Start with a header with citation – Journal article reviews start with a header, including citation of the sources being reviewed. This citation is mentioned at the top of the review, following the APA style (refer to the APA style manual for more information).
What is an example of APA style?
APA in-text citation style uses the author’s last name and the year of publication, for example: (Field, 2005). For direct quotations, include the page number as well, for example: (Field, 2005, p.14).
What is review paper format?
WHAT IS A REVIEW PAPER? CHOOSING A TOPIC RESEARCHING A TOPIC WHAT IS A REVIEW PAPER? The purpose of a review paper is to succinctly review recent progress in a particular topic. Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic.
It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers, A review paper is not a “term paper” or book report, It is not merely a report on some references you found. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field.
Examples of scientific reviews can be found in:
Science in the “Perspectives” and “Reviews” sections
Nature in the “News and Views” section
Compilations of reviews such as:
Current Opinion in Cell Biology Current Opinion in Genetics & Development Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology Annual Review of Physiology Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Almost every scientific journal has special review articles.
You should read articles from one or more of these sources to get examples of how your paper should be organized. Scientists commonly use reviews to communicate with each other and the general public. There are a wide variety of review styles from ones aimed at a general audience (e.g., Scientific American ) to those directed at biologists within a particular subdiscipline (e.g., Annual Review of Physiology ).
A key aspect of a review paper is that it provides the evidence for a particular point of view in a field. Thus, a large focus of your paper should be a description of the data that support or refute that point of view. In addition, you should inform the reader of the experimental techniques that were used to generate the data.
The emphasis of a review paper is interpreting the primary literature on the subject. You need to read several original research articles on the same topic and make your own conclusions about the meanings of those papers. CHOOSING A TOPIC Click here for advice on choosing a topic.
Introduction The body of the paper Conclusion and future directions Literature cited
Review articles contain neither a materials and methods section nor an abstract. Organizing the Paper: Use topic headings. Do not use a topic heading that reads, “Body of the paper.” Instead the topic headings should refer to the actual concepts or ideas covered in that section. Example What Goes into Each Section:
|Section of the paper||What it should contain|
|Introduction & Background||
Make it brief (~1/5 of the paper’s total length). Grab the reader’s interest while introducing the topic. Explain the “big picture” relevance. Provide the necessary background information.
|Body of the Paper||
Experimental Evidence: Describe important results from recent primary literature articles and Explain how those results shape our current understanding of the topic. Mention the types of experiments done and their corresponding data, but do not repeat the experimental procedure step for step. Examples Point out and address any controversies in the field. Use figures and/or tables to present your own synthesis of the original data or to show key data taken directly from the original papers.
Succinctly summarize your major points. Point out the significance of these results. Discuss the questions that remain in the area. Keep it brief.
Your instructor will give you a minimum number of references that you must use and cite in your paper. Typically, at least 8-10 references are required. Click here for how to handle citing sources.
Home Copyright © 2001, the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin.
How do you write a review paper for publication?
Why write a review article? –
To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic. To explain the current state of knowledge. To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research. To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.
There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them. Make sure you check the of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article. Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.
Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing. Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field.
As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.” When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.” For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences,,
Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact.
Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily. Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument.
- You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.
- As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic.
- Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.
- Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission.
You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service. Find out more about how can help improve your manuscript before you submit.
|Differences in.||Research article||Review article|
|Viewpoint||Presents the viewpoint of the author||Critiques the viewpoint of other authors on a particular topic|
|Content||New content||Assessing already published content|
|Length||Depends on the word limit provided by the journal you submit to||Tends to be shorter than a research article, but will still need to adhere to words limit|
Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:
Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope? Have you defined the scope of your article? Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate? Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords? Did you start with an overview of the topic? Have you presented a critical discussion? Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion? Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?
: What is a review article? | Learn how to write a review article |
What are the mistakes to be avoided during review article writing?
