- Search current calls for papers
- Try the Taylor & Francis Journal Suggester
We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy . By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
- How to publish your research
- Writing your paper
What is a review article?
Learn how to write a review article.
What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.
Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.
Why write a review article?
To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.
To explain the current state of knowledge.
To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.
To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.
Did you know?
There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.
Make sure you check the aims and scope of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.
How to write a review article
Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.
Check the journal’s aims and scope
Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.
Define your scope
Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field.
As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.”
Finding sources to evaluate
When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.”
For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences, read advice from NCBI .
Writing your title, abstract and keywords
Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative.
For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title and our researcher’s guide to search engine optimization .
Introduce the topic
Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact.
Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.
Include critical discussion
Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.
What researchers say
Angus Crake, researcher
As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.
Use a critical friend
Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission.
You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.
Find out more about how Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.
What is the difference between a research article and a review article?
Before you submit your review article….
Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:
Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?
Have you defined the scope of your article?
Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?
Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?
Did you start with an overview of the topic?
Have you presented a critical discussion?
Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?
Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?
Expert help for your manuscript
Taylor & Francis Editing Services offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.
Related resources
How to edit your paper
Writing a scientific literature review
Trending Terms:
- Careers Home
- Careers Articles
- Employer Profiles
How to review a paper
- 22 Sep 2016
- By Elisabeth Pain
As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts. It's an important skill and service to the scientific community, but the learning curve can be particularly steep. Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end. As a range of institutions and organizations around the world celebrate the essential role of peer review in upholding the quality of published research this week, Science Careers shares collected insights and advice about how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum. The responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.
What do you consider when deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a paper?
I consider four factors: whether I'm sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to offer an intelligent assessment, how interesting I find the research topic, whether I'm free of any conflict of interest, and whether I have the time. If the answer to all four questions is yes, then I'll usually agree to review. - Chris Chambers , professor of cognitive neuroscience at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom
I am very open-minded when it comes to accepting invitations to review. I see it as a tit-for-tat duty: Since I am an active researcher and I submit papers, hoping for really helpful, constructive comments, it just makes sense that I do the same for others. So accepting an invitation for me is the default, unless a paper is really far from my expertise or my workload doesn't allow it. The only other factor I pay attention to is the scientific integrity of the journal. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process. - Eva Selenko , senior lecturer in work psychology at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom
I'm more prone to agree to do a review if it involves a system or method in which I have a particular expertise. And I'm not going to take on a paper to review unless I have the time. For every manuscript of my own that I submit to a journal, I review at least a few papers, so I give back to the system plenty. I've heard from some reviewers that they're more likely to accept an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad about rejecting invitations from more specialized journals. That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that's why I am more inclined to take on reviews from them. If I've never heard of the authors, and particularly if they're from a less developed nation, then I'm also more likely to accept the invitation. I do this because editors might have a harder time landing reviewers for these papers too, and because people who aren't deeply connected into our research community also deserve quality feedback. 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. - Terry McGlynn , professor of biology at California State University, Dominguez Hills
I usually consider first the relevance to my own expertise. I will turn down requests if the paper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review. Having said that, I tend to define my expertise fairly broadly for reviewing purposes. I also consider the journal. I am more willing to review for journals that I read or publish in. Before I became an editor, I used to be fairly eclectic in the journals I reviewed for, but now I tend to be more discerning, since my editing duties take up much of my reviewing time. - John P. Walsh , professor of public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta
Once you've agreed to complete a review, how do you approach the paper?
Unless it's for a journal I know well, the first thing I do is check what format the journal prefers the review to be in. Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general and specific comments. Knowing this in advance helps save time later.
