How To Write An Article Review In Apa Format?

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).

How do you cite an article review?

A Review – To cite a review, include the title of the review (if available), then the phrase, “Review of” and provide the title of the work (in italics for books, plays, and films; in quotation marks for articles, poems, and short stories). Finally, provide performance and/or publication information.

Review Author. “Title of Review (if there is one).” Review of Performance Title, by Author/Director/Artist. Title of Periodical, Day Month Year, page. Seitz, Matt Zoller. “Life in the Sprawling Suburbs, If You Can Really Call It Living.” Review of Radiant City, directed by Gary Burns and Jim Brown. New York Times, 30 May 2007, p.

E1. Weiller, K.H. Review of Sport, Rhetoric, and Gender: Historical Perspectives and Media Representations, edited by Linda K. Fuller. Choice, Apr.2007, p.1377.

What does an article review look like?

How to Write an Article Review (with Sample Reviews)

• 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. 1 Understand what an article review is. An article review is written for an audience who is knowledgeable in the subject instead of a general audience. When writing an article review, you will summarize the main ideas, arguments, positions, and findings, and then the article’s contributions to the field and overall effectiveness.
   • 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 and evaluates the article.
2. 2 Think about the organization of the review article. Before you even begin reading the article you will review, you need to understand how your article review will be set up. This will help you understand how to read the article so that you can write an review. Your review will be set up in the following parts:
   • 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 included to support the author’s claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

   Advertisement

3. 3 Preview the article. Begin by looking at the title, abstract, introduction, headings, opening sentences of each paragraph, and the conclusion. Then read the first few paragraphs, followed by the, These steps should help you start to identify the author’s arguments and main points. Then read the article in its entirety. When you read the first time, just read for the big picture – that is, look for the overall argument and point the article is making.
   • Make note of words or issues you don’t understand and questions you have.
   • Look up terms or you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.
4. 4 Read the article closely. Read the article a second and third time. Use a highlighter or pen to make notes or highlight important sections. Highlight the main points and the supporting facts. Don’t: highlight every paragraph — just the central points. Do: supplement the most significant points with notes or cross-references.
   • Connect what you read in the article to your existing of the topic. Think about things you have discussed in class or other articles you have read. Does the article agree or disagree with your previous knowledge? Does it build on other knowledge from the field? Determine how the article you are reviewing is similar and different from other texts you’ve read on the subject.
   • 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.
5. 5 Put the article into your words. You can do this as a free written paragraph or as an outline. Start by putting the article in your own words. Focus on the argument, research, and claims the article makes. What is the main point driving at? Don’t: spend time on editing or phrasing. This is just for your benefit. Do: write in a clear, logical structure to test your understanding.
   • With either method, make an 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.
6. 6 Write an outline of your evaluation. Review each item in the article summary to determine whether the author was accurate and clear. Write down all instances of effective writing, new contributions to the field, as well as areas of the article that need improvement. Create a list of strengths and weaknesses. The strength of the article may be that it presents a clear summation of a particular issue. Its weakness may be that it does not offer any new information or solutions. Use specific examples and references. For example, the article might have incorrectly reported the facts of a popular study. Jot down this observation in your and look up the facts of the study to confirm your observation. Think about the following questions to help you critique and engage with the article:
   • 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.