Three Types Of Biomedical Research : –
Basic Biomedical Research:
Basic research regulates to increase basic knowledge, and which cannot be able to solve any particular problems by directly. It provides building blogs for the other types of researches; it will be the starting point of research paper on a specific disease
Applied Biomedical Research:
It will be a second step which directs towards a particular objective, like improving a new drug, therapy, operations, procedures
Clinical Biomedical Research:
The final step, clinical trials which involve in humans, used to test whether the drugs are potentials for curing diseases, by following basic and applies steps then the drugs were applied directly to humans and individuals should be observed by behaviours research and disease control research.
- Five Common Mistakes While Writing Literature Review For Biomedical Research : 1.
- No Proper Lines Like Dispute Statement: While writing a literature review based on biomedical research, it should have a strong argument most of the students do not care about it.
- Hence if you are going to write a literature review first, we have to make sure that we are pointing out on the main topics, writing a review of literature is not a description writing it is an outline of our research.
So, before writing a review, the topic should gather all available sources. Then do neat literature writing.2. Absences Of Appropriate Research: While writing biomedical research, the paper should focus on related research papers. There are no issues whether the paper is long or short; it should convey to the researches accurately, and they should get clear ideas about those particular topics.3.
- Indicating The Sources Incorrectly: Many types of research do not add correct references that hold the key clashes in the introduction and the discussions.
- And it cannot be published.
- Then make sure each journal has particular guidelines on cite resources, do not take these guidelines, and follow them correctly.4.
Poor Formation Of Paper: They are so many challenges in literature review some challenges like the reader should engage in the paper, some strong question in between the paper, there should be no unnecessary questions, there should be some supportive statements, beside each every structure there should be an acknowledgement of the pictures.5.
Are articles on APA peer reviewed?
Peer Review A key convention in the publication of research is the peer review process, in which the quality and potential contribution of each manuscript is evaluated by one’s peers in the scientific community. Like other scientific journals, APA journals utilize a peer review process to guide manuscript selection and publication decisions.
- APA journal reviewers are qualified individuals selected by the action editor (typically, the journal editor or associate editor) to review a manuscript on the basis of their expertise in particular content areas of their field.
- The role of a peer reviewer is to highlight unique, original manuscripts that fit within the scope of the journal.
- To aid the editor’s objectivity, two to three peer reviewers are selected to evaluate a manuscript.
- These reviewers should be able to provide fair reviews,, as well as submit the reviews on time.
In addition to technical expertise, criteria for selection of reviewers may include familiarity with a particular controversy or attention to a balance of perspectives (APA, 2010, p.226). Whereas the journal editor holds final responsibility for a manuscript, the action editor usually weighs reviewers’ inputs heavily.
- Authors can expect their manuscripts to be reviewed fairly, in a skilled, conscientious manner.
- The comments received should be constructive, respectful and specific.
- Reviewers must present a clear decision recommendation regarding publication, considering the quality of the manuscript, its scientific contribution, and its appropriateness for the particular journal; support the recommendation with a detailed, comprehensive analysis of the quality and coherence of the study’s conceptual basis, methods, results, and interpretations; and offer specific, constructive suggestions to authors.
Journal editors may request that reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on specific criteria, which may vary across journals or for non-empirical article types, such as commentaries or reviews. What happens in peer review The action editor scans the paper to gain an independent view of the work.
This “quick read” provides a foundation for the more thorough reading that follows — it by no means determines the final decision, but does parallel how authors can expect many reviewers (and readers) to approach their papers. First, the editor scans the paper from beginning to end for obvious flaws in the research substance and writing style.
If problems show on the surface, a deeper reading is likely to uncover other matters needing attention. After this initial examination of your manuscript, the action editors, as well as any peer reviewers, will follow these general guidelines:
How do you start an article review example?
An Introduction to Writing Review Articles – the Node Last week, I gave a talk (online, of course) about ‘Writing review articles’. It was aimed at graduate students who, as part of their training, had to identify a topic in the field of developmental biology and write a mini-review on that particular topic.