I almost never print out papers for review; I prefer to work with the electronic version. I always read the paper sequentially, from start to finish, making comments on the PDF as I go along. I look for specific indicators of research quality, asking myself questions such as: Are the background literature and study rationale clearly articulated? Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? Are the methods robust and well controlled? Are the reported analyses appropriate? (I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics.) Is the presentation of results clear and accessible? To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and achieve a balance between interpretation and useful speculation versus tedious waffling? - Chambers
I subconsciously follow a checklist. First, is it well written? That usually becomes apparent by the Methods section. (Then, throughout, if what I am reading is only partly comprehensible, I do not spend a lot of energy trying to make sense of it, but in my review I will relay the ambiguities to the author.) I should also have a good idea of the hypothesis and context within the first few pages, and it matters whether the hypothesis makes sense or is interesting. Then I read the Methods section very carefully. I do not focus so much on the statistics—a quality journal should have professional statistics review for any accepted manuscript—but I consider all the other logistics of study design where it's easy to hide a fatal flaw. Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question? Then I look at how convincing the results are and how careful the description is. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. The parts of the Discussion I focus on most are context and whether the authors make claims that overreach the data. This is done all the time, to varying degrees. I want statements of fact, not opinion or speculation, backed up by data. - Michael Callaham , emergency care physician and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco
Most journals don't have special instructions, so I just read the paper, usually starting with the Abstract, looking at the figures, and then reading the paper in a linear fashion. I read the digital version with an open word processing file, keeping a list of "major items" and "minor items" and making notes as I go. There are a few aspects that I make sure to address, though I cover a lot more ground as well. First, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the current status of our knowledge. Second, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper. (In my field, authors are under pressure to broadly sell their work, and it's my job as a reviewer to address the validity of such claims.) Third, I make sure that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate. - McGlynn
First, I read a printed version to get an overall impression. What is the paper about? How is it structured? I also pay attention to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, then in most cases the entire paper has also been carefully thought out.
When diving in deeper, first I try to assess whether all the important papers are cited in the references, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself. Then, right in the Introduction, you can often recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic. After that, I check whether all the experiments and data make sense, paying particular attention to whether the authors carefully designed and performed the experiments and whether they analyzed and interpreted the results in a comprehensible way. It is also very important that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme.
As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it. Besides that, I make notes on an extra sheet. - Melanie Kim Müller , doctoral candidate in organic chemistry at the Technical University of Kaiserslautern in Germany
I first familiarize myself with the manuscript and read relevant snippets of the literature to make sure that the manuscript is coherent with the larger scientific domain. Then I scrutinize it section by section, noting if there are any missing links in the story and if certain points are under- or overrepresented. I also scout for inconsistencies in the portrayal of facts and observations, assess whether the exact technical specifications of the study materials and equipment are described, consider the adequacy of the sample size and the quality of the figures, and assess whether the findings in the main manuscript are aptly supplemented by the supplementary section and whether the authors have followed the journal's submission guidelines. - Chaitanya Giri , postdoctoral research fellow at the Earth-Life Science Institute in Tokyo
I print out the paper, as I find it easier to make comments on the printed pages than on an electronic reader. I read the manuscript very carefully the first time, trying to follow the authors' argument and predict what the next step could be. At this first stage, I try to be as open-minded as I can. I don't have a formalized checklist, but there are a number of questions that I generally use. Does the theoretical argument make sense? Does it contribute to our knowledge, or is it old wine in new bottles? Is there an angle the authors have overlooked? This often requires doing some background reading, sometimes including some of the cited literature, about the theory presented in the manuscript.
I then delve into the Methods and Results sections. Are the methods suitable to investigate the research question and test the hypotheses? Would there have been a better way to test these hypotheses or to analyze these results? Is the statistical analysis sound and justified? Could I replicate the results using the information in the Methods and the description of the analysis? I even selectively check individual numbers to see whether they are statistically plausible. 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. If there are any aspects of the manuscript that I am not familiar with, I try to read up on those topics or consult other colleagues. - Selenko
I spend a fair amount of time looking at the figures. In addition to considering their overall quality, sometimes figures raise questions about the methods used to collect or analyze the data, or they fail to support a finding reported in the paper and warrant further clarification. I also want to know whether the authors' conclusions are adequately supported by the results. Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations. - Dana Boatman-Reich , professor of neurology and otolaryngology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland
I generally read on the computer and start with the Abstract to get an initial impression. Then I read the paper as a whole, thoroughly and from beginning to end, taking notes as I read. For me, the first question is this: Is the research sound? And secondly, how can it be improved? Basically, I am looking to see if the research question is well motivated; if the data are sound; if the analyses are technically correct; and, most importantly, if the findings support the claims made in the paper. - Walsh
The main aspects I consider are the novelty of the article and its impact on the field. I always ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. Then I follow a routine that will help me evaluate this. First, I check the authors' publication records in PubMed to get a feel for their expertise in the field. 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. Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies. Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important. Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I will test it in detail. - Fátima Al-Shahrour , head of the Translational Bioinformatics Unit in the clinical research program at the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre in Madrid
How do you go about drafting the review? Do you sign it?