Advertisement

1. 1 Come up with a, This title should reflect the focus of your review. Decide between a declarative title, descriptive title, or interrogative title.
2. 2 Cite the article. Under the title, place a complete of the article in the proper style. Go to the next line to begin your essay. Don’t skip a line between the citation and first sentence.
   • For example, in, 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.
3. 3 Identify the article. Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph.
   • For example: The article, “Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS,” was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.
4. 4 Write the, The introduction of the article review will have the identification sentence. It will also mention the central themes of the article and the arguments and claims of the author. You also need to state the author’s thesis. Sometimes, the thesis has multiple points. The thesis may not be clearly stated in the article, so you may have to determine the thesis yourself. Don’t: make statements in the first person (“I”). Do: give an overall impression of the article and a formal, academic style.
   • 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.
5. 5 Summarize the article. Express the main points, arguments, and findings of the article in your own words, referring to your summary for assistance. Show how the article supports its claims. Make sure to include the article’s conclusions. This may be done in several paragraphs, although the length will depend on requirements established by your instructor or publisher. Don’t: cover specific examples, statistics, or background information familiar to experts in the field. Do: capture the main points of each section, as space allows.
   • 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.
6. 6 Write your critique. Use your outline of opinions to write many paragraphs explaining how well the author addressed the topic. Express your opinion about whether the article was a clear, thorough, and useful explanation of the subject. This is the core of your article review. Evaluate the article’s contribution to the field and the importance to the field. Evaluate the main points and arguments in the article. Decide if the author’s points help her argument. Identify any biases. Decide if you agree with the writer, then provide sufficient support as to why or why not. End by suggesting which audiences would benefit from reading the article. Don’t: fill your review with a long list of unrelated critiques. Do: tie your grievances and praise together into a coherent argument, forming your own thesis.
   • 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.
7. 7 Conclude the article review. In a paragraph, summarize the main points of the article, as well as your opinions about its significance, accuracy, and clarity. If relevant, also comment on implications for further research or discussion in the field.
   • 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.
8. 8 Proofread. Reread the review. Look for grammar, mechanics, and usage mistakes. Make sure to cut any extra, unneeded information.
   • Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

Advertisement

• Question How do you write an article review? Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist 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. Good article reviews happen when you understand the author, their perspective, their expertise (or lack thereof), institutional bias that may be within the paper, and key findings in the article and how they align with other conversations being had about the article topic. You can write a quality article review like this by paying attention to these questions from the outset and taking notes as you read the article.
• Question How do I present figures and tables in a review? Typically, you won’t want to include tables or figures in your review, because this would usually indicate added information from your perspective. However, you can reference tables and figures in the original work, such as by saying, “In Figure 2.1, demonstrates.”
• Question How many articles am I required to study before writing a review article? It would depend on the subject of the review article. If the article you’re writing requires a lot of knowledge about outside articles, then you will need to read as many as possible, though there is no required minimum.

Ask a Question Advertisement Co-authored by: Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist This article was co-authored by, 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.

This article has been viewed 2,946,639 times.

• Co-authors: 58
• Updated: March 16, 2023
• Views: 2,946,639

Categories: |

Thanks to all authors for creating a page that has been read 2,946,639 times.

“I am a college student of geophysics and required to submit a PowerPoint presentation of an article focusing on the understand of the main theory employed in a geophysical survey. And I must say, these guidelines have succinctly set me on course in the most welcoming manner I have ever experienced. Thank you very much wikiHow and the main contributors for this prolific mine of creativity!”,”

: How to Write an Article Review (with Sample Reviews)

How many pages should an article review be?

Asked 9 years, 7 months ago Viewed 17k times When you review papers submitted for publication, is there an “optimal” length for reviews? In my experience as an author and referee, I have seen a large range of review lengths (for reference, a paper in my field is typically between 3 and 8 printed pages):

Zero length: for some of the papers I have authored, the reviewer just clicked the “accept as is” or “reject” checkmark on the review sheet, without adding any comment (at least, not any comment visible to me). It’s not so common, but it has happened. Short length: a lot of time, I received reviews who consisted of a single paragraph. Medium: one full page, maybe two pages.

Although I have never received any such long reviews, I have myself written on a few occasions reviews that exceed two pages, including once or twice a four or five-page review. These were cases where the paper was good, but could be (in my view) much improved and some of the aspects/consequences had escaped the authors’ consideration. Peter Jansson 72.4k 12 gold badges 203 silver badges 339 bronze badges asked Oct 30, 2013 at 8:57 F’x F’x 72.1k 23 gold badges 254 silver badges 388 bronze badges 4 Reviews can be of quite varying length but obviously the extremes indicate some problems. A review consisting of “Accept as is” would be highly suspicious in my mind (as an editor). It usually means the reviewer has not done any work, essentially no manuscript is that close to perfect (although it may of course happen).