- However, my talk contained some general advice about writing review-type articles, as well as some general writing tips, so I thought I’d share a summary of it here.
- Types of Review articles I guess the first thing to point out is that review-type articles come in lots of different ‘flavours’.
- They all vary with regard to length, scope, style and overall purpose, and are given different names by different journals.
But they all aim to summarise and distill research findings. This makes them very different to primary research articles, whic h aim to present data, although they are handled in similar way, i.e. they are submitted to a journal and peer-reviewed by 2-3 experts in the field. The many names that journals use to label review-based articles What’s the purpose of a (good) Review article? A good review article might aim to:
summarise key research findings highlight ‘must-read’ articles in the field act as educational material
However, an excellent review article will also:
be timely provide critique of studies highlight areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates point out gaps in knowledge and unanswered questions highlight current technologies that are helping/can help the field suggest directions for future research
But remember that readers are usually a mix of experts and non-experts who will be looking for very different things so a good review will cater for both of these audiences. For example, a graduate student might turn to a review article when they start in a new lab to find out more about the history of a field, or to get a summary of key findings.
- By contrast, an experienced post-doc or PI might want to read a review written by one of their peers to find out what the current state of thinking in a field is.
- Ideally, a good review should therefore aim to provide a combination of balanced summaries and critique whilst being authoritative, forward-looking and inspirational.
However, note that the exact ‘flavour’ or format of the review will also dictate its purpose, e.g. a ‘Perspective’ article in Journal X might aim to summarise a handful of recent studies, whereas an ‘Essay’ in Journal Y might aim to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the last decade of research. The things that different types of readers look for in review articles Where to begin? The first step is to choose the topic you want to write on and come up with a rough idea of the scope of your article. You may already have this in mind but it’s important, before you begin writing, to really nail the exact purpose of your article. To help you do this, I‘d suggest the following:
Identify the particular theme/topic/idea that you want to focus on. In most cases, this will be something that’s closely related to the topic you work on, e.g. you might be working on something, or reading up on a particular area, and feel that a review would be helpful. If you need inspiration (i.e. if you want to write but aren’t sure what to write about), read, speak to people, and think about talks you’ve been to. What’s exciting in your field right now? Are there papers that change the way we think about something? Have you seen/read papers that converge on a similar theme/idea? Check that there aren’t already reviews on this topic, i.e. something that’s been published within the past year or so. This is important; no-one wants to read a review that doesn’t offer anything new. Decide if there is enough recent material to include (or too much). At this point, you may need to go back to the drawing board to either expand on or refine the scope of your article. It’s also helpful to read a few reviews (mini-reviews vs longer reviews) to get a feel for how much material a review can cover. Identify and write down the main aim/purpose of your article. What’s the key message you want to get across? Why is this important and timely? Why would people want to read your article?
Note that lots of reviews are commissioned, i.e. the author is invited to write by a journal/editor. So, if you know you want to write a review on a particular topic and have a pretty clear idea of what your review will cover, a good place to start is by contacting a journal to see if they’d consider it.
Think about the sections/sub-sections you might use. What material would you cover in each of these? What’s the message of each section? How can you link the sections? Think about the key concepts/words/specialist terms that you need to introduce and define. Where, when and how should you introduce these? (e.g. in Intro, in a figure, in a text box). What needs to be introduced first? What’s the best order in which to discuss these? Think about the display items (figures, text boxes, tables) that might be helpful. How/when should they be used? What material would they contain?
When you start writing Once you have a plan, you can start writing. I’d suggest that you start with the Title, Abstract and Introduction – these are the first parts that the reader sees of the article so they need careful thought. By starting off with these, you’ll also have the scope/purpose of the article clear in your own mind.