Using a copy of the manuscript that I first marked up with any questions that I had, I write a brief summary of what the paper is about and what I feel about its solidity. Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the order they appeared in the paper, providing page and paragraph numbers for most. Finally comes a list of really minor stuff, which I try to keep to a minimum. I then typically go through my first draft looking at the marked-up manuscript again to make sure I didn't leave out anything important. 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. If the paper has horrendous difficulties or a confused concept, I will specify that but will not do a lot of work to try to suggest fixes for every flaw.
I never use value judgments or value-laden adjectives. Nothing is "lousy" or "stupid," and nobody is "incompetent." However, as an author your data might be incomplete, or you may have overlooked a huge contradiction in your results, or you may have made major errors in the study design. That's what I communicate, with a way to fix it if a feasible one comes to mind. Hopefully, this will be used to make the manuscript better rather than to shame anyone. Overall, I want to achieve an evaluation of the study that is fair, objective, and complete enough to convince both the editor and the authors that I know something about what I'm talking about. I also try to cite a specific factual reason or some evidence for any major criticisms or suggestions that I make. After all, even though you were selected as an expert, for each review the editor has to decide how much they believe in your assessment. - Callaham
I use annotations that I made in the PDF to start writing my review; that way I never forget to mention something that occurred to me while reading the paper. Unless the journal uses a structured review format, I usually begin my review with a general statement of my understanding of the paper and what it claims, followed by a paragraph offering an overall assessment. Then I make specific comments on each section, listing the major questions or concerns. Depending on how much time I have, I sometimes also end with a section of minor comments. I may, for example, highlight an obvious typo or grammatical error, though I don't pay a lot of attention to these, as it is the authors' and copyeditors' responsibility to ensure clear writing.
I try to be as constructive as possible. A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to help them reach a decision about whether to publish or not, but I try to make my reviews useful for the authors as well. I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person. I try hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks. The review process is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making it worse.
Since obtaining tenure, I always sign my reviews. I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable. - Chambers
I want to help the authors improve their manuscript and to assist the editor in the decision process by providing a neutral and balanced review of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses and how to potentially improve it. After I have finished reading the manuscript, I let it sink in for a day or so and then I try to decide which aspects really matter. This helps me to distinguish between major and minor issues and also to group them thematically as I draft my review. My reviews usually start out with a short summary and a highlight of the strengths of the manuscript before briefly listing the weaknesses that I believe should be addressed. I try to link any criticism I have either to a page number or a quotation from the manuscript to ensure that my argument is understood. I also selectively refer to others' work or statistical tests to substantiate why I think something should be done differently.
I try to be constructive by suggesting ways to improve the problematic aspects, if that is possible, and also try to hit a calm and friendly but also neutral and objective tone. This is not always easy, especially if I discover what I think is a serious flaw in the manuscript. However, I know that being on the receiving end of a review is quite stressful, and a critique of something that is close to one's heart can easily be perceived as unjust. I try to write my reviews in a tone and form that I could put my name to, even though reviews in my field are usually double-blind and not signed. - Selenko
I'm aiming to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the quality of the paper that will be of use to both the editor and the authors. I think a lot of reviewers approach a paper with the philosophy that they are there to identify flaws. But I only mention flaws if they matter, and I will make sure the review is constructive. If I'm pointing out a problem or concern, I substantiate it enough so that the authors can't say, "Well, that's not correct" or "That's not fair." I work to be conversational and factual, and I clearly distinguish statements of fact from my own opinions.