A review of “Reject” without additional comment is equally pointless (I am then assuming the journal has some form of quality check before accepting for review). An absence of comments is just a big warning sign since there is no perspective on why the MS is either perfect or perfectly worthless. Considering the length of a review, it is governed by two factors: the quality of the manuscript and the personality of the reviewer.

To some extent longer reviews indicate more questions to be resolved. At the same time some reviewers may be more nit-picking than others so that also influences the length. Based on my experience as an editor, I would say, as a rule of thumb, that at least a page of (single spaced) comments would be a basis for a descent review for a normal manuscript (15-20 pages double spaced excluding references, tables, figures) in the field experiment/observation based science where I work.

1. A review of more than three or four pages of (single spaced) comments would be unusual and probably involve comments down to spelling issues.
2. A decent review” involves providing clear and constructive comments that will allow the editor to value the manuscript and the author to improve the manuscript.

So I would not say that a long review would necessarily be frowned upon, it clearly depends on how constructive it is. If someone spends a lot of effort improving language and grammar (which does not necessarily constitute the expectations from a review) that could be very useful. Peter Jansson Peter Jansson 72.4k 12 gold badges 203 silver badges 339 bronze badges 2 Speaking from the point of view of an editor: One of the best reviews I ever got was longer than the paper. The author, a young researcher, had proved three theorems, one of which I recognized as a known result.

• So I asked the original discoverer of that known result to referee the paper.
• In my cover letter, I mentioned that I recognized one of the theorems as his, and asked whether the other two theorems had enough novelty for a publication.
• It turned out that the other two theorems weren’t new either.
• The referee could easily have just given citations for those two theorems and recommended rejection.

Instead, he gave me (or, really, gave the author) a long, clear explanation of the state of the art in that subject, and he suggested some open problems that the author could try working on. answered Jun 18, 2014 at 1:30 Andreas Blass Andreas Blass 21.6k 2 gold badges 54 silver badges 74 bronze badges 1 An “accept as is” option is useful after resubmissions; it signifies that no more work needs to be done. However, it is unusual to see that happen in an article on the first round of submissions.

• I’ve had that happen precisely once in my career.) Otherwise, I would say that the more detailed a review can be, and the more precise the suggestions for improving the paper are, the better it will be.
• One to two pages is typically the norm; however, I have submitted a few three- to four-page reviews when I thought an article was already quite good, but could be better.

On the other hand, if a paper is already of relatively poor quality, I will explain the methodological or other significant flaws, but skip over an analysis of minute points; (it’s simply not worth the time to rearrange the furniture when the roof is going to collapse any minute.) answered Oct 30, 2013 at 13:00 aeismail aeismail 173k 34 gold badges 412 silver badges 726 bronze badges As an author, reviewer, and key reader of a respected engineering journal, I can offer some perspective. The shortest review I received was one I solicited from a highly-respected professor at a prestigious university.

His review was basically “This manuscript is not written well enough to be reviewed.” The longest review I have received as an author was about five bulleted comments some of which were optional revisions and some minor but necessary clarifications; the shortest was one minor comment approving the manuscript.

As a reviewer I have on several occasions completely rewritten a non-English language author’s manuscript as a gratis professional service. To my surprise, I received thank you letters from the professional society publications chair and the editor thanking me for my ‘laudatory’ service.

1. I took that to indicate my effort was unusual.
2. My shortest key reader review summary was to a VERY famous author who after a 22 page derivation, which he summarized as ‘simple’.
3. With feigned seriousness, I ‘required him to remove the word ‘simple’ since he was on this uncustmary occasion communicating with mortals.

answered Mar 7, 2018 at 7:08

What are the three types of article reviews?

