article review questions

105 Questions to Ask When Reviewing a Research Article

Poring over the pages of a research article can feel like navigating a labyrinth. You’re in pursuit of the truth, but the path is winding, and each choice of direction is pivotal. As a critic, a peer reviewer, or simply an inquisitive reader, you understand the potential impact that a well-conducted study can have on the world.

Unlocking that potential begins with a meticulously critical review guided by questions—questions that cut through the data like a surgeon’s scalpel, revealing the heart of the study’s validity and value.

Let’s prime your inquisitive mind with essential inquiries to illuminate the strengths and shortcomings of any research article.

Table of Contents

Understanding the Research Foundation

• What is the primary research question the article is addressing?
• Is the literature review relevant and comprehensive?
• How does this study contribute to the existing body of knowledge?
• Does the research address a significant problem in the field?
• Are the research objectives clearly stated?
• How well does the study formulate its hypotheses or research questions?
• Are the theoretical framework and background context well articulated?
• Does the article sufficiently justify the relevance of the research?
• Are there any apparent biases in the way the research question is framed?
• How does the research build upon or challenge existing theories?
• Is there a clear connection between the research question and the methodology?
• Does the article clearly state its aims and scope?
• Are any assumptions made in the research explicitly stated?
• Is the importance of the research question evident to non-specialists?
• Are there areas within the research foundation that could benefit from further clarification?

Assessing the Research Methods

• Are the methods appropriate for the research question?
• Is the study design clearly explained and appropriate?
• Have the instruments used for data collection been adequately described?
• Are the methods of data analysis suitable for answering the research question?
• Were any controls used to prevent bias, and are they effective?
• Is there a clear explanation of how participants or samples were selected?
• Does the study acknowledge and account for any limitations in the methodology?
• Are procedures described in enough detail to replicate the study?
• Is the choice of statistical tests clearly justified?
• Were all methods ethically sound?
• Does the author explain the steps taken to ensure data reliability and validity?
• Have the methods been presented transparently?
• Does the article discuss the generalizability of the methods to other contexts?
• Are there any potential confounding variables, and how are they addressed?
• Is the sampling method adequately justified and explained?

Analyzing the Results

• Are the results presented in a clear and organized way?
• Do tables and figures effectively communicate the findings?
• Are all claimed results supported by the data?
• Does the study appropriately discuss any unexpected or unusual findings?
• Are the results contextually interpreted with sufficient caution?
• Is there evidence of data saturation in qualitative studies?
• Does the author distinguish between correlation and causation where applicable?
• Are percentages and numerical results given with appropriate precision?
• Have the results been discussed in relation to the research question?
• Are any findings that do not support the hypotheses adequately acknowledged and discussed?
• Is the variability in the data acknowledged and explained?
• Has the study reported the effect sizes where relevant?
• Are the results consistent with the results from similar studies?
• Does the author avoid overgeneralizing the findings?
• Are all the results derived from the methodology described, or are there unaccounted-for results?

Evaluating the Discussion and Conclusions

• Do the discussion and conclusions logically follow from the results?
• Are the implications of the results clearly spelled out?
• Does the discussion acknowledge the study’s limitations?
• How well does the article relate the findings to the broader context of the field?
• Are all findings integrated into the conclusion, including those that don’t fully support the hypotheses?
• Are the conclusions well-reasoned and supported by evidence?
• Does the discussion consider alternative explanations for the findings?
• Are recommendations for future research made?
• Does the author overstate the significance of the results?
• Has the study’s contribution to new knowledge been articulated well?
• Do the conclusions address the aims stated at the beginning of the paper?
• Is there evidence of reflexivity in acknowledging the researcher’s role?
• Are conclusions kept within the bounds of the research design and data?
• How does the research advance the field or influence practice?
• Is there a call to action or practical application identified in the conclusions?

Considering the Practical Implications

• Are the practical implications of the research clearly outlined?
• How does the research address real-world issues?
• Are recommendations for practitioners or policymakers discussed?
• Is the impact on society or the environment considered?
• Is there potential for the research to influence public policy or regulations?
• How might the results be applied in the field?
• Does the study provide insights that could lead to technological innovations?
• Are ethical considerations in applying the research findings addressed?
• Is there a clear audience or beneficiary of the research implications?
• How can the findings be used to inform future research or professional practice?
• Does the research suggest new areas for practical experimentation or implementation?
• Are the financial or economic implications of the research evaluated?
• Does the article suggest any changes to current standards or protocols?
• How accessible are the implications to stakeholders outside of academia?
• Do the practical implications take into account diverse contexts and populations?

Reviewing the Structure and Presentation

• Is the article structured logically and systematically?
• Does the title accurately describe the content of the article?
• Are all sections of the paper, including the abstract and keywords, effectively presented?
• Is the writing clear, concise, and easy to follow?
• Does the paper avoid unnecessary jargon and define essential terms?
• Is there a smooth flow and transitions between sections?
• Are any graphs, charts, or images appropriate and clearly labeled?
• Does the paper meet the scholarly standards for formatting and style?
• Is the quality of English language usage appropriate for publication?
• Are all necessary acknowledgments or disclaimers included?
• Does the introduction effectively set up the importance of the research and outline the paper?
• Is the conclusion concise and does it summarize the key findings?
• Are the table of contents and/or index clear and correct?
• Is the overall presentation appealing to the journal’s readership?
• Does the paper adhere to the targeted journal’s guidelines for authors?

Checking for Ethical Compliance and Citation Integrity

• Are the sources of funding and any potential conflicts of interest disclosed?
• Is evidence of informed consent or IRB approval mentioned for studies with human participants?
• Are raw data and materials available as per ethical guidelines?
• Is proper attribution given to all sources and previous research?
• Are the citations up-to-date and relevant to the content of the article?
• Is there any sign of plagiarism or self-plagiarism?
• Does the article adhere to ethical standards regarding animal research if applicable?
• Have the authors been transparent about their contribution to the research?
• Are the limitations regarding the ethical aspects of the research acknowledged?
• Are quotes and figures from other works properly cited?
• Does the work avoid undue harm in the presentation of graphic or sensitive material?
• Is there a declaration of any data manipulation or image enhancement?
• Are citation practices consistent throughout the document?
• Has the article avoided sensationalism or overstating research findings?
• Are appropriate permissions documented for copyrighted material?

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is it important to review a research article critically.

Reviewing a research article critically is crucial because it ensures the integrity, reliability, and impact of academic work. It helps to identify strengths and weaknesses within a study, improve research quality, and foster scientific progress.

What should I focus on when assessing a research article’s methodology?

When assessing methodology, focus on whether the methods are suitable for the research question, the study design is solid, and the procedures are meticulously described and ethical. It’s also vital to consider the data analysis, selection of participants, and the method of reporting results.

How do I know if the results of the article are credible?

Results are credible if they are clear, logically presented, supported by the data, and statistically validated. They should align with the methodology and address the research question effectively.

What if I find ethical issues in the research article?

Ethical issues should be addressed by evaluating the transparency of funding, conflicts of interest, adherence to ethical research guidelines, and whether there is informed consent if applicable. If ethical issues are present, they should be reported to the journal or relevant authorities.

Final Thoughts

Evaluating a research article is not dissimilar to assembling a jigsaw puzzle, where every question you pose helps piece the narrative together, giving clarity to blurred lines and bringing context into sharper focus.

Remember, the right questions don’t just lead to answers—they challenge assumptions, push boundaries, and pave the way for innovation and improvement. With this list of questions, you’re equipped to traverse the intricate layers of any research work and emerge with insights as powerful as the studies they scrutinize.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

As you found this post useful...

Share it on social media!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Bea Mariel Saulo

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

How to Write an Article Review

Last Updated: September 8, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,082,481 times.

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

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

Things You Should Know

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

Preparing to Write Your Review

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

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

Writing the Article Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample Article Reviews

Expert Q&A

You Might Also Like

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

About This Article

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

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Oct 25, 2023

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

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

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

Did you know that article reviews are not just academic exercises but also a valuable skill in today's information age? In a world inundated with content, being able to dissect and evaluate articles critically can help you separate the wheat from the chaff. Whether you're a student aiming to excel in your coursework or a professional looking to stay well-informed, mastering the art of writing article reviews is an invaluable skill.

Short Description

In this article, our research paper writing service experts will start by unraveling the concept of article reviews and discussing the various types. You'll also gain insights into the art of formatting your review effectively. To ensure you're well-prepared, we'll take you through the pre-writing process, offering tips on setting the stage for your review. But it doesn't stop there. You'll find a practical example of an article review to help you grasp the concepts in action. To complete your journey, we'll guide you through the post-writing process, equipping you with essential proofreading techniques to ensure your work shines with clarity and precision!

What Is an Article Review: Grasping the Concept 

A review article is a type of professional paper writing that demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.

If you write a scientific review, you have to use database searches to portray the research. Your primary goal is to summarize everything and present a clear understanding of the topic you've been working on.

Writing Involves:

• Summarization, classification, analysis, critiques, and comparison.
• The analysis, evaluation, and comparison require the use of theories, ideas, and research relevant to the subject area of the article.
• It is also worth nothing if a review does not introduce new information, but instead presents a response to another writer's work.
• Check out other samples to gain a better understanding of how to review the article.

Types of Review

When it comes to article reviews, there's more than one way to approach the task. Understanding the various types of reviews is like having a versatile toolkit at your disposal. In this section, we'll walk you through the different dimensions of review types, each offering a unique perspective and purpose. Whether you're dissecting a scholarly article, critiquing a piece of literature, or evaluating a product, you'll discover the diverse landscape of article reviews and how to navigate it effectively.

Journal Article Review

Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.

Research Article Review

Distinguished by its focus on research methodologies, a research article review scrutinizes the techniques used in a study and evaluates them in light of the subsequent analysis and critique. For instance, when reviewing a research article on the effects of a new drug, the reviewer would delve into the methods employed to gather data and assess their reliability.

Science Article Review

In the realm of scientific literature, a science article review encompasses a wide array of subjects. Scientific publications often provide extensive background information, which can be instrumental in conducting a comprehensive analysis. For example, when reviewing an article about the latest breakthroughs in genetics, the reviewer may draw upon the background knowledge provided to facilitate a more in-depth evaluation of the publication.