I used to sign most of my reviews, but I don't do that anymore. If you make a practice of signing reviews, then over the years, many of your colleagues will have received reviews with your name on them. Even if you are focused on writing quality reviews and being fair and collegial, it's inevitable that some colleagues will be less than appreciative about the content of the reviews. And if you identify a paper that you think has a substantial error that is not easily fixed, then the authors of this paper will find it hard to not hold a grudge. I've known too many junior scientists who have been burned from signing their reviews early on in their careers. 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. - McGlynn
My review begins with a paragraph summarizing the paper. Then I have bullet points for major comments and for minor comments. Major comments may include suggesting a missing control that could make or break the authors' conclusions or an important experiment that would help the story, though I try not to recommend extremely difficult experiments that would be beyond the scope of the paper or take forever. Minor comments may include flagging the mislabeling of a figure in the text or a misspelling that changes the meaning of a common term. Overall, I try to make comments that would make the paper stronger. My tone is very formal, scientific, and in third person. I'm critiquing the work, not the authors. If there is a major flaw or concern, I try to be honest and back it up with evidence. - Sara Wong , doctoral candidate in cellular and molecular biology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
I start by making a bullet point list of the main strengths and weaknesses of the paper and then flesh out the review with details. I often refer back to my annotated version of the online paper. I usually differentiate between major and minor criticisms and word them as directly and concisely as possible. When I recommend revisions, I try to give clear, detailed feedback to guide the authors. Even if a manuscript is rejected for publication, most authors can benefit from suggestions. I try to stick to the facts, so my writing tone tends toward neutral. Before submitting a review, I ask myself whether I would be comfortable if my identity as a reviewer was known to the authors. Passing this "identity test" helps ensure that my review is sufficiently balanced and fair. - Boatman-Reich
My reviews tend to take the form of a summary of the arguments in the paper, followed by a summary of my reactions and then a series of the specific points that I wanted to raise. Mostly, I am trying to identify the authors' claims in the paper that I did not find convincing and guide them to ways that these points can be strengthened (or, perhaps, dropped as beyond the scope of what this study can support). If I find the paper especially interesting (and even if I am going to recommend rejection), I tend to give a more detailed review because I want to encourage the authors to develop the paper (or, maybe, to do a new paper along the lines suggested in the review). My tone is one of trying to be constructive and helpful even though, of course, the authors might not agree with that characterization. - Walsh
I try to act as a neutral, curious reader who wants to understand every detail. If there are things I struggle with, I will suggest that the authors revise parts of their paper to make it more solid or broadly accessible. I want to give them honest feedback of the same type that I hope to receive when I submit a paper. - Müller
I start with a brief summary of the results and conclusions as a way to show that I have understood the paper and have a general opinion. I always comment on the form of the paper, highlighting whether it is well written, has correct grammar, and follows a correct structure. Then, I divide the review in two sections with bullet points, first listing the most critical aspects that the authors must address to better demonstrate the quality and novelty of the paper and then more minor points such as misspelling and figure format. When you deliver criticism, your comments should be honest but always respectful and accompanied with suggestions to improve the manuscript. - Al-Shahrour
When, and how, do you decide on your recommendation?
I make a decision after drafting my review. I usually sit on the review for a day and then reread it to be sure it is balanced and fair before deciding anything. - Boatman-Reich
I usually don't decide on a recommendation until I've read the entire paper, although for poor quality papers, it isn't always necessary to read everything. - Chambers
I only make a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject if the journal specifically requests one. The decision is made by the editor, and my job as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to support the editor. - McGlynn
The decision comes along during reading and making notes. If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I do not recommend publication. I usually write down all the things that I noticed, good and bad, so my decision does not influence the content and length of my review. - Müller
In my experience, most papers go through several rounds of revisions before I would recommend them for publication. Generally, if I can see originality and novelty in a manuscript and the study was carried out in a solid way, then I give a recommendation for "revise and resubmit," highlighting the need for the analysis strategy, for example, to be further developed. 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. The length and content of my reviews generally do not relate to the outcome of my decisions. I usually write rather lengthy reviews at the first round of the revision process, and these tend to get shorter as the manuscript then improves in quality. - Selenko
Publication is not a binary recommendation. The fact that only 5% of a journal's readers might ever look at a paper, for example, can't be used as criteria for rejection, if in fact it is a seminal paper that will impact that field. And we never know what findings will amount to in a few years; many breakthrough studies were not recognized as such for many years. So I can only rate what priority I believe the paper should receive for publication today. - Callaham
If the research presented in the paper has serious flaws, I am inclined to recommend rejection, unless the shortcoming can be remedied with a reasonable amount of revising. Also, I take the point of view that if the author cannot convincingly explain her study and findings to an informed reader, then the paper has not met the burden for acceptance in the journal. - Walsh
My recommendations are inversely proportional to the length of my reviews. Short reviews translate into strong recommendations and vice versa. - Giri
How long does it take you to review a paper?