This article is part of a Series This article is part of a Series Key takeaways:

Scholarly journals publish content in different formats, not just original research articles. Some forms of scholarly literature require original research (primary literature) and some are based on other published work (secondary literature). Consider options like review articles or perspective/opinion pieces to start off your publication journey.

The field of research requires persistence and most researchers devote many a sleepless night towards conducting research and documenting results. In the competitive world of academia, you are expected to start publishing early in your career, and many early-career researchers are faced with the looming worry of how to publish a journal article.

Although original research sometimes takes years to complete, it does not mean you cannot have any publications to your credit till the time you complete your research. There are different types of scholarly literature, some of which require original research (categorized as primary literature) and some that are based on other published work (secondary literature).

It is important to have a clear idea about the different types of articles that you can publish in journals. This will help you understand the ways in which you can disseminate your work and identify what kind of article would be suitable for your study.

1. The types of publications are different in different fields.
2. For instance, a clinical trial is possible only in the field of medicine, while an empirical study is more common in the field of social sciences.
3. It is important to remember that not all journals publish every kind of article.
4. Therefore, most journal publishers provide prospective authors with accurate and specific guidelines for the different articles they publish.

Specifications about the types of articles published can be found under the guidelines to authors section on a journal’s website. If you have a target journal in mind, you should check whether it publishes the kind of manuscript you are planning to write.

Some of the possible types of scientific publications are: 1. Original research: These are detailed studies reporting original research and are classified as primary literature. They include hypothesis, background study, methods, results, interpretation of findings, and a discussion of possible implications.

Original research articles are long, with the word limit ranging from 3000 to 6000, 2,3 and can even go up to 12,000 words for some journals.1 These require a significant investment of time.2. Review article: Review articles provide a critical and constructive analysis of existing published literature in a field, through summary, analysis, and comparison, often identifying specific gaps or problems and providing recommendations for future research.1,6 These are considered as secondary literature since they generally do not present new data from the author’s experimental work.

Review articles can be of three types, broadly speaking: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Review articles can be of varying lengths depending upon the journal and subject area. For narrative reviews or literature reviews, the length could range anywhere between 8000 to 40,000 6 words while systematic reviews are usually less than 10,000 words long.6 However, some journals also publish shorter reviews, around 3000-5000 words long.1-3 To submit a publication ready manuscript without errors and mistakes that commonly go unnoticed by authors, check out Editage’s professional editing services,3.

Clinical case study: Clinical case studies present the details of real patient cases from medical or clinical practice. The cases presented are usually those that contribute significantly to the existing knowledge on the field. The study is expected to discuss the signs, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of a disease.1,5 These are considered primary literature and usually have a word count similar to that of an original article.

Clinical case studies require a lot of practical experience and may not be a suitable publication format for early career researchers.5 4. Clinical trial: Once again, specific to the field of medicine, clinical trials describe the methodology, implementation, and results of controlled studies, usually undertaken with large patient groups.1,5 Clinical trial articles are also long, usually of about the same length as an original research article.

Clinical trials also require practical work experience, as well as, high standards of ethics and reliability.5 So this format is more useful for experienced researchers.5. Perspective, opinion, and commentary: Perspective pieces are scholarly reviews of fundamental concepts or prevalent ideas in a field.

These are usually essays that present a personal point of view critiquing widespread notions pertaining to a field.1-3 A perspective piece can be a review of a single concept or a few related concepts. These are considered as secondary literature and are usually short articles, around 2000 words.2 Opinion articles present the author’s viewpoint on the interpretation, analysis, or methods used in a particular study.

It allows the author to comment on the strength and weakness of a theory or hypothesis. Opinion articles are usually based on constructive criticism and should be backed by evidence.1 Such articles promote discussion on current issues concerning science.

These are also relatively short articles. Commentaries are short articles usually around 1000-1,500 words long that draw attention to or present a criticism of a previously published article, book, or report, explaining why it interested them and how it might be illuminating for readers.6. Book review: Book reviews are published in most academic journals.

