 7: Consider the Article's Contribution

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

Step 8: Write the Introduction

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

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

Step 9: Develop the Body of the Review

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

Use clear paragraphs to structure your analysis logically.

Step 10: Conclude with a Summary and Evaluation

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

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

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

Article Review Outline

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

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

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

Article Review Format Template

Article Review Examples

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

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

Example of Article Review

Sample of article review assignment pdf

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

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

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

• Start with a Clear Introduction

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

• Concise Summary with Unanswered Questions

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

• Illustrate with Examples

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

• Organize Clearly with a Summary Section

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

• Constructive Criticism

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

• Smoothly Connect Your Ideas

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

• Revise and Check for Clarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why wait? Place your " write my essays online " request today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

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

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

Keep reading

Page Content

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

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

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

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

Informal Structure

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

Formal Structure

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

In Both Cases

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

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

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

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

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

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

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

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

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

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

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

You might examine:

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

Major Flaws in Information

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

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

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

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

The First Paragraph

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

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

The Second Paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

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

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

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

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

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

You may also wish to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

On Grammar and Punctuation

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

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

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

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

Originality and Topicality

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

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

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

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

2. Materials and Methods

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

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

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

Repeatable Methods

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

Robust Research

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

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

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

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

3. Results and Discussion

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

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

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

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

4. Conclusions

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

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

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

Where information is clear, you should check that:

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

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

6. List of References

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

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

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

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

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

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

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

7. Plagiarism

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

Identified Concern

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

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

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

Suspected Concern

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

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

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

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

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major Issues

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

Minor Issues

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

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

You should also:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommending Acceptance

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

Recommending Revision

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

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

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

Recommending Rejection

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

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

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

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

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

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

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

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

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

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

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY
• Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

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

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

• Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
• What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
• Was the sample too small to generalize from?
• Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
• How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
• How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
• Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
• Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
• How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
• What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

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

• Insights blog

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?

[tableshd id=”17295″]

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

Join our mailing list and receive your free eBook. You'll also receive great tips on story editing, our best blogs, and learn how to use Fictionary software to make your story unforgettable.

• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Blogs / Writing Tips / How to Write a Book Review: Tips and Tricks

Write a Novel Readers Love

How to write a book review: tips and tricks.

Finding splendid books is like mining. You have to pull out the ones that you like from the mountain of possibilities and sift through the streams of information to discover the gold.

One of the biggest systems that helps readers do this are reviews.

Why Write a Book Review

First, I want to thank you for supporting authors. It is difficult to get reviews, but as they add up, it creates a snowball effect.

As more and more readers leave reviews, more readers see the book and choose to read it. Reviews give potential readers the opportunity to see other people’s opinions and determine if the book is their favorite type of jewel.

ARC readers, or advanced reader copy readers, have the responsibility and privilege of reading a book before it has been released. So that on release day, they can immediately add their reviews and help bolster the sales of the new book.

It is important to know the genre of the book you are reviewing and read it attentively. Then leave a review that is both objective and opinionated. Can you tell the carat of the jewel? And how closely must you look to see any flaws?

How do you do that? I’m glad you asked. Writing an excellent book review is easier said than done. So, here are a few tips.

How to Write a Good Book Review

How to Start a Book Review

It may be obvious, but you should start a good book review with the title and name of the author. This makes it clear which book you reviewed. In some cases, like Amazon and Goodreads, this is done for you by the review being associated with only that item.

Why both? Some titles are repeated and it could become confusing to the reader whether you are reviewing the nonfiction or the fantasy fiction novel of the same name. The author’s name helps pick through rocks, fool’s gold, and genuine gold.

Knowledge about the author can come in handy here. What awards have they won? What accreditations do they have? Is this a debut? Is it a long book or short, as in how many pages is it?

Next, include a basic summary of the plot and themes if you are writing a review for fiction, or a basic premise of what the book is about if you are writing for nonfiction. Try to sum up the theme of a book in one sentence, then add details. Keep it clear and avoid spoilers. This is where you differentiate between quartz and diamonds.

Give a sense of the book and writing. Share quotes that stood out to you. As a Fictionary StoryCoach Editor, I like to add my take on the structure of the book, structure of the scenes, and whether they used all thirty-eight Fictionary elements, like the five senses, to give depth to their story.

How to End a Book Review

Here is where you give your opinion of the book. Be honest but balanced in your review. I usually do this in two sections. Put what you loved first or that the author does well before addressing your constructive feedback. I think it helps to think of it as constructive feedback because then I see it as a way to help instead of criticizing the author’s choices or abilities.

You can go into depth on characters, setting, plot, structure, and prose. Try to keep it objective because what one person dislikes might be what someone else loves. Back up your criticism with examples and how it affects the reader’s experience. Was the ending satisfactory or not? Can you say why without spoiling it? Is the book unique or does it hit the familiar tropes readers love?

Compare and contrast to similar books on the market. Are they sapphires or emeralds? This can help the reader determine if they would like the book or not based on their personal preference instead of yours.

The author does the same thing when marketing the book because it is a good way to tell what the themes and style of a story are. Genre and even subgenre are pretty general, but comparing it to a specific book can give a potential reader a much better handle on if the book is their typical reading go-to.