Need a Hand From Professionals?

Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!

Formatting an Article Review

The format of the article should always adhere to the citation style required by your professor. If you're not sure, seek clarification on the preferred format and ask him to clarify several other pointers to complete the formatting of an article review adequately.

How Many Publications Should You Review?

• In what format should you cite your articles (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)?
• What length should your review be?
• Should you include a summary, critique, or personal opinion in your assignment?
• Do you need to call attention to a theme or central idea within the articles?
• Does your instructor require background information?

When you know the answers to these questions, you may start writing your assignment. Below are examples of MLA and APA formats, as those are the two most common citation styles.

Using the APA Format

Articles appear most commonly in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. If you write an article review in the APA format, you will need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use:

• Web : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
• Journal : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
• Newspaper : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

Using MLA Format

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

Enhance your writing effortlessly with EssayPro.com , where you can order an article review or any other writing task. Our team of expert writers specializes in various fields, ensuring your work is not just summarized, but deeply analyzed and professionally presented. Ideal for students and professionals alike, EssayPro offers top-notch writing assistance tailored to your needs. Elevate your writing today with our skilled team at your article review writing service !

The Pre-Writing Process

Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you unsure of where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages from our dissertation services to get you started:

Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow:

• Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
• Define the positive points — identify the strong aspects, ideas, and insightful observations the author has made.
• Find the gaps —- determine whether or not the author has any contradictions, gaps, or inconsistencies in the article and evaluate whether or not he or she used a sufficient amount of arguments and information to support his or her ideas.
• Identify unanswered questions — finally, identify if there are any questions left unanswered after reading the piece.

Step 2: Move on and review the article. Here is a small and simple guide to help you do it right:

• Start off by looking at and assessing the title of the piece, its abstract, introductory part, headings and subheadings, opening sentences in its paragraphs, and its conclusion.
• First, read only the beginning and the ending of the piece (introduction and conclusion). These are the parts where authors include all of their key arguments and points. Therefore, if you start with reading these parts, it will give you a good sense of the author's main points.
• Finally, read the article fully.

These three steps make up most of the prewriting process. After you are done with them, you can move on to writing your own review—and we are going to guide you through the writing process as well.

Outline and Template

As you progress with reading your article, organize your thoughts into coherent sections in an outline. As you read, jot down important facts, contributions, or contradictions. Identify the shortcomings and strengths of your publication. Begin to map your outline accordingly.

If your professor does not want a summary section or a personal critique section, then you must alleviate those parts from your writing. Much like other assignments, an article review must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Thus, you might consider dividing your outline according to these sections as well as subheadings within the body. If you find yourself troubled with the pre-writing and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.

Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:

• Pre-Title Page - Before diving into your review, start with essential details: article type, publication title, and author names with affiliations (position, department, institution, location, and email). Include corresponding author info if needed.
• Running Head - In APA format, use a concise title (under 40 characters) to ensure consistent formatting.
• Summary Page - Optional but useful. Summarize the article in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology, avoiding verbatim text or references.
• Title Page - Include the full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
• Introduction - Set the stage with an engaging overview of the article.
• Body - Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
• Works Cited/References - Properly cite all sources used in your review.
• Optional Suggested Reading Page - If permitted, suggest further readings for in-depth exploration.
• Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor) - Include visuals when requested by your professor for clarity.

Example of an Article Review

You might wonder why we've dedicated a section of this article to discuss an article review sample. Not everyone may realize it, but examining multiple well-constructed examples of review articles is a crucial step in the writing process. In the following section, our essay writing service experts will explain why.

Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:

• To get you introduced to the key works of experts in your field.
• To help you identify the key people engaged in a particular field of science.
• To help you define what significant discoveries and advances were made in your field.
• To help you unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of your field—which contributes to finding fresh solutions.
• To help you find solid references and arguments for your own review.
• To help you generate some ideas about any further field of research.
• To help you gain a better understanding of the area and become an expert in this specific field.
• To get a clear idea of how to write a good review.

View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!

Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?

Steps for Writing an Article Review

Here is a guide with critique paper format on how to write a review paper:

Step 1: Write the Title

First of all, you need to write a title that reflects the main focus of your work. Respectively, the title can be either interrogative, descriptive, or declarative.

Step 2: Cite the Article

Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper. For example, an article citation in the MLA style should look as follows:

Author's last and first name. "The title of the article." Journal's title and issue(publication date): page(s). Print

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

Step 3: Article Identification

After your citation, you need to include the identification of your reviewed article:

• Title of the article
• Title of the journal
• Year of publication

All of this information should be included in the first paragraph of your paper.

The report "Poverty increases school drop-outs" was written by Brian Faith – a Health officer – in 2000.

Step 4: Introduction

Your organization in an assignment like this is of the utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you should outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts coherently.

• If you are wondering how to start an article review, begin with an introduction that mentions the article and your thesis for the review.
• Follow up with a summary of the main points of the article.
• Highlight the positive aspects and facts presented in the publication.
• Critique the publication by identifying gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions.

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Make a summary of the article by revisiting what the author has written about. Note any relevant facts and findings from the article. Include the author's conclusions in this section.

Step 6: Critique It

Present the strengths and weaknesses you have found in the publication. Highlight the knowledge that the author has contributed to the field. Also, write about any gaps and/or contradictions you have found in the article. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge. Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article.

Step 7: Craft a Conclusion

In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study. Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:

• As you read the article, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they used to support that argument.
• While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point. This is best done using direct quotations.
• Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly. Take time to analyze the article adequately.
• Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation, use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article.
• Re-read your piece a day after you finish writing it. This will help you to spot grammar mistakes and to notice any flaws in your organization.
• Use a spell-checker and get a second opinion on your paper.

The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work

Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.

To proofread your paper properly, start by reading it fully and checking the following points:

• Punctuation
• Other mistakes

Afterward, take a moment to check for any unnecessary information in your paper and, if found, consider removing it to streamline your content. Finally, double-check that you've covered at least 3-4 key points in your discussion.

And remember, if you ever need help with proofreading, rewriting your essay, or even want to buy essay , our friendly team is always here to assist you.

Need an Article REVIEW WRITTEN?

Just send us the requirements to your paper and watch one of our writers crafting an original paper for you.

Related Articles

Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

Find your Fit

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

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

Give Like a Star

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

Bragging Rights

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

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

Request Info

How to Review a Journal Article

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

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

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

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

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

Questions to Consider

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

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

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

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

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

Evaluating Methods

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

Evaluating Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• YJBM Updates
• Editorial Board
• Colloquium Series
• Podcast Series
• Open Access
• Call for Papers
• PubMed Publications
• News & Views
• YJBM Podcasts (by topic)
• About YJBM PodSquad
• Why Publish in YJBM?
• Types of Articles Published
• Manuscript Submission Guidelines
• YJBM Ethical Guidelines

Points to Consider When Reviewing Articles

• Writing and Submitting a Review
• Join Our Peer Reviewer Database

INFORMATION FOR

• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

General questions that Reviewers should keep in mind when reviewing articles are the following:

• Is the article of interest to the readers of YJBM ?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript?
• How can the Editors work with the Authors to improve the submitted manuscripts, if the topic and scope of the manuscript is of interest to YJBM readers?

The following contains detailed descriptions as to what should be included in each particular type of article as well as points that Reviewers should keep in mind when specifically reviewing each type of article.

YJBM will ask Reviewers to Peer Review the following types of submissions:

Download PDF

Frequently asked questions.

These manuscripts should present well-rounded studies reporting innovative advances that further knowledge about a topic of importance to the fields of biology or medicine. The conclusions of the Original Research Article should clearly be supported by the results. These can be submitted as either a full-length article (no more than 6,000 words, 8 figures, and 4 tables) or a brief communication (no more than 2,500 words, 3 figures, and 2 tables). Original Research Articles contain five sections: abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion.

Reviewers should consider the following questions:

• What is the overall aim of the research being presented? Is this clearly stated?
• Have the Authors clearly stated what they have identified in their research?
• Are the aims of the manuscript and the results of the data clearly and concisely stated in the abstract?
• Does the introduction provide sufficient background information to enable readers to better understand the problem being identified by the Authors?
• Have the Authors provided sufficient evidence for the claims they are making? If not, what further experiments or data needs to be included?
• Are similar claims published elsewhere? Have the Authors acknowledged these other publications? Have the Authors made it clear how the data presented in the Author’s manuscript is different or builds upon previously published data?
• Is the data presented of high quality and has it been analyzed correctly? If the analysis is incorrect, what should the Authors do to correct this?
• Do all the figures and tables help the reader better understand the manuscript? If not, which figures or tables should be removed and should anything be presented in their place?
• Is the methodology used presented in a clear and concise manner so that someone else can repeat the same experiments? If not, what further information needs to be provided?
• Do the conclusions match the data being presented?
• Have the Authors discussed the implications of their research in the discussion? Have they presented a balanced survey of the literature and information so their data is put into context?
• Is the manuscript accessible to readers who are not familiar with the topic? If not, what further information should the Authors include to improve the accessibility of their manuscript?
• Are all abbreviations used explained? Does the author use standard scientific abbreviations?

Case reports describe an unusual disease presentation, a new treatment, an unexpected drug interaction, a new diagnostic method, or a difficult diagnosis. Case reports should include relevant positive and negative findings from history, examination and investigation, and can include clinical photographs. Additionally, the Author must make it clear what the case adds to the field of medicine and include an up-to-date review of all previous cases. These articles should be no more than 5,000 words, with no more than 6 figures and 3 tables. Case Reports contain five sections: abstract; introduction; case presentation that includes clinical presentation, observations, test results, and accompanying figures; discussion; and conclusions.

• Does the abstract clearly and concisely state the aim of the case report, the findings of the report, and its implications?
• Does the introduction provide enough details for readers who are not familiar with a particular disease/treatment/drug/diagnostic method to make the report accessible to them?
• Does the manuscript clearly state what the case presentation is and what was observed so that someone can use this description to identify similar symptoms or presentations in another patient?
• Are the figures and tables presented clearly explained and annotated? Do they provide useful information to the reader or can specific figures/tables be omitted and/or replaced by another figure/table?
• Are the data presented accurately analyzed and reported in the text? If not, how can the Author improve on this?
• Do the conclusions match the data presented?
• Does the discussion include information of similar case reports and how this current report will help with treatment of a disease/presentation/use of a particular drug?