This varies widely, from a few minutes if there is clearly a major problem with the paper to half a day if the paper is really interesting but there are aspects that I don't understand. Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I think I can't properly assess in half a day, in which case I will return the paper to the journal with an explanation and a suggestion for an expert who might be closer to that aspect of the research. - Nicola Spaldin , professor of materials theory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich
It usually takes me a few hours. Most of the time is spent closely reading the paper and taking notes. Once I have the notes, writing the review itself generally takes less than an hour. - Walsh
It can take me quite a long time to write a good review, sometimes a full day of work and sometimes even longer. The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in particular, takes a long time. Also, sometimes I notice that something is not quite right but can't quite put my finger on it until I have properly digested the manuscript. - Selenko
A few hours. I like to use two sittings, even when I am pretty sure of my conclusions. Waiting another day always seems to improve the review. - Callaham
Normally, a peer review takes me 1 or 2 days, including reading the supporting information. - Müller
I almost always do it in one sitting, anything from 1 to 5 hours depending on the length of the paper. - Chambers
In my experience, the submission deadline for reviews usually ranges between 3 working days to up to 3 weeks. As a rule of thumb, I roughly devote 20% of my reviewing time to a first, overall-impression browsing of the paper; 40% to a second reading that includes writing up suggestions and comments; 30% to a third reading that includes checking the compliance of the authors to the journal guidelines and the proper use of subject-typical jargon; and 10% to the last goof-proof browsing of my review. Altogether, it usually takes me more than a day. - Giri
What further advice do you have for researchers who are new to the peer-review process?
Many reviewers are not polite enough. It's OK for a paper to say something that you don't agree with. Sometimes I will say in a review something like, "I disagree with the authors about this interpretation, but it is scientifically valid and an appropriate use of journal space for them to make this argument." If you have any questions during the review process, don't hesitate to contact the editor who asked you to review the paper. Also, if you don't accept a review invitation, give her a few names for suggested reviewers, especially senior Ph.D. students and postdocs. In my experience, they are unlikely to write a poor quality review; they might be more likely to accept the invitation, as senior scientists are typically overwhelmed with review requests; and the opportunity to review a manuscript can help support their professional development. - McGlynn
The paper reviewing process can help you form your own scientific opinion and develop critical thinking skills. It will also provide you with an overview of the new advances in the field and help you when writing and submitting your own articles. So although peer reviewing definitely takes some effort, in the end it will be worth it. Also, the journal has invited you to review an article based on your expertise, but there will be many things you don't know. So if you have not fully understood something in the paper, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. It will help you make the right decision.