The aim of a book review is to provide insight and opinion on recently published scholarly books. Book reviews are also relatively short articles and less time-consuming. Book reviews are a good publication option for early – career researchers as it allows the researcher to stay abreast of new literature in the field, while at the same time, adding to his publication list.5 Related reading:

A young researcher’s guide to writing an original research article A young researcher’s guide to writing a literature review A young researcher’s guide to a systematic review A young researcher’s guide to writing a clinical case report A young researcher’s guide to a clinical trial A young researcher’s guide to perspective, commentary, and opinion articles What is the difference between a research paper and a review paper? Which is easier to publish – an original research article or a review article?

Bibliography: 1. Frontiers in group. Frontiers in Neuroscience Available from http://www.frontiersin.org/Neuroscience/articletype 2. Sage Publications. Manuscript Submission Guidelines Available from http://www.uk.sagepub.com/msg/hsr.htm#ARTICLETYPES 3. Nature Publications.

Author Resources Avaialable from http://www.nature.com/authors/author_resources/article_types.html 4. AcademyHealth. Writing Articles for Peer-review Publications: A Quick Reference Guide Available from http://www.academyhealth.org/files/HIT/writingguide.pdf 5. University of Colorado Libraries. Publish, Not Perish: The Art & Craft of Publishing in Scholarly Journals, Module 1, Overview of Scholarly Publishing Available from 6.

Zurich-Basel Plant Science Center. Guidelines for writing a review article. Available from http://ueberfachliche-kompetenzen.ethz.ch/dopraedi/pdfs/Mayer/guidelines_review_article.pdf Published on: Feb 20, 2015

How long does it take to write a review of an article?

Understand what the journal wants – Most journals, including the Trends journals, have a dense array of author guidelines that provide instructions on everything from how to format a glossary (put each term in bold the first time it appears in the main text) to how long an abstract can be (strictly no more than 120 words for longer formats and 50 words for shorter formats) to how to prepare print-quality figures (300 dpi,,tif format preferred).

These items are important and may delay or preclude publication if they’re not followed, but they’re things that can be addressed as you’re polishing a manuscript for submission. Before you start writing, though, get a general sense of what the journal expects from you. In particular, Trends in Pharmacological Sciences editor Kushi Mukherjee emphasizes how understanding the journal’s length requirements before you start writing can prevent significant frustration later on.

Trends journals advise submitting Review articles between 3,000 and 3,500 words on initial submission. If you keep this goal in mind from the beginning and end up a few hundred words long or short, then it’s relatively straightforward to cut or add to reach the appropriate length.

What is the introduction of an article review?

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.

1. 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.
2. Types of Review articles I guess the first thing to point out is that review-type articles come in lots of different ‘flavours’.
3. 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.

Content

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.

Accessibility

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.

Style

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

What is a APA format example?

Author’s Last Name, First Initial. (Year). Article title. Magazine/Journal/Newspaper Title, Volume number(Issue number), Page numbers.

What is the APA method of literature review?

Organizing Your Literature Review – An APA style paper is organized in the author-date style. This means you cite the author’s name and year of publication within the text with an in-text citation. You also include the page number, if appropriate. You then include the full information of that source in a reference list at the end of your paper.

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).

How do you cite a revised article in APA?

APA Style 6th Edition Blog: How to Cite a Corrected Journal Article by Chelsea Lee Mistakes sometimes make their way into published articles. When these mistakes are discovered, they must be disclosed to the community of scholars so that other researchers do not draw conclusions from false premises.

If the error is relatively minor (e.g., mistakes in values of a table that do not impact the results of analyses), the online version of the article is usually corrected so that online readers only ever see the correct version. The article will carry a notice that it has been corrected, and the journal will also publish a separate correction notice describing the nature of the error.