Reviews provide a reasoned survey and examination of a particular subject of research in biology or medicine. These can be submitted as a mini-review (less than 2,500 words, 3 figures, and 1 table) or a long review (no more than 6,000 words, 6 figures, and 3 tables). They should include critical assessment of the works cited, explanations of conflicts in the literature, and analysis of the field. The conclusion must discuss in detail the limitations of current knowledge, future directions to be pursued in research, and the overall importance of the topic in medicine or biology. Reviews contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

• Is the review accessible to readers of YJBM who are not familiar with the topic presented?
• Does the abstract accurately summarize the contents of the review?
• Does the introduction clearly state what the focus of the review will be?
• Are the facts reported in the review accurate?
• Does the Author use the most recent literature available to put together this review?
• Is the review split up under relevant subheadings to make it easier for the readers to access the article?
• Does the Author provide balanced viewpoints on a specific topic if there is debate over the topic in the literature?
• Are the figures or tables included relevant to the review and enable the readers to better understand the manuscript? Are there further figures/tables that could be included?
• Do the conclusions and outlooks outline where further research can be done on the topic?

Perspectives provide a personal view on medical or biomedical topics in a clear narrative voice. Articles can relate personal experiences, historical perspective, or profile people or topics important to medicine and biology. Long perspectives should be no more than 6,000 words and contain no more than 2 tables. Brief opinion pieces should be no more than 2,500 words and contain no more than 2 tables. Perspectives contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

• Does the abstract accurately and concisely summarize the main points provided in the manuscript?
• Does the introduction provide enough information so that the reader can understand the article if he or she were not familiar with the topic?
• Are there specific areas in which the Author can provide more detail to help the reader better understand the manuscript? Or are there places where the author has provided too much detail that detracts from the main point?
• If necessary, does the Author divide the article into specific topics to help the reader better access the article? If not, how should the Author break up the article under specific topics?
• Do the conclusions follow from the information provided by the Author?
• Does the Author reflect and provide lessons learned from a specific personal experience/historical event/work of a specific person?

Analyses provide an in-depth prospective and informed analysis of a policy, major advance, or historical description of a topic related to biology or medicine. These articles should be no more than 6,000 words with no more than 3 figures and 1 table. Analyses contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

• Does the abstract accurately summarize the contents of the manuscript?
• Does the introduction provide enough information if the readers are not familiar with the topic being addressed?
• Are there specific areas in which the Author can provide more detail to help the reader better understand the manuscript? Or are there places where the Author has provided too much detail that detracts from the main point?

Profiles describe a notable person in the fields of science or medicine. These articles should contextualize the individual’s contributions to the field at large as well as provide some personal and historical background on the person being described. More specifically, this should be done by describing what was known at the time of the individual’s discovery/contribution and how that finding contributes to the field as it stands today. These pieces should be no more than 5,000 words, with up to 6 figures, and 3 tables. The article should include the following: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions.

• Does the Author provide information about the person of interest’s background, i.e., where they are from, where they were educated, etc.?
• Does the Author indicate how the person focused on became interested or involved in the subject that he or she became famous for?
• Does the Author provide information on other people who may have helped the person in his or her achievements?
• Does the Author provide information on the history of the topic before the person became involved?
• Does the Author provide information on how the person’s findings affected the field being discussed?
• Does the introduction provide enough information to the readers, should they not be familiar with the topic being addressed?

Interviews may be presented as either a transcript of an interview with questions and answers or as a personal reflection. If the latter, the Author must indicate that the article is based on an interview given. These pieces should be no more than 5,000 words and contain no more than 3 figures and 2 tables. The articles should include: abstract, introduction, questions and answers clearly indicated by subheadings or topics (with heading and subheadings), and conclusions.

• Does the Author provide relevant information to describe who the person is whom they have chosen to interview?
• Does the Author explain why he or she has chosen the person being interviewed?
• Does the Author explain why he or she has decided to focus on a specific topic in the interview?
• Are the questions relevant? Are there more questions that the Author should have asked? Are there questions that the Author has asked that are not necessary?
• If necessary, does the Author divide the article into specific topics to help the reader better access the article? If not, how should the author break up the article under specific topics?
• Does the Author accurately summarize the contents of the interview as well as specific lesson learned, if relevant, in the conclusions?

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

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

‘Woah, this is affecting me’: why I’m fighting racial inequality in prostate-cancer research

Career Q&A 20 MAR 24

So … you’ve been hacked

Technology Feature 19 MAR 24

Four years on: the career costs for scientists battling long COVID

Career Feature 18 MAR 24

Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?

Nature Index 20 MAR 24

Is the Mars rover’s rock collection worth $11 billion?

News 19 MAR 24

People, passion, publishable: an early-career researcher’s checklist for prioritizing projects

Career Column 15 MAR 24

Peer-replication model aims to address science’s ‘reproducibility crisis’

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

Recruitment of Talent Positions at Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University

Call for top experts and scholars in the field of science and technology.

Shenyang, Liaoning, China

Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University

Assistant Professor in Plant Biology

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

Saudi Arabia (SA)

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Warmly Welcomes Talents Abroad

“Qiushi” Distinguished Scholar, Zhejiang University, including Professor and Physician

No. 3, Qingchun East Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang (CN)

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital Affiliated with Zhejiang University School of Medicine

Postdoctoral Associate

Our laboratory at the Washington University in St. Louis is seeking a postdoctoral experimental biologist to study urogenital diseases and cancer.

Saint Louis, Missouri

Washington University School of Medicine Department of Medicine

Recruitment of Global Talent at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

The Institute of Zoology (IOZ), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), is seeking global talents around the world.

Beijing, China

Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

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 a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

Publication types

• Cancer Cell
• Cell Chemical Biology
• Cell Host & Microbe
• Cell Metabolism
• Cell Reports
• Cell Stem Cell
• Cell Systems
• Current Biology
• Developmental Cell
• Molecular Cell
• Biochemical Sciences
• Biotechnology
• Cell Biology
• Cognitive Sciences
• Ecology & Evolution
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Microbiology
• Molecular Medicine
• Neurosciences
• Parisitology
• Pharmacological Sciences
• Plant Science
• Biophysical Journal
• EBioMedicine
• Molecular Plant
• Molecular Therapy Family
• Stem Cell Reports
• Get Inspired
• Get Techncal
• Get Published
• Cell Mentor China
• And They're Scientists, Too
• Biology in 3D
• Careers Under the Microscope
• Cell Insider
• Emilie, Can I Ask You?
• Random Walk
• The Female Scientist
• The Scientific Communicator
• Cell Symposia
• Cell Press Reviews
• China Gateway
• Snapshot Archive
• Cell Picture Show
• Cell Press Podcast
• Cell Press Videos
• Cell Career Network
• CrossTalk Blog
• Cell Selections
• Spotlight on China
• Trends: Limited Edition
• Chemistry & Biology
• Parasitology
• For Advertisers
• For Librarians
• For Recruiters

Your questions about writing review articles, answered

Turns out people have a lot of questions about writing reviews.

On June 27, Researcher Academy hosted a webinar entitled "An editor’s guide to writing a review article," featuring presentations from Cell Press editors Lindsey Drayton ( Trends in Cognitive Sciences ) and Matt Pavlovich ( Trends in Biotechnology ) . In the webinar, Lindsey and Matt addressed some of the most pressing questions about pitching, planning, and writing a review article , but there was a lot that went unanswered in the 60-minute session.

Lindsey and Matt have gone through all 173 (!) queries submitted during the webinar, and they've pulled out 11 key questions to answer. 

Question 1: Do you need to describe how the data in a review were collected, validated, and analyzed?

Matt Pavlovich: This depends on the point of the review. If the experimental procedures in your field are well-established and non-controversial, and your review is more about synthesizing all of the different results in one place, then a lengthy description of data collection is probably not necessary.

Some journals, including the Trends journals, allow optional text boxes that you could use to describe data handling in more detail. On the other hand, if the review is intensely methods-focused, and you're trying to illustrate, for example, that how you operate an instrument leads to vastly different results for the same experimental system, then you probably need more detail about data collection and analysis.

Question 2: Can you start writing a review article when there are a few already published on the same topic? When is the best time for a new review?

MP: You can write a review even if there are already a few on the same topic as long as you're saying something new and not just covering the same ground. Maybe you’re reviewing the same body of literature in a different context or for a different audience, or perhaps the same results have led you to a different hypothesis or conclusion. Regardless, I always recommend acknowledging that other reviews exist (usually in the introductory section of the review) and explaining in specific terms how yours is different and moves the conversation forward.

To the same effect, the best time to write a review is when there's something new to say. A "review of first impression" that is the first to compare all of the findings in an emerging field is always exciting, but you can also write a review to capture new applications or approaches to thinking about the topic.

Question 3: Is the experience of the authors critical for a review to be accepted? Are new groups working on a certain topic encouraged to submit reviews?

MP: As we mentioned in the webinar , we do expect that the authors of a review will be experts in the topic of the article. What it means to be an expert varies from journal to journal and editor to editor, but at the very least, it usually means that the senior author(s) have published multiple times in the past few years on the subject of the review or a related topic.

The order of authorship matters less: we understand that review writing is often a collaborative exercise among many members of a research group, and it shouldn't affect your ability to publish the review if the most senior author is listed first, last, or somewhere in the middle.

Question 4: If at the review stage, the reviewers recommend to add more content in a specific topic and to include new methods, references, or keywords, what do you recommend?

MP: Reviewers play an important role in helping editors assess a manuscript because they have technical expertise in the specific topic of the review that we usually lack. The suggestion to add more updated references is one of the most common comments we receive—and fortunately for authors, one of the most straightforward to address. Often a reviewer has some specific publications in mind, which are typically very recent and may even have been published after the review was submitted. In other cases, the reviewer has a more general sense that the references are out of date and recommends updating them, which is accomplished easily enough by a query in your favorite scientific search engine.

More extensive reviewer suggestions, such as expanding the review to a new topic, may or may not agree with your intended scope for the article. Ideally, the editor will have given you some guidance for which of those changes are required for publication versus which are items to incorporate if you think it's a good idea. If you feel this is ambiguous from the editor's decision letter, as always, ask the editor directly.