Title, Abstract and Introduction: These should be short and self-contained, and should complement each other. Each one in turn should provide more detail, aiming to draw the reader in. Remember: lots of readers will only read the title and abstract (e.g. when they search for articles in Pubmed) so these basically act as a ‘hook’ to grab their attention. They also need to be ‘discoverable’ on the Web, i.e. database friendly and containing the relevant keywords. Choosing a title: Choose something that is short, clear and self-explanatory; try to avoid puns/idioms and colloquial phrases or references. Try to convey the key message but also provide context. Abstract: The abstract should then aim to highlight the most important parts of the article. The answers to the following 5 questions provide a good starting point: What is the main topic you’re going to focus on? What do we know so far? What is new/why is this now an interesting time for this field? What are the broad implications of these newer findings? What does your review aim to do? Introduction: The Introduction should then expand on the Abstract and set the scene. Provide context by first introducing the topic: why is this topic interesting/significant, what do we know about it so far, how has the field progressed, what has the new progress shown? Ideally, the Introduction should end with a clear description of the article’s scope, aims and structure, i.e. a walk-through of the main topics that will be discussed and the order in which these will be covered. This just lets the reader know what they can expect from the article. If possible, introduce or re-iterate the main ‘message’ of the article. Conclusions: Emphasize the key message or theme of the article and, if needed, reiterate the data that support this message. Highlight the broader significance of this conclusion. Finally, if possible, bring your voice to the article: What do you think are the most compelling questions raised by these studies? What approach(es) could be taken to address these open questions? Are there technical hurdles that need to be overcome? What are the broader implications of this, i.e. why are further studies needed and what benefits might they offer? Display items: Use figures to emphasize or illustrate key concepts/processes, or to introduce or summarize, Remember that figures should ideally act as stand-alone items; you should be able to follow them by eye and without referring to the main text, although each figure should have a clear title and a figure legend the walks the reader through the figure. In general, schematics are easier to follow than images reproduced from primary articles. Tables can be useful for summarizing lots of information, for comparing/contrasting things, or for highlighting advantages and disadvantages. Some journals encourage the use of text boxes, which can house additional or background information or material that is peripheral to the main theme of the text.
General things to think about while you’re writing (and to re-visit before you finish off!) Structure
Try to group your discussion into sections/sub-sections. This just helps to break up long chunks of text (and helps to keep the reader interested). If you already have a plan (e.g. a list of headings/sub-headings) this structuring will be much easier. Each section should begin with a small introduction. Each sub-section (and/or even each paragraph) should then have a clear message/point to it, e.g. What question did particular sets/types of studies set out to address? What did these show (and here you can go into the detail)? What could be concluded from these? It’s also helpful to add in a few lines to wrap up each section and ease transition into the next section.
Make sure that all statements are adequately supported by a citation. Cite the source/primary article whenever possible (but note that it is okay to cite Reviews for established concepts or to refer to a large body of evidence). Think about the word count and how much can be covered/how much detail you can go in to; you may find that it’s easier to write lots first then trim at a later stage. Avoid regurgitating the conclusions drawn in the papers you cite without giving them some thought. Don’t shy away from discussing findings that contradict each other. It’s better to highlight what can/cannot be reconciled and the possible cause of any discrepancies. Also use this as an opportunity to draw out the questions that remain and discuss how these questions could be addressed. Similarly, remain balanced – make sure you discuss the findings from the field as a whole (and not just the data from a few select labs). Make it clear when you are stating results versus providing speculation or alternative interpretations. Provide critique if you canbut keep it polite and constructive.
Remember your audience: the article needs to accessible to expert and non-expert readers alike. Introduce/define/explain specialist terms, cell types, tissues, phrases on first mention. Consider using display items to house any material that a non-expert reader might find useful. Don’t assume the reader knows what you’re thinking and how things link together; you might feel like you’re sometimes stating the obvious but it’s better to do this than to leave readers feeling lost.