If the errors are far reaching, the publisher will retract the article and, depending on the reason for the errors, may publish a replacement corrected version. It is possible to, and in this post I will explain how to cite a corrected version of an article.

Haataja, A., Ahtola, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2015). A process view on implementing an antibullying curriculum: How teachers differ and what explains the variation. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000121

ul> In text: (Haataja, Ahtola, Poskiparta, & Salmivalli, 2015).

Citing a Retracted, Corrected, and Republished Article To cite an article that has been republished in a corrected version, provide the publication details for the corrected version as you would to cite any other journal article. Often times the authors will include the words “corrected version” or similar in the title to alert readers as to the corrected nature of the article, but if these words are not present in the corrected version, do not add them or make other notations.

Kullgren, K.A., Tsang, K.K., Ernst, M.M., Carter, B.D., Scott, E.L., & Sullivan, S.K. (2015). Inpatient pediatric psychology consultation-liaison practice survey: Corrected version. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 3, 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000114

ul> In text: (Kullgren et al., 2015).

Citing a Correction Notice It is possible to cite a correction notice as well, and the format follows the regular format for a journal article reference. Here is an example:

Elliott, E., & Leach, A.-M. (2016). Correction to Elliott and Leach (2016). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23, 99. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap00001214

ul> In text: (Elliott & Leach, 2016)

Citing Both Retracted and Corrected Versions of an Article If you want to cite both an original article that has been retracted and its corrected version, create two separate references. Use the format for the retracted article. If both the retracted and corrected articles would have the same in-text citation (by virtue of having the same authors and year of publication), put lowercase letters after the year to distinguish the two, as described in,

What is difference between APA 6 and 7?

Important Differences Between APA 6 and APA 7 Only one space between sentences and other punctuation. APA 6 I ate the apple. It tasted good! APA 7 I ate the apple. It tasted good! For in-text (parenthetical) citations, if there are more than two authors, you mention the first author and then include et al.

APA 6 (Smith, Janey, Keys, & James, 2019) APA 7 (Smith et al., 2019) In APA 6, when a reference had more than seven authors, only the first seven authors were listed in the references list, followed by et al. In APA 7, list all authors up to 20. When citing a resource, do not include the publisher’s city or state.

APA 6 Merriam, S.B. & Grenier, R.S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. APA 7 Merriam, S.B. & Grenier, R.S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis,

Jossey-Bass. When creating a citation for a journal article, if the volume, issue, and page numbers are known, then it is not necessary to include the URL or the DOI number. However, if the volume, issue, or page numbers are missing, then the URL or DOI needs to be included as active hyperlinks. APA 6 Grubb, J.M., Scott, P.H., & Good, D.W.

(2017). The answer is yes: Dual enrollment benefits students at the community college. Community College Review, 45 (2), 79–98. doi: 10.1177/0091552116682590 APA 7 Grubb, J.M., Scott, P.H., & Good, D.W. (2017). The answer is yes: Dual enrollment benefits students at the community college.

• Community College Review, 45 (2), 79–98.
• When citing from a Cengage textbook or from the library’s databases, do not include the URL given.
• Because these are subscription services and only people who have access to these services can see the resources, use instead the URL for the main page of that service.

For Cengage resources use https://www.cengage.com/ For EBSCO resources use https://www.ebsco.com/ Finally, for a web source that does not come from a subscription service, you will need to include the URL or the DOI (if provided). However, omit the words “Retrieved from” tag.

What’s New in the Publication Manual, Seventh Edition (APA) APA 6 & 7 Comparison Tables (Walden University) APA 6th vs.7th edition (Massey University)

Does article review need references?

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, A.A, (Year, Month Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from Journal : Author, A.A, (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp. Newspaper : Author, A.A, (Year, Month Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

How to cite APA literature review?

Organizing Your Literature Review – An APA style paper is organized in the author-date style. This means you cite the author’s name and year of publication within the text with an in-text citation. You also include the page number, if appropriate. You then include the full information of that source in a reference list at the end of your paper.