Question 5: Is it acceptable to include research data in a review to elaborate a point? Are there any limits to how far this can go?

MP: Whether it's appropriate to include new research data in a review is entirely up to the journal. The Trends journals have a strict policy against including new data, even in the form of meta-analysis or statistical hypothesis testing. This policy arises from fairness to our reviewers—we ask them to evaluate the accuracy, novelty, and accessibility of the article, among other things, but we don't expect them to assess the validity of a methodology—as well as an interest in consistency across the portfolio. But some journals are willing to include previously unpublished data as a proof of principle for a hypothesis stated in a review.

Question 6: The last review article on a related topic was published 5 years ago. Is this motivation for writing a new review article?

MP: It might be, especially if there have been many research articles published since then or if there has been an important change in the way things are done in the field. On the other hand, a lack of a recent review on an established topic might indicate declining interest in the field, a lack of recent research, or simply an acknowledgment that the field is mature and there aren't many new things to say about it.

Question 7: What are your thoughts on self-citations in a review article?

MP: Self-citations are entirely appropriate under the right circumstances—after all, you’ve been invited to write a review in part because you have already published on the topic you're reviewing. The discussion should be balanced such that the article does not come across as an advertisement for your own work but cites your work in a neutral manner along with other important contributions from different researchers. If your group is the only one working on a certain topic, that's probably a good sign that the topic isn't ready for a review just yet. At Trends , we discourage explicit reference to your own work and advise against phrases like "in our lab" or "our own results showed," but not all journals are as strict on this point.

Question 8: Can you clarify the differences in requirements for a systematic review, concise review, and meta-analysis? What is the difference between a review article and short communication? When is a review considered a mini-review? Does a book chapter differ substantially from a review in a journal? How is a review different from a commentary?

MP: We got a lot of questions about various formats for reviews and review-like publications. Unfortunately, it's impossible to give an overarching answer to this question, because each journal has different formats and different expectations for those formats. But I'll try to give my perspective on some of these.

My understanding of a systematic review is that it seeks to answer a particular focused question and has strict, pre-defined criteria about what publications it will include. These tend to be most common in medical research as well as in social sciences. Meta-analysis takes the idea further by applying a rigorous statistical methodology to the studies generated by a systematic review. A book chapter tends to be more exhaustive and less opinionated than a review article and should above all else be balanced and authoritative, while a commentary (sometimes called a perspective ) is usually an opinion-driven narrative about a field by an individual expert that may not cite many sources at all. Finally, what makes a review concise , short , or mini depends entirely on the journal's standards, so make sure your manuscript is a good fit for your intended journal before you submit.

Question 9: I work with PhD students who are often required to write reviews as part of their graduate program. What do you think of this practice? Do you have any advice for PhD students in this position?

Lindsey Drayton: Whether you should write a review (or whether graduate programs should require their students to write reviews) depends on what you want to get out of writing it. There are lots of reasons why writing a review is a valuable experience independent of whether that review is ultimately published—you'll undoubtedly have learned a lot, and you'll probably have improved your writing skills.

Having said that, I don't think that the primary goal of writing a review as a PhD student (particularly if you're the sole author) should be to get it published. If your review ends up getting published, then great, but at this early stage in your career, the value often comes from the process of writing the review rather than publishing it. And remember, even if the review doesn't get published immediately, it might end up being the first draft of a review you write later in your career when your ideas are more developed.

Question 10: How can we ensure that there's a flow in what you're writing so that the writing doesn't appear fragmented?

LD: This can be tricky! One way to ensure that your article flows well is to make sure that each section builds logically on the proceeding section. If you've written your manuscript and there’s no reason why Section B comes after Section A, that's a problem.

Before you start writing, you should take some time to outline the contents of the review. When making this outline, one of the key things to think about is the relationship between the different sections of the manuscript. Keep in mind that there generally isn't just one right way to structure a review, just as there isn't one right way to tell a story. The important thing is that there is a narrative for readers to follow—it's up to you to decide what this narrative is. You should also ask other people to read your manuscript and give you feedback on whether they think each section segues naturally into the next or whether they found any of the transitions jarring.

Question 11: What's some general advice on what kind of information is better to display in tables and figures? Do they usually improve readability?

LD: A lot of authors don't give enough thought to figures and tables—what we at Trends call "additional elements." But putting some extra effort into these elements can really help make your review stand out. When it comes to explaining a key concept, a picture can truly be worth a thousand words, and so I strongly encourage authors to think about translating the key take home messages of the review into an image. Different editors will have different preferences, but I don't find it particularly helpful to use figures to reprint specific empirical results. If you have a large number of studies that you want to compare and contrast along different dimensions, a table is a great way to do this. You can save a lot of space by presenting the results of different studies in a table rather than doing so in the main text of the review.

Posted by Jerry Fagerberg Jerry's spent the last decade searching for the perfect cheese danish. That search—among other things—brought him to Minneapolis, where he works from a sunny bedroom as the Product Manager of Cell Mentor. Alongside his winsome, indomitable rat terrier Camper, Jerry keeps Cell Mentor trending and on task.

Filed to Reviews , Trends in Cognitive Sciences , Trends in Biotechnology , Cell Mentor

About Cell Mentor

Cell Mentor—an online resource from Cell Press and Cell Signaling Technology—empowers early-career researchers with career insights, publishing advice, and techniques on experimental processes and procedures. Now it’s even easier to tap into the knowledge and experience of experts who’ve walked in your shoes. 

Subscribe to Cell Mentor

Browse cell mentor by topic and type.

• Get Technical

Contact Cell Mentor

Explore cell mentor:, stay connected:.

Research Journals

• Cell Genomics
• Cell Reports Medicine
• Cell Reports Methods
• Chem Catalysis
• STAR Protocols

Trends Reviews Journals

Partner journals.

• HGG Advances
• Plant Communications
• The Innovation

Collections

• Best of Cell Press
• Cell Press Selections
• Consortia Hub
• Nucleus Collections
• SnapShot Archive
• Trends Limited Editions

EVOLVING THE ARTICLE

• STAR Methods
• Read-It-Now
• Recommend to Librarian

Information

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility

BEYOND THE JOURNAL

• Cell Mentor

Science in Society

• Coloring and Comics
• Research Arc
• About Cell Press
• Help & Support
• Publication Alerts

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties

Useful Links

How to Write an Article Review That Stands Out

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Step 1: Select the Right Article

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

For Example:

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

Step 2: Read and Understand the Article

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

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

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

Step 3: Structure and Introduction

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

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

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

Step 4: Summarize the Article

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

For instance, you could write:

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

Smith’s research reveals a significant correlation between 

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

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

Step 5: Critically Analyze and Evaluate

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

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

For Example

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

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

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

Step 6: Express Your Perspective

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

Continuing with the Previous Example

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

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

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

Step 7: Conclusion and Final Thoughts

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

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

For instance

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

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

By addressing the research gaps and implementing targeted interventions: 

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

Step 8: Editing and Proofreading

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

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

Types of Article Reviews

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

Narrative Review

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

Evidence Review

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

Systematic Review

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

Tips for Writing a Great Article Review

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

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

• It will help you zero in on the key points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outline for Writing a Good Article Review

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

Introduction

– Begin with a summary of the article 

– Put in background knowledge of the topic 

– State why you are writing the review 

– Give an overview of the article’s main points 

– Figure out why the author choose to write something 

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

– Highlight the shortcomings in the article

– Restate why you are writing the review 

– Sum up the main points in a few sentences 

– Suggest what could be achieved in the future research 

Review Article Example

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

Introduction:

In her revolutionary book “Daring Greatly,” 

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

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

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

Summary of Key Ideas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths of the Book:

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

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

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

Final Verdict

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

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

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

Get Your Custom Essay Writing Solution From Our Professional Essay Writer's

Timely Deliveries

Premium Quality

Unlimited Revisions

Calculate Your Order Price

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

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
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a review article?

In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. Before asking ‘how,’ the question of ‘why’ is more important when starting to write a review. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. A ‘methodological filter’ is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.

The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines. [ 1 , 2 ] The institutions which provide financial support for further investigations resort to these reviews to reveal the need for these researches. [ 3 ] As is the case with all other researches, the value of a review article is related to what is achieved, what is found, and the way of communicating this information. A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published in 1985, and 1986, and revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria. [ 4 ] In 1996 an international group that analyzed articles, demonstrated the aspects of review articles, and meta-analyses that had not complied with scientific criteria, and elaborated QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) statement which focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies. [ 5 ] Later on this guideline was updated, and named as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). [ 6 ]

Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic. [ 7 , 8 ] Since it is a result of a more detailed literature surveying with relatively lesser involvement of author’s bias, systematic reviews are considered as gold standard articles. Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. In both of them detailed literature surveying is performed. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated (ie. meta-analysis). [ 8 ]

Before inquring for the method of preparation of a review article, it is more logical to investigate the motivation behind writing the review article in question. The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements:

• The question(s) to be dealt with
• Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions.
• To synthetize available, but quite different researches

For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined. Discussions should be conducted with colleagues in the same area of interest, and time should be reserved for the solution of the problem(s). Though starting to write the review article promptly seems to be very alluring, the time you spend for the determination of important issues won’t be a waste of time. [ 9 ]

The PRISMA statement [ 6 ] elaborated to write a well-designed review articles contains a 27-item checklist ( Table 1 ). It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible.

PRISMA statement: A 27-item checklist

Contents and format

Important differences exist between systematic, and non-systematic reviews which especially arise from methodologies used in the description of the literature sources. A non-systematic review means use of articles collected for years with the recommendations of your colleagues, while systematic review is based on struggles to search for, and find the best possible researches which will respond to the questions predetermined at the start of the review.

Though a consensus has been reached about the systematic design of the review articles, studies revealed that most of them had not been written in a systematic format. McAlister et al. analyzed review articles in 6 medical journals, and disclosed that in less than one fourth of the review articles, methods of description, evaluation or synthesis of evidence had been provided, one third of them had focused on a clinical topic, and only half of them had provided quantitative data about the extend of the potential benefits. [ 10 ]

Use of proper methodologies in review articles is important in that readers assume an objective attitude towards updated information. We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions. Firstly, we can be prejudiced during selection of research articles or these articles might be biased. To minimize this risk, methodologies used in our reviews should allow us to define, and use researches with minimal degree of bias. The second problem is that, most of the researches have been performed with small sample sizes. In statistical methods in meta-analyses, available researches are combined to increase the statistical power of the study. The problematic aspect of a non-systematic review is that our tendency to give biased responses to the questions, in other words we apt to select the studies with known or favourite results, rather than the best quality investigations among them.

As is the case with many research articles, general format of a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion ( Table 2 ).

Structure of a systematic review

Preparation of the review article

Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]

Steps of a systematic review

The research question

It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).

Finding Studies

In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.

Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.

While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.

One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.

Evaluation of the Quality of the Study

As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.

A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]

Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question

Formulating a Synthesis

Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.

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

• A Research Guide
• Writing Guide
• Article Writing

How To Write an Article Review

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

Article review format

• How to write a good article review
• Article review examples

Definition of article review assignments

Why do students write article reviews.

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

Types of article review tasks

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

Article review structure and outline

Article review structure.

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

Article review outline

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

Step-by-step writing guide

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

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

How to write a good article review?

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

Why choose article review examples?

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

Receive paper in 3 Hours!

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

Number of Pages

550 words (double spaced)

Deadline: 10 days left

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

Sign Up for your FREE account

Article Review

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

People also read

Get Better at Math: Solving Math Problems Quick and Easy

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

Law Article Review

Sample of article review assignment pdf

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

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

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

• Start with a Clear Introduction

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

• Concise Summary with Unanswered Questions

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

• Illustrate with Examples

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

• Organize Clearly with a Summary Section

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

• Constructive Criticism

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

• Smoothly Connect Your Ideas

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

• Revise and Check for Clarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why wait? Get our essay writing service today!

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

• Research Process

Writing a good review article

• 3 minute read
• 69.8K views

Table of Contents

As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.

Types of review articles

Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.

A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more.

A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings.

Tips for writing a good review article

Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:

• Define your question: Take your time to identify the research question and carefully articulate the topic of your review paper. A good review should also add something new to the field in terms of a hypothesis, inference, or conclusion. A carefully defined scientific question will give you more clarity in determining the novelty of your inferences.
• Identify credible sources: Identify relevant as well as credible studies that you can base your review on, with the help of multiple databases or search engines. It is also a good idea to conduct another search once you have finished your article to avoid missing relevant studies published during the course of your writing.
• Take notes: A literature search involves extensive reading, which can make it difficult to recall relevant information subsequently. Therefore, make notes while conducting the literature search and note down the source references. This will ensure that you have sufficient information to start with when you finally get to writing.
• Describe the title, abstract, and introduction: A good starting point to begin structuring your review is by drafting the title, abstract, and introduction. Explicitly writing down what your review aims to address in the field will help shape the rest of your article.
• Be unbiased and critical: Evaluate every piece of evidence in a critical but unbiased manner. This will help you present a proper assessment and a critical discussion in your article.
• Include a good summary: End by stating the take-home message and identify the limitations of existing studies that need to be addressed through future studies.
• Ask for feedback: Ask a colleague to provide feedback on both the content and the language or tone of your article before you submit it.
• Check your journal’s guidelines: Some journals only publish reviews, while some only publish research articles. Further, all journals clearly indicate their aims and scope. Therefore, make sure to check the appropriateness of a journal before submitting your article.

Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!

• Manuscript Preparation

What are Implications in Research?

How to write the results section of a research paper

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

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

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

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

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

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

❓ What Is an Article Review?

• ✍️ Writing Steps

📑 Article Review Format

🔗 references.

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

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

Popular Vs. Scholarly Articles

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

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

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

Article Review vs. Response Paper

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

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

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

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

✍️ How to Write an Article Review: Step by Step

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

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

Read the Article

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

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

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

Summarize the Article

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

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

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

Evaluate the Article

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

Get an originally-written paper according to your instructions!

Write the Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Review in APA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Review in MLA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

✅ Article Review Template

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

📝 Article Review Examples

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

📃 Men, Women, & Money   

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

📃 When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism   

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

📃 Sleep Deprivation   

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

✏️ Article Review FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Help and Support
• Research Guides

Systematic Reviews - Research Guide

• Defining your review question
• Starting a Systematic Review
• Developing your search strategy
• Where to search
• Appraising Your Results
• Documenting Your Review
• Find Systematic Reviews
• Software and Tools for Systematic Reviews
• Guidance for conducting systematic reviews by discipline
• Library Support

Review question

A systematic review aims to answer a clear and focused clinical question. The question guides the rest of the systematic review process. This includes determining inclusion and exclusion criteria, developing the search strategy, collecting data and presenting findings. Therefore, developing a clear, focused and well-formulated question is critical to successfully undertaking a systematic review.

 A good review question:

• allows you to find information quickly
• allows you to find relevant information (applicable to the patient) and valid (accurately measures stated objectives)
• provides a checklist for the main concepts to be included in your search strategy.

How to define your systematic review question and create your protocol

• Starting the process
• Defining the question
• Creating a protocol

Types of clinical questions

• PICO/PICo framework
• Other frameworks

Research topic vs review question

A  research topic   is the area of study you are researching, and the  review question   is the straightforward, focused question that your systematic review will attempt to answer. 

Developing a suitable review question from a research topic can take some time. You should:

• perform some scoping searches
• use a framework such as PICO  
• consider the FINER criteria; review questions should be  F easible, I nteresting, N ovel, E thical and R elevant
• check for existing or prospective systematic reviews.

When considering the feasibility of a potential review question, there should be enough evidence to answer the question whilst ensuring that the quantity of information retrieved remains manageable. A scoping search will aid in defining the boundaries of the question and determining feasibility.

For more information on FINER criteria in systematic review questions, read Section 2.1 of the Cochrane Handbook .

Check for existing or prospective systematic reviews

Before finalising your review question, you should determine if any other systematic review is in progress or has been completed on your intended question (i.e. consider if the review is N ovel).

To find systematic reviews you might search specialist resources such as the Cochrane Library , Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database  or the Campbell Collaboration . "Systematic review" can also be used as a search term or limit when searching the recommended databases .

You should appraise any systematic reviews you find to assess their quality. An article may include ‘systematic review’ in its title without correctly following the systematic review methodology. Checklists, including those developed by AMSTAR and JBI , are useful tools for appraisal.

You may undertake a review on a similar question if that posed by a previously published review had issues with its methodology such as not having a comprehensive search strategy, for example. You may choose to narrow the parameters of a previously conducted search or to update the review if it was published some years ago. 

Searching a register of prospective systematic reviews such as PROSPERO  will allow you to check that you are not duplicating research already underway.

Once you have performed scoping searches and checked for other systematic reviews on your topic, you can focus and refine your review question. Any PICO elements identified during the initial development of the review question from the research topic should now be further refined.

The review question should always be:

• unambiguous
• structured.

Review questions may be broad or narrow in focus; however, you should consider the FINER criteria when determining the breadth of the PICO elements of your review question.

A question that is too broad may present difficulty with searching, data collection, analysis, and writing, as the number of studies retrieved would be unwieldy. A broad review question could be more suited to another type of review .

A question that is too narrow may not have enough evidence to allow you to answer your review question. Table 2.3.a in the Cochrane Handbook summarises the advantages and disadvantages of broad versus narrow reviews and provides examples of how you could broaden or narrow different PICO elements.

It is essential to formulate your research question with care to avoid missing relevant studies or collecting a potentially biased result set.

A systematic review protocol is a document that describes the rationale, question, and planned methods of a systematic review. Creating a protocol is an essential part of the systematic review process, ensuring careful planning and detailed documentation of what is planned before undertaking the review.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist outlines recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol, including:

• review question, with PICO elements defined
• eligibility criteria 
• information sources (e.g. planned databases, trial registers, grey literature sources, etc.)
• draft search strategy. 

Systematic reviews must have pre-specified criteria for including and excluding studies in the review. The Cochrane Handbook states that "predefined, unambiguous eligibility criteria are a fundamental prerequisite for a systematic review." 

The first step in developing a protocol is determining the PICO elements   of the review question and how the intervention produces the expected outcomes in the specified population. You should then specify the types of studies   that will provide the evidence to answer your review question. Then outline the inclusion and exclusion criteria based on these PICO elements.

For more information on defining eligibility criteria, see Chapter 3 of the Cochrane Handbook .

A key purpose of a protocol is to make plans to minimise bias in the findings of the review; where possible, changes should not be made to the eligibility criteria of a published protocol. Where such changes are made, they must be justified and documented in the review. Appropriate time and consideration should be given to creating the protocol.

You may wish to register your protocol in a publicly accessible way. This will help prevent other people from completing a review on your topic.

If you intend to publish a systematic review in the health sciences, it should conform to the IOM Standards for Reporting Systematic Reviews .

If you intend to publish a systematic review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , it should conform to the Methodological Expectations in Cochrane Intervention Review s (MECIR).

A clinical question needs to be directly relevant to the patient or problem and phrased to facilitate the search for an answer. A clear and focused question is more likely to lead to a credible and useful answer, whereas a poorly formulated question can lead to an uncertain answer and create confusion.

The population and intervention should be specific, but if any or both are described too narrowly, it may not be easy to find relevant studies or sufficient data to demonstrate a reliable answer.

PICO is a framework for developing a focused clinical question. 

Slightly different versions of this concept are used to search for   quantitative   and   qualitative reviews, examples are given below:

PICO for quantitative studies

Here is an example of a clinical question that outlines the PICO components:

PICo for qualitative studies

Here is an example of a clinical question that outlines the PICo components:

Two other mnemonics may be used to frame questions for qualitative and quantitative studies -  SPIDER   and  SPICE .

SPIDER for qualitative or quantitative studies

SPIDER   can be used for both qualitative and quantitative studies:

Within social sciences research,  SPICE  may be more appropriate for formulating research questions:

More question frameworks

For more question frameworks, see the following:

• Table 1 Types of reviews , from ' What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. '
• Framing your research question , CQ University 
• Asking focused questions - Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Tips and examples for formulating focused questions
• Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 2: Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address Discusses the formulation of review questions in detail
• PICO for Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine EBVM Toolkit from the RCVS
• PICO worksheet
• PICo worksheet
• << Previous: Starting a Systematic Review
• Next: Developing your search strategy >>
• Last Updated: Mar 8, 2024 1:16 PM
• URL: https://libguides.murdoch.edu.au/systematic

Drone footage raises questions about Israeli justification for deadly strike on Gaza journalists

JERUSALEM — On Jan. 7, the Israeli military conducted a targeted missile strike on a car carrying four Palestinian journalists outside Khan Younis, in southern Gaza.

Two members of an Al Jazeera crew — Hamza Dahdouh, 27, and drone operator Mustafa Thuraya, 30 — were killed , along with their driver. Two freelance journalists were seriously wounded.

They were returning from the scene of an earlier Israeli strike on a building, where they had used a drone to capture the aftermath. The drone — a consumer model available at Best Buy — would be central to the Israeli justification for the strike.

The Israel Defense Forces said in a statement the next day it had “identified and struck a terrorist who operated an aircraft that posed a threat to IDF troops.” Two days later, the military announced that it had uncovered evidence that both men belonged to militant groups — Thuraya to Hamas and Dahdouh to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, its smaller rival in Gaza — and that the attack had been in response to an “immediate” threat.

The Washington Post obtained and reviewed the footage from Thuraya’s drone, which was stored in a memory card recovered at the scene and sent to a Palestinian production company in Turkey. No Israeli soldiers, aircraft or other military equipment are visible in the footage taken that day — which The Post is publishing in its entirety — raising critical questions about why the journalists were targeted. Fellow reporters said they were unaware of troop movements in the area.

Interviews with 14 witnesses to the attack and colleagues of the slain reporters offer the most detailed account yet of the deadly incident. The Post found no indications that either man was operating as anything other than a journalist that day. Both passed through Israeli checkpoints on their way to the south early in the war; Dahdouh had recently been approved to leave Gaza, a rare privilege unlikely to have been granted to a known militant.

In response to multiple inquiries and detailed questions from The Post, the IDF said: “We have nothing further to add.”

The Post could not identify other instances during the war when journalists were targeted by the IDF for flying drones, which have been used extensively to capture the extent of the devastation in Gaza.

Local journalists told The Post there was no official guidance on drones from the IDF, although one reporter said an Israeli officer had privately warned him against using one. Another said he had opted not to use his drone during the conflict, fearing it could be used as a pretext for an Israeli strike.

In a statement, Al Jazeera condemned the “assassination of Mustafa and Hamza” and pledged to “take all legal measures to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes.”

Ninety journalists and other media workers in Gaza have been killed in just over five months, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists — the deadliest period for the profession since the group began collecting data in 1992.

“It should be incumbent on the IDF to investigate what happened” on Jan. 7, Irene Khan, the U.N. special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, told The Post in February.

“It’s not enough to say that we suspected them so we killed them,” she said. “It’s very easy to say that in a combat situation.”

The journalists

Israel has blocked foreign media from entering the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7, save for occasional military embeds where access is tightly controlled. To understand the conflict, the world has relied on hundreds of Palestinian journalists.

Most famous has been Wael Dahdouh, Hamza’s father and Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau chief, whose perseverance in the face of personal tragedy has been an inspiration across the Arab world.

Wael came off air on Oct. 28 to learn that his wife, son Mahmoud and daughter Sham — Hamza’s siblings — and a grandson had been killed in their home by an Israeli airstrike. His closest colleague, Al Jazeera cameraman Samer Abu Daqqa, died of his wounds after an Israeli drone strike on Dec. 15, which also wounded Wael.

Hamza joined Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau during the conflict, working as an assistant cameraman and a field producer, his father said.

Thuraya was a well-known freelancer, contributing photos and drone footage to Al Jazeera, as well as to Agence-France Presse, Reuters and Getty Images. He had previously worked for around five years as a photographer for the Ministry of Religious Endowments, part of Gaza’s Hamas-led government, according to Shadi al-Tabatibi, 30, a fellow journalist in the enclave. It’s not clear when his employment ended.

According to multiple friends and associates interviewed by The Post, both Dahdouh and Thuraya left Gaza City, the original focus of Israel’s military operation, in late October along a civilian evacuation route identified by the IDF.

The men lived in tents for more than two months with other journalists in the city of Rafah, an area close to the Egyptian border, where some 1.4 million displaced Palestinians have sought refuge. The journalists laid their mattresses on wooden slats to insulate their beds from the cold, they said, and traveled to the scene of airstrikes and other attacks in groups — believing there was safety in numbers.

On Jan. 6 , the eve of their deaths, Dahdouh and Thuraya shared a meal with colleagues. “It was a simple dinner, but full of warmth,” said Adli Abu Taha, 33, a cameraman for Al-Kufiya TV.

Thuraya spoke to his wife and three daughters by phone, Tabatibi recalled, promising he would see them soon.

The assignment

The journalists awoke on Jan. 7 to news of an airstrike on the home of the Abu al-Naja family, south of Khan Younis, according to a photographer for the Palestine Today television channel, Amer Abu Amr, who was also at the scene that day. The IDF later described the house as an office for Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

A social media post suggested that at least four people were killed in the strike, and that some of the dead and wounded had already been taken to the hospital.

But with more bodies believed to be under the rubble, at least 11 journalists in Rafah set out for the scene — among them Dahdouh, Thuraya, and freelance reporters Muhammad al-Qahwaji and Hazem Rajab. By 10:39 a.m., Thuraya had a drone in the air, according to the metadata of videos he filmed that day.

The footage was obtained by The Post from the Media Town production house in Istanbul, which subcontracted Thuraya’s work for Al Jazeera and other clients. The clips show reporters in blue press vests surveying a mass of mangled wires and concrete. Children watch as men pull out bodies. Civil defense workers drape blankets over the dead and carry them away.

The footage includes 38 clips and runs just over 11 minutes. Thuraya is visible at times, looking at his drone controller and letting others peer at the screen. He zooms out twice, briefly, showing the landscape to the northwest and southwest of the damaged building, about a mile in each direction. No Israeli troops, aircraft or other military equipment are visible in the footage.

At The Post’s request, two analysts reviewed available satellite imagery of the area taken by Planet Labs and Airbus on Jan. 7, covering a radius of roughly 1.2 miles from where the drone was launched. Neither expert saw any evidence of military deployments or militant activity.

William Goodhind, an open-source researcher with Contested Ground, a research project that tracks military movements in satellite imagery, said he found no sign of “armored vehicles, military trucks, strongholds, revetments, and/or rocket and mortar firing points.” He identified a police checkpoint around half a mile northwest of the drone launch but said it was unclear if it was still in use.

Preligens, a geospatial artificial intelligence firm, ran the Jan. 7 satellite imagery provided by The Post through its AI vehicle detector and did not find any armored vehicles within 9.7 square miles.

Thuraya’s drone was a commercially available Mavic 2 , manufactured by the Chinese company DJI, roughly the size of a typical shoe box but slimmer. Thuraya stopped recording at 10:55 a.m., the metadata shows.

A second strike hit the site at 11:01 a.m., according to Amr, who said he and his colleague Ahmed al-Bursh were hit by shrapnel. Bursh was doubled over in pain as he stepped into a Palestine Red Crescent Society ambulance, seen in a video filmed by Amr, who joined him in the ambulance and recorded most of their ride.

“I did it out of fear,” he said. “I was afraid that we would be targeted.”

Abu al-Naja family home

2 a.m. First reports of a strike at the Abu al-Naja family home.

10:30 a.m. Thuraya and Dahdouh arrive to report on the strike aftermath.

Strike damage

11:01 a.m. Second strike hits the Abu al-Naja family home, injuring journalists Ahmed al-Bursh and Amer Abu Amr.

11:05 a.m. Ambulance carrying Bursh and Amr speeds to the hospital.

Imagery from Jan. 7

Imagery from Jan. 10

11:10 a.m. Thuraya and Dahdouh’s vehicle is hit by Israeli airstrike. It was traveling just behind the ambulance.

Satellite © Planet Labs 2024.

Times are local time and approximate.

Satellite © Planet Labs 2024. Times are local time and approximate.

10:30 a.m. Thuraya and Dahdouh arrive to report on the aftermath of the strike.

Thuraya, Dahdouh, Qahwaji, Rajab and their driver, 26-year-old Qusay Salem, who were not injured by the second strike, also fled the scene. Minutes later, an IDF video shows the sights of a military drone lock on to their vehicle, traveling just behind the ambulance. The sound of the explosion is captured in Amr’s recording from the back window of the ambulance at approximately 11:10 a.m.

Other eyewitness videos show the grisly aftermath: Thuraya and Salem were torn apart by the strike. Qahwaji was on the ground, bleeding heavily, as medics scrambled to assemble a stretcher for him. The freelancer’s face was burned and his jaw was split open. Rajab had severe burns and lost the use of an eye.

At the morgue, a grief-stricken Wael clutched his son’s hand and muttered softly to him. He wrapped his arms around Hamza’s wife, Wafaa, as she placed her face on her husband’s chest. Thuraya’s wife, Soraya, buried her head in his pillow and wept.

At a news conference that night in Doha, the Qatari capital, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken described the killings as an “unimaginable loss.” As a parent, he couldn’t “begin to imagine the horror” that Wael had experienced, “not once, but now twice.”

The State Department declined to provide further comment.

A shifting story

The night of the attack, a battle over the narrative began. The IDF said in a statement that its aircraft had “identified and struck a terrorist who operated an aircraft that posed a threat to IDF troops.”

The next day, IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari appeared to backtrack: “Every journalist that dies, it’s unfortunate,” he told NBC , saying the drone had made them look like “terrorists.”

In a new statement on Jan. 10, the IDF said the drone had posed an “immediate threat” to nearby soldiers, though the strike occurred approximately 15 minutes after Thuraya had stopped recording. The Post shared Thuraya’s footage with the Israeli military and asked if it could identify any moments when the drone posed a threat to its troops. “We have nothing more to add,” the IDF said.

The Jan. 10 statement also said that Israel’s military intelligence department had confirmed that Dahdouh and Thuraya were members of PIJ and Hamas, respectively.

The IDF’s justification for the strike fit “a pattern of responses that we identified even before this war,” said Sherif Mansour, the Middle East and North Africa program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists — “evading responsibility, throwing accusations of terrorism on the journalists” and saying they “were in a position that threatens Israeli positions on the ground.”

Local journalists said Israel has not issued any official ban or restrictions on drones, which they described as powerful tools to convey the scale of the war’s destruction. But even before Jan. 7, one veteran reporter concluded that the footage wasn’t worth the risk.

Suliman Hijji, a videographer working in the Rafah area, decided at the war’s outset he would keep his drone grounded.

“The use of aircraft draws attention and can make individuals vulnerable targets,” he said.

A freelance journalist in Gaza who has worked for international outlets, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of safety concerns, said he had received a “general warning” from an Israel officer: “The officer told me not to be exposed to danger, and not to operate drones.”

Since Thuraya and Dahdouh were killed, “no one dares to fly any drones,” said Anat Saragusti, director of press freedom at the Union of Journalists in Israel.

The IDF did not comment on its drone policy for journalists in Gaza.

The Jan. 10 statement also linked to a document dated June 2022 with the logo and name of al-Quds Brigade, the military wing of PIJ. Dahdouh’s name appeared next to a line item for $224. The IDF mentioned a second document in the statement, allegedly naming Thuraya as a squad deputy commander in the al-Qadisiyyah Battalion of Hamas’s Gaza City Brigade, but did not make the document public and did not respond to numerous requests to review it.

The IDF also declined to answer other questions about the documents, including when they were found and whether their discovery was linked to the strike planning on Jan. 7.

Michael Milshtein, former head of the Palestinian affairs department for IDF military intelligence, said that he didn’t know whether the document with Dahdouh’s name was authentic but that it followed “the basic format for a PIJ document.”

“I really believe that if the IDF spokesman released it, it is authentic,” he added.

Other experts had doubts.

“It could be authentic, but nothing that the IDF has provided so far makes this certain,” said Erik Skare, a historian and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Oslo who has written a book on the history of PIJ. He said the use of language, particularly the phrasing of geographic areas, was unusual, as was the mix of English and Arabic text in a document supposedly intended for internal use.

Al Jazeera rejected the accusations against its reporters, characterizing them as “an attempt to justify the killing and targeting of journalists.”

Friends and family of the slain reporters pointed out they had been subject to security checks by the IDF in the weeks before their deaths. Both had traveled through checkpoints from Gaza City to reach the south. Dahdouh, they said, had received permission to leave Gaza altogether.

Six weeks after the death of his mother and two siblings — and soon before his own death — Dahdouh had been cleared to depart the blockaded enclave, according to his father and an official briefed on his case who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

Securing permission probably would have required approval by COGAT, an arm of the Israeli Defense Ministry that signs off on who can enter and leave Gaza. The Post provided COGAT with Dahdouh’s name and Palestinian ID number to confirm he had been approved to leave, but received no answer.

Khan, the U.N. special rapporteur, said an investigation into the killings was urgently needed.

“If they’ve been able to provide this much information, they certainly have more information,” she said. “They have a responsibility to check, and to see whether mistakes are being made.”

Wael Dahdouh left Gaza on Jan. 17 to receive treatment for his wounds but vowed to keep reporting. Other reporters have since fled the enclave, or given up journalism, fearing they might be next.

Piper and Harb reported from London, Cahlan from Washington, and Balousha from Amman, Jordan.

Israel-Gaza war

Israel-Gaza war: Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to make a quick stop in Israel as tensions are rising between the United States and Israel over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to invade Rafah . The Israeli military said Wednesday that it was continuing its raid on al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, where people said they were trapped in dire conditions.

Middle East conflict: Tensions in the region continue to rise. As Israeli troops aim to take control of the Gaza-Egypt border crossing, officials in Cairo warn that the move would undermine the 1979 peace treaty. Meanwhile, there’s a diplomatic scramble to avert full-scale war between Israel and Lebanon .

U.S. involvement: U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria killed dozens of Iranian-linked militants , according to Iraqi officials. The strikes were the first round of retaliatory action by the Biden administration for an attack in Jordan that killed three U.S. service members .

• Republicans hug Netanyahu tighter as Democratic tensions with Israel war strategy boil March 20, 2024 Republicans hug Netanyahu tighter as Democratic tensions with Israel war strategy boil March 20, 2024
• Blinken begins new round of Gaza talks in Saudi Arabia March 20, 2024 Blinken begins new round of Gaza talks in Saudi Arabia March 20, 2024
• Blinken to visit Israel amid tensions over plan to invade Rafah March 20, 2024 Blinken to visit Israel amid tensions over plan to invade Rafah March 20, 2024

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Supreme Court Rules for Immigrant in Case on Deportation Hardship Waiver

By a 6-to-3 vote, the court said that federal appeals courts may review many rulings from immigration judges despite a law that sought to limit their jurisdiction.

By Adam Liptak

Reporting from Washington

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that federal appeals courts may review many determinations by immigration judges about whether deporting someone would, in the words of a federal statute, result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a relative who is lawfully in the United States.

The vote was 6 to 3, and the majority featured an unusual coalition: the three liberal members of the court and the three justices appointed by President Donald J. Trump.

The case concerned Situ Kamu Wilkinson, who was born in Trinidad and Tobago. In 2003, fleeing violence, he overstayed a tourist visa in the United States. About a decade later, he and his girlfriend had a son, an American citizen referred to in court papers as M.

After he was detained by the authorities in 2019, Mr. Wilkinson sought to avoid deportation under a provision of a federal statute that allows immigration judges to grant relief to people whose removal would cause great hardship to a spouse, parent or child. (Mr. Wilkinson satisfied the law’s other criteria: to have been present in the United States for at least 10 continuous years, to have good moral character and to have not been convicted of certain crimes.)

An immigration judge found that M. had severe asthma and that Mr. Wilkinson provided financial and emotional support for him. The judge also determined that M. had been struggling with behavioral problems since Mr. Wilkinson’s detention, when the boy was 7.

But the judge ruled that those circumstances did not amount to the kind of hardship that would warrant an exception to the usual rules. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that ruling.

Mr. Wilkinson sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which ruled that it lacked jurisdiction under a 1996 law that stripped federal appeals courts of much of their authority over rulings on deportations.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for five justices, said that an amendment to the law did allow appeals courts to review “questions of law.” She wrote that the immigration judge’s application of the statutory standard to the facts concerning M. satisfied that requirement.

“Mixed questions of law and fact, even when they are primarily factual, fall within the statutory definition of ‘questions of law,’” Justice Sotomayor wrote, allowing appellate review.

Pure factual issues are another matter, she wrote. “For instance,” she wrote, an immigration judge’s findings “on credibility, the seriousness of a family member’s medical condition or the level of financial support a noncitizen currently provides remain unreviewable. Only the question whether those established facts satisfy the statutory eligibility standard is subject to judicial review.”

Justices Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Justice Sotomayor’s opinion in the case, Wilkinson v. Garland, No. 22-666. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted with the majority but did not adopt its reasoning.

In dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the majority had defied the immigration laws by treating nearly all questions as legal ones that may be reviewed by appeals courts.

Such a reading of the immigration laws, he wrote, “would be the equivalent of a City Council adopting an ordinance banning all dogs from a park with an exception for all dogs that weigh under 125 pounds. Or the council passes an ordinance prohibiting all persons from riding a bicycle without a helmet but then adopts an exception for all persons under the age of 90.”

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak

• Bihar Board

SRM University

Bseb 12th result.

• Bihar Board Result 2024
• UP Board Result 2024
• CBSE Board Result 2024
• MP Board Result 2024
• Rajasthan Board Result 2024
• Shiv Khera Special
• Education News
• Web Stories
• Current Affairs
• नए भारत का नया उत्तर प्रदेश
• School & Boards
• College Admission
• Govt Jobs Alert & Prep
• GK & Aptitude
• CBSE Class 12

CBSE Class 12 Accountancy Paper Analysis 2024: Exam Review, Student Feedback and Expert View

Cbse class 12 accountancy paper analysis 2024: here, students can find the cbse class 12 accountancy paper analysis along with students’ feedback and question paper difficulty check..

CBSE Class 12 Accountancy Exam 2024 Key Highlights

Cbse class 12 accountancy paper review 2024.

• The question paper would fall under moderate to difficult category, tilting more towards the difficult end
• A variety of questions were a part of the paper such as MCQs, assertion-reasoning, short answer type, long answer type
• The question paper was in alignment to the sample paper released by the board
• Competency-based question such as Assertion Reasoning, case studies, and more were a part of the paper
• Paper focused on assessing the subject-related knowledge in students
• MCQs  and assertion reasoning questions were moderately challenging
• Short form questions and long form questions were average too. There was a mixture of easy and thoughtful questions
• Students felt that Part II was easier in comparison to the first part. 
• The choice between Analysis of Financial Statements and Computerised Accounting made the second part easier and convenient for them to solve

CBSE Class 12 Accountancy Paper Review 2024: Students’ Reactions

• Challenging Areas in Accountancy Questions: Assertion-Reasoning, Descriptive Type Answers, MCQs, Numericals, the paper was in all challenging and easy at the same time
• Type of Questions asked in Today’s Accountancy Exam: MCQs, Assertion-Reasoning, Case Study, Short Answer Type Questions, Long Answer Type Questions
• Section-wise Class 12 Accountancy Exam Review: Part A was a bit more difficult in comparison to the second part

CBSE Class 12 Accountancy Paper Analysis 2024 - Experts' Review

• Experts felt that the question paper was challenging enough for students
• There were easy and definition based questions in between which made the paper easy at times
• MCQs were a mixture of easy and tricky questions
• The paper was very similar to the sample paper released by the board in terms of format as well as types of questions asked
• The paper focused on assessing student’s time-management capabilities, retaining power, understanding of the subject, and presence of mind

CBSE Class 12 Accountancy Question Paper 2024

Cbse class 12 accountancy answer key 2024.

All the students who are interested in checking the answers to their questions can find the CBSE Class 12 Accountancy Answer Key 2024 here. Students should check the question paper codes and set number listed in the article, before checking the answers of their question paper. 

Also Check: 

CBSE Class 12 Syllabus 2023-2024 (All Subjects)

CBSE Class 12 Sample Paper 2023-2024 (All Subjects)

CBSE Class 12 Practice Papers 2023-2024

NCERT Solutions for Class 12 (All Subjects and Chapters)

Important Questions for Class 12 Board Exam 2024 (All Subjects)

Get here latest School , CBSE and Govt Jobs notification in English and Hindi for Sarkari Naukari and Sarkari Result . Download the Jagran Josh Sarkari Naukri App . Check  Board Result 2024  for Class 10 and Class 12 like  CBSE Board Result ,  UP Board Result ,  Bihar Board Result ,  MP Board Result ,  Rajasthan Board Result  and Other States Boards.

• Happy Holi Images
• BSEB बिहार बोर्ड 12th रिजल्ट 2024
• Bihar Board 12th Result 2024
• बिहार बोर्ड कक्षा 12 परिणाम 2024
• biharboardonline.bihar.gov.in परिणाम 2024
• BSEB 12th परिणाम 2024 at Jagran Josh
• बीएसईबी 12th रिजल्ट 2024
• Bihar Sakshamta Pariskha Answer Key 2024
• PNB SO Admit Card 2024
• MPNRC Result 2024

Trending Categories

Latest education news.

Find 3 differences between the dog pictures in 11 seconds!

IAS Officer Salary: Perks and Allowances of an IAS Officer and Other Grade A Officers

Bihar Sakshamta Pariksha Result 2024: Where and How to Check the Merit List

Optical Illusion Challenge: Can You Spot The Real Dog Among Toys In 12 Seconds?

You have a super brain if you can spot the rabbit hidden in girl’s room within 5 seconds.

Karnataka Board KSEAB SSLC Kannada Paper Analysis 2024: Exam Review, Student Feedback and Expert View

GATE Scorecard 2024 Out, Counselling Applications Underway

RRB Technician Application 2024 Underway for 9144 Posts; Apply Online at rrbapply.gov.in

KSEAB Class 10 Hindi Question Paper 2024 PDF with Answer Key

TS EAPCET 2024 Exam Dates Revised, Applications Close On April 6

Seek and Find Puzzle: Think You're Observant? Find the Barbell Hidden in Plain Sight

Use Hawk Vision To Spot 2 Fish, 3 Crabs, And 7 White Shells On This Beach In 12 Seconds!

Holi 2024: How is this Festival of Colour celebrated around the world?

Happy Holi Wishes in Hindi 2024: इस होली पर इन शुभकामनाओं संदेशों और शायरी से भरे खुशियों के रंग

OSSSC Forest Guard Exam Date 2024: Check Official Notice

CUET UG 2024 Applications Close Tomorrow, Correction Window From March 28, Check Details Here

Happy Holi Images: Top Radha Krishna Creative and Unique Photos for WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram Status and Stories

Happy Holi 2024: Top 50+ Wishes, Quotes, Captions, Message to Share with Friends and Family

Happy Holi 2024: भारत के इन सात राज्यों में होली के अलग-अलग रंग , पढ़ें

Chandra Grahan 2024 Kitne Baje Lagega: क्या है आज चंद्र ग्रहण का समय और सूतक काल में क्या न करें, जानें

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Biden is using the ‘are you better off today’ question to contrast himself with Trump

President Joe Biden arrives on Air Force One Wednesday March 20, 2024, at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, in Dallas. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

President Joe Biden walks to his motorcade after departing Air Force One, Wednesday March 20, 2024, on arrival at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, in Dallas. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

President Joe Biden greets Dallas County judge Clay Jenkins as he arrives on Air Force One Wednesday March 20, 2024, at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, in Dallas. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

• Copy Link copied

DALLAS (AP) — President Joe Biden opened a new line of attack against former President Donald Trump on Wednesday, asking and answering the classic “are you better off today than you were four years ago” question to remind voters of what it was like when Trump was in office.

The Democratic president also criticized Trump for saying over the weekend that a “bloodbath” would follow if he loses to Biden again in November. Trump and his allies defended the rhetoric, saying the Republican’s comments were about the U.S. auto industry. Trump’s critics had a different take.

“Folks, we can’t stand for this,” Biden said in his first public comments on Trump’s “bloodbath” claim. ”We have to say it as Americans, as Democrats, as independents, as Republicans, that there’s no place for political violence … ever. Period.”

Biden sought to turn the tables on Trump with the “better off” riff.

“Speaking of Donald Trump, just a few days ago, he asked the famous question at one of his rallies: Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” Biden said at a pair of Dallas-area campaign fundraisers, one of which brought in $2.5 million, one of the hosts said.

“Well Donald, I’m glad you asked that question man because I hope everyone in the country takes a moment to think back when it was like in March of 2020,” Biden said.

The Democratic president reminded the audience that the coronavirus had reached America, hospital emergency rooms were overcrowded, first responders were risking their lives to care for the sick and some nurses wore trash bags due to the scarcity of personal protective equipment .

Morgues were being set up outside of hospitals because so many people were dying, unemployment shot up, the stock market crashed and grocery store shelves were bare , Biden said.

“And we were even in a toilet paper crisis ,” he added, before he began to describe a turnaround after Trump.

“Donald Trump is no longer president, that’s the first thing,” Biden said, adding that COVID is under control, 15 million jobs returned and the stock market rebounded.

Biden campaign officials say voters who tuned out of the campaign are starting to pay attention to the reality of a Biden-Trump rematch now that they are their parties’ presumptive nominees.

There’s also a view that the public largely has forgotten the turbulence of Trump’s presidency and that, to win reelection, Biden needs to remind them of what it was like as he presents himself as the more stable alternative.

“The problem isn’t just going back to where Trump had the country. It’s where he wants to take us now,” Biden said. “Look to what he’s saying. I hope we’re all going to take it seriously. He means what he says. As crazy as it sounds, he means what he says.”

“Folks, it’s not about me. It’s about him,” Biden concluded.

He also took a crack at U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who has aligned himself closely with Trump and is being challenged by Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas .

“You gotta elect Colin as your next senator so Ted Cruz joins another loser, Donald Trump,” Biden said.

Superville reported from Kissimmee, Florida.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

The Real Serpent: Investigating a Serial Killer review – as useful as asking an MP a straight question

This documentary attempts to grill Charles Sobhraj – whose crimes were fictionalised in BBC drama The Serpent – but he’s as maddeningly evasive as a politician. Luckily, its research segments are highly compelling

I f you missed the numerous books, articles and documentaries about him, and the fictionalised version seen in the BBC drama The Serpent in 2021: Charles Sobhraj was convicted of killing two people, but is thought to have killed many more during a spree in the 1970s. He befriended naive tourists who were travelling on the “hippy trail” in south Asia, before drugging them and stealing their passports and money.

Sobhraj admits the drugging and robbing; that he would often then kill his victims is something he now denies, although he did confess it when interviewed by Richard Neville for a biography (co-authored with Julie Clarke) that became a worldwide bestseller in 1979. Sobhraj has never been tried in Thailand, where many of his alleged killings took place, but has served time for murder in India and Nepal.

The latter sentence ended on 23 December 2022, which means Sobhraj is at large, and he’s available for interview. The Real Serpent: Investigating a Serial Killer sees director David Howard spend several months circling Sobhraj, getting to know him. In his effort to prise open the notoriously disarming and evasive career criminal, Howard calls in reinforcements: former Metropolitan police detective Jackie Malton and forensic psychologist Paul Britton each sit down with Sobhraj, respectively probing for facts and digging for motivation.

We are, then, in that subsection of the true-crime documentary that we might call the “crack a nut” show. Series that have scored an interview with the person we believe to be a killer have an entirely different texture to those that merely unfurl the narrative. The godfathers of the genre are The Jinx , where Robert Durst blurted out that he did it in the final episode, and The Staircase , where Michael Peterson – who was convicted of the manslaughter of his wife, but maintains his innocence – remained so eerily confident throughout that it felt as if the programme itself was under his direction.

So, distasteful as this may be, the success of The Real Serpent depends on the showbiz attributes of Sobhraj as an antagonist. The visuals are strong: at the end of a bizarre early sequence in which the programme temporarily fits him with a disguise so that he can roam London incognito, it becomes clear that although the silly stick-on beard is new, what we thought was a ludicrous wig is either Sobhraj’s own hair, or a ludicrous wig he wears all the time. Thus the interrogations that subsequently form the meat of the series are with a guy sporting a barnet somewhere between Michael Fabricant and a 1970s Corrie “barmaid”.

Episode one’s grillings are, however, more frustrating than beguiling. Malton tries to go hard on the confessions in the Neville book, which Sobhraj counters with the weak, vague argument that he was stitched up. What he means by this, however, is not quite clarified, because Sobhraj derails the interview by constantly interrupting Malton, often with the accusation that she is interrupting him. Malton allows herself to become exasperated.

Britton, the psychologist, seems a better bet, with his patient, almost sing-song locution – precise, assertive, slightly paternal – giving the impression of someone who has snared many a monster. He searches for a soft underbelly, asking about Sobhraj’s mother. “A very selfish woman,” Sobhraj says. “I cannot make myself forgive her.” Certain that he is on to something, Britton places an empty chair next to Sobhraj, tells him to imagine that the chair is Mum, and asks what he would like to say to her. This brilliant plan turns out to have one tiny flaw: Sobhraj refuses to do it, saying that all that stuff is “private”. Oh.

The Real Serpent is diligent in its accumulation of evidence against Sobhraj, some of it brand new, leaving us in little to no doubt that he is a multiple murderer. But that only makes the interviews more maddening: as the three-part series goes on, you experience the same helpless anger as when watching a modern-day political interview. Because, just like a government minister who has been given a ridiculous line to recite and cannot be made to deviate by facts or argument, Sobhraj has realised that swearing solemnly that black is white and up is down can, in a one-on-one scenario where no judge or jury will name a winner at the end, take you a long way if you have enough shameless gumption.

after newsletter promotion

The real problem for The Real Serpent is that the 79-year-old Sobhraj, while certainly not as clever and elusive as he thinks he is, also isn’t as complex or mercurial as a programme like this needs him to be. Once you get used to his calmness when refusing to properly engage with his interviewers, there isn’t much else he is willing to let you discover: his spoiling techniques are effective but boringly unsophisticated. In a true crime show promising intrigue and spectacle, that’s criminal.

The Real Serpent: Investigating a Serial Killer aired on Channel 4 and is available online

• Documentary

Most viewed