Stick to using clear and simple sentencesbut try to vary the pace of your writing, e.g. by using a mixture of long and short sentences. A general rule is to write as you would speak, using active rather than passive tense/sentence construction. Be thrifty with your words: completely eliminate any that aren’t needed. Avoid vague sentences. For example, say ‘Factor A causes an increase/decrease in Factor B’, rather than ‘Factor A modulates Factor B’.
Importantly, be patient and don’t get frustrated! A good writing style needs to be developed over time and comes with practice. Of all the things highlighted above (structure, content, accessibility and style), I’d say that style is the hardest to really nail.
Getting a good and consistent writing style is also challenging if you have multiple authors working on the same article. In this case, I’d recommend that you nominate one author to do a final comb-through to iron out any inconsistencies, although hopefully you’ll have an editor who’ll also assist with this! On this note, I should point out that the amount of input you receive from an editor will vary from journal to journal, e.g.
some journals have dedicated editors who spend a significant amount of time, working alongside the authors, to edit and improve a review. Developing your writing style Finally, some tips from fellow editors! We have a bunch of experienced editors here at the Company of Biologists so I asked them all for their key pieces of advice. Here are just some of the things they suggested:
Plan, plan, plan – make sure you have a good idea of the overall structure before you think about details Get feedback. Before you submit your review, send it to someone whose opinion you trust and ask them for their honest thoughts. Don’t be discouraged if they give lots of feedback – this is exactly what you want! A review shouldn’t just be a list of facts, e.g. X showed this, Y showed this, Z showed this. A narrative thread or argument that connects is much more engaging. Take time to pull back and look at the overall structure. Does it make sense? Can you see how the ideas join together and flow from beginning to end? Remember that readers aren’t psychic. Explain why you’ve chosen the scope you have, why you’ve chosen to discuss particular examples, why you’re moving on to the next topic. Also make sure you clearly link up relevant observations and state conclusions rather than expecting the reader to make connections. Don’t assume that the reader can link two statements that you might be able to link in your mind; you have to explain the link. Think about the graphics at an early stage – figures can often feel like a bit of an afterthought but good figures can really help to get the message across far more concisely than text. Break the article up into sections so that people can easily find the particular piece of information they might be looking for; recognize that not everyone is going to read from start to finish. Remember that your readers will know far less about the topic than you do. So before you dive into the new and exciting findings in the field, make sure you’ve given a clear overview of the system you’re writing about. Imagine that you’re writing for a new PhD student who’s never worked in this particular field.
One final point: there’s no ‘winning formula’. This is just my advice based on the articles I’ve handled and the authors I’ve dealt with, so you may find that some of it doesn’t work for you or that someone else’s advice differs. Ultimately, you should aim to develop a writing approach, technique and style that works for you. Happy writing! ( 39 votes) Loading. : An Introduction to Writing Review Articles – the Node
How do you Harvard reference an article review?
|In-text citation:||Reference List item:|
|‘More people create a greater demand for food, energy, water and other resources, driving pressures on the natural environment’ (Juniper, 2016, p.16).||Juniper, T. (2016) What’s really happening to our planet?. New York, N.Y.: DK Publishing.||Author(s) name, initial(s). (year of publication) Title of Book: subtitle, edn, Place of Publication: Publisher.|
Juniper (2016); Barr (2018); Williams (2020); and Peake (2021) all agree that renewable energy is one positive step towards slowing down the negative effects of climate change. OR Recent studies (Juniper, 2016; Barr, 2018; Williams, 2020; Peake, 2021) have shown that renewable energy is one positive step towards slowing down the negative effects of climate change.
How do you cite someone’s review?
Give the reviewer’s name and the title of the review (if any). Write Rev. of (neither italicized nor enclosed in quotation marks), the title of the work reviewed, a comma, the word by, and the name of the author.
How do you cite a peer reviewed article in Word?
Click at the end of the sentence or phrase that you want to cite, and then on the References tab, in the Citations & Bibliography group, click Insert Citations. From the list of citations under Insert Citation, select the citation you want to use.