Tips For Writing a Book Review

This is where you polish your skills and make a book shine.

Remember kindness. The author needs your respectful constructive feedback to improve. And as I said before, what one person dislikes about a book might be the very thing that other people like about a book. Hurting someone’s feelings helps no one.

There are many places today where you can publish your reviews. Including but not limited to social media, Amazon, Good Reads, blogs, BookTube, and more. The content and tone of reviews vary based on where it will be published. So, think about your audience and what the purpose of your review is.

 Keep it succinct. People searching for their next read are unlikely to read a dissertation. However, you should also put time and effort into making it convey the most important aspects of the story and writing.

Break it up into brief paragraphs. Writing on the internet today has become about creating as much white space as possible to keep the attention of the reader. So, break it up with your pickax instead of keeping it all in one block of text.

Add a star rating. Star ratings are used on many of the review sites or you can make your own system for your social media. But using stars can help the author build trust with their readership. High star ratings improve click counts, but don’t necessarily create sales. And remember, one-star reviews can really hurt the business of a new author starting out and should be saved for very special cases.

Avoid spoilers or at least include a warning about spoilers. If spoilers are included in the review, it can ruin sales. Especially for a mystery or thriller where the primary goal of reading to the end is discovering who done it.

Consider which format you read. There are differences in the experience of reading an ebook versus paperback versus hardcover versus audiobook. If you have read a special edition, include in your review any pictures, maps, quality of paper, printing, or the cover. Sometimes authors like to change their covers to give their book a fresh look. So, include your likes or dislikes of the cover as well in your balanced, respectful feedback.

This might just be the author/editor in me talking, but…write a draft of your review, then edit and revise it. And please, make a grammar check before you post it. This will make it ever so much easier for the author and review readers to understand what you are trying to get across, instead of throwing out your opinions based on assumptions or simple illegibility.

Point out your own personal biases. Personally, when reading romance, I prefer closed door and less spice. So, I will be honest about what I read, skipped, or whether I will read that author again based on that preference. This helps other readers like me who want their romance closed-door to avoid the book or choose the same books. But it also helps the readers who like spice to perk up and say, “Ooh, I should try this one.”

Some people like the author to wax lyrical with their purple prose and some readers like gritty and hard writing. Preference can affect your opinion of the book when that is something very subjective. 

So, mentioning it in the review can help readers get an overall picture of how the author has written the book, and whether it will appeal to them—even if it wasn’t your favorite jewel. This is a kindness to both the author and the potential readers, reading your review.

How to Review a Book Conclusion

A good book review is a balance between objective and subjective. Writing one takes time and effort. If you always consider pulling out the positive things you liked about a book before you go off on a rant, you’ll help yourself, the author, and potential other readers better.

Think of the book like a geode. It may just look like a rock on the outside, but if you take the time to crack it open and inspect what is inside, you might find some sparkly crystals.

Reading is often a matter of taste, but classics are loved by many throughout time for a reason, which has to do with deep structure and an understanding of the language they are written in.

Learning and using the Fictionary method of editing with the 38 elements can help you not only see your own stories more objectively but also other people’s. It will enhance your ability to give great reviews that are honest and helpful to the reading and writing community.

So, good luck, and I hope you find some real gems out there! If you do, please give them a review, so I can find them too.

Advertisement

Supported by

Pundits Said Harris Won the Debate. Undecided Voters Weren’t So Sure.

Voters said the vice president talked about a sweeping vision to fix the country’s most stubborn problems. But they wanted the fine print.

• Share full article

By Jeremy W. Peters Jack Healy and Campbell Robertson

The reporters interviewed voters in five states and asked them whether the debate changed their views on the presidential race.

Follow along with live updates on the Trump and Harris campaigns .

For weeks, undecided voters have been asking for more substance.

So it was perhaps no accident that Vice President Kamala Harris’s first words during the presidential debate on Tuesday were, “I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan.”

Some Americans might need more convincing.

Bob and Sharon Reed, both 77-year-old retired teachers who live on a farm in central Pennsylvania, had high hopes for the debate between Ms. Harris and former President Donald Trump. They thought that they would come away with a candidate to support in November.

But, Ms. Reed said, “It was all disappointing.”

The couple ended the night wondering how the costly programs each candidate supported — Mr. Trump’s tariffs and Ms. Harris’s aid to young families and small businesses — would help a couple like them, living on a fixed income that has not kept pace with inflation. They said they didn’t hear detailed answers on immigration or foreign policy, either.

Tuesday night was the first time any voter had seen Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris together. The two candidates had never met in person before, creating considerable trepidation among supporters of both campaigns about how they might perform.

Immediate reaction from political analysts favored Ms. Harris, whose attacks appeared to rattle Mr. Trump. She goaded him over the various criminal and civil charges against him. She said his former aides considered him “a disgrace” and that world leaders laugh at him. At one point, she asked whether he might be “confused” — a stinging line given Mr. Trump’s relentless mocking of President Biden’s mental acuity. And she questioned his emotional stability by saying he was not capable of processing his loss in 2020.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .