How to write a research article review paper

Reading these can give you insights into how the other reviewers viewed the paper, and into how editors how to write a research article review paper reviews and make decisions about rejection versus acceptance or revise and resubmit.

How to review a paper

Start your review with mentioning the title of the article under review, its author sas well as the title of the journal and the year of publication.

I always comment on the form of the paper, highlighting whether it is well written, has correct grammar, and follows a correct structure. Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results? Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies.

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

Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? What do you consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper?

Does it contribute to the progress in this field? Then put together the lists of strong points and drawbacks and summarize them. I try to be as constructive as possible.

Minor comments may include flagging the mislabeling of a figure in the text or a misspelling that changes the meaning of a common term. This is because you should know which points of the article are most important to your review in advance. Depending on how much time I have, I sometimes also end with a section of minor comments.

That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section. Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is.

The responses have how to write a research article review paper edited for clarity and brevity. Then I make specific comments on each section, listing the major questions or concerns. I also carefully look at the explanation of the results and whether the conclusions the authors draw are justified and connected with the broader argument made in the paper.

This is where you briefly restate the main points of the article, as well as your judgment as to how well-written and important the article is. So now, I only sign my reviews so as to be fully transparent on the rare occasions when I suggest that the authors cite papers of mine, which I only do when my work will remedy factual errors or correct the claim that something has never been addressed before.

If you are using a print version, use a pen. I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state of the art, as that indirectly shows whether the authors have a good knowledge of the field.

I consider four factors: Finally, I am more inclined to review for journals with double-blind reviewing practices and journals that are run by academic societies, because those are both things that I want to support and encourage. Write your introduction Your introduction should be the utmost laconic gist of the article under review.

Third, I make sure that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate. Be as laconic as you can and include as much information as possible. Most of the time is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes.

However, if the mechanism being tested does not really provide new knowledge, or if the method and study design are of insufficient quality, then my hopes for a manuscript are rather low. Even if a manuscript is rejected for publication, most authors can benefit from suggestions.

Check with your summary and describe how well the topic is covered in the article. Besides that, I make notes on an extra sheet. First, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the current status of our knowledge.

I try to stick to the facts, so my writing tone tends toward neutral. I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics. You can only write a solid article review if you have made sure that you understand everything there is to understand in and about the article.How long is a review article?

Review articles vary considerably in length. Narrative reviews may range between 8, and the review, defines the focus, the research question and explains drives the article and not the literature used; write an idea-driven, rather than literature-driven article!

Conclusions. How to Write an Article Review. Sep 07, Research. A research article review differs from a journal article review by the way that it evaluates the research method used and holds that information in retrospect to analysis and critique. The best way to learn how to write this kind of paper is to look for an article review example.

Write an Article Request a New Article Answer a Request More Ideas Home» Categories; Get the File. Download as Adobe PDF. Download as MS Word. Download as Text File. Open in Office Online. Sample Research Article Review. In the second and final section of this paper, Ryle expanded upon the various definitions of “feelings” he.

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

How To Write an Article Review

This is my first attempt at writing a scientific paper and I am thinking of writing a review article. I want to know what is the exact difference between a research paper and a review paper. Format for a review paper Title page: Title-- reflecting topic of review Your Name your review and the purpose of the article, then discussing the conclusions you have drawn.

You should also discuss the implications of your review findings and where you think research in this field should go from here. If I feel there is some good material in the paper but it needs a lot of work, I will write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors need to do.

How to write a research article review paper
Rated 4/5 based on 88 review