- Al-Shahrour
Remember that a review is not about whether one likes a certain piece of work, but whether the research is valid and tells us something new. Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. You can better highlight the major issues that need to be dealt with by restructuring the review, summarizing the important issues upfront, or adding asterisks. I would really encourage other scientists to take up peer-review opportunities whenever possible. Reviewing is a great learning experience and an exciting thing to do. One gets to know super fresh research firsthand and gain insight into other authors' argument structure. I also think it is our duty as researchers to write good reviews. After all, we are all in it together. The soundness of the entire peer-review process depends on the quality of the reviews that we write. - Selenko
As a junior researcher, it may feel a little weird or daunting to critique someone's completed work. Just pretend that it's your own research and figure out what experiments you would do and how you would interpret the data. - Wong
Bear in mind that one of the most dangerous traps a reviewer can fall into is failing to recognize and acknowledge their own bias. To me, it is biased to reach a verdict on a paper based on how groundbreaking or novel the results are, for example. Such judgments have no place in the assessment of scientific quality, and they encourage publication bias from journals as well as bad practices from authors to produce attractive results by cherry picking. Also, I wouldn't advise early-career researchers to sign their reviews, at least not until they either have a permanent position or otherwise feel stable in their careers. Although I believe that all established professors should be required to sign, the fact is that some authors can hold grudges against reviewers. We like to think of scientists as objective truth-seekers, but we are all too human and academia is intensely political, and a powerful author who receives a critical review from a more junior scientist could be in a position to do great harm to the reviewer's career prospects. - Chambers
It is necessary to maintain decorum: One should review the paper justly and entirely on its merit, even if it comes from a competing research group. Finally, there are occasions where you get extremely exciting papers that you might be tempted to share with your colleagues, but you have to resist the urge and maintain strict confidentiality. - Giri
At least early on, it is a good idea to be open to review invitations so that you can see what unfinished papers look like and get familiar with the review process. Many journals send the decision letters to the reviewers. Reading these can give you insights into how the other reviewers viewed the paper, and into how editors evaluate reviews and make decisions about rejection versus acceptance or revise and resubmit. - Walsh
At the start of my career, I wasted quite a lot of energy feeling guilty about being behind in my reviewing. New requests and reminders from editors kept piling up at a faster rate than I could complete the reviews and the problem seemed intractable. I solved it by making the decision to review one journal article per week, putting a slot in my calendar for it, and promptly declining subsequent requests after the weekly slot is filled—or offering the next available opening to the editor. And now I am in the happy situation of only experiencing late-review guilt on Friday afternoons, when I still have some time ahead of me to complete the week's review. - Spaldin
About the author
Elisabeth pain.
Elisabeth Pain is contributing editor for Europe.
More from Careers
- Jocelyn Kaiser
- Yana Suchikova
- Jaivime Evaristo
SIGN UP FOR OUR CAREERS NEWSLETTER
Support nonprofit science journalism.
Help News from Science publish trustworthy, high-impact stories about research and the people who shape it. Please make a tax-deductible gift today.
If we've learned anything from the COVID-19 pandemic, it's that we cannot wait for a crisis to respond. Science and AAAS are working tirelessly to provide credible, evidence-based information on the latest scientific research and policy, with extensive free coverage of the pandemic. Your tax-deductible contribution plays a critical role in sustaining this effort.
Reviewing a scientific paper - some guidelines
The aim of the review is to provide authors with constructive feedback from specialists, so that they can make improvements to their work. This is of key importance to ensure the highest possible standard.
Before you start
Make sure that you are familiar with the Instructions for Authors of the Journal. Before you decide to accept or decline the invitation to review, consider this:
- Is the paper within your area of expertise? If not, it may be difficult to provide a high quality review.
- Do you have any conflict of interest? For example, do any of the authors work at the same organization as you, or do you know any of them personally? If so, let the editor know.
- Make sure that you have the time. It is important to meet the deadlines.
Note that the paper sent to you for peer review is a privileged confidential document . This means that you cannot use the information obtained during the peer-review process for your own or any other person or organization’s advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
You should also not contact authors directly, this is to protect your anonymity as IWA Publishing does not share your identity with authors. Comments should only be submitted to the journal via the peer review system.
Do not allow your reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors.
Two types of papers
Most papers are in one of these categories:
- Research Papers : these papers are fully documented, interpreted accounts of significant findings of original research.
- Review Papers : these are critical and comprehensive reviews that provide new insights or interpretation of a subject through thorough and systematic evaluation of available evidence. Note, that a review paper is more than a literature overview. It must contain an in-depth critical review of the literature. Therefore, such a review paper is expected to have at least one experienced senior researcher among the authors.
General criteria
Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article:
- Does the paper provide insight into an important issue?
- Does the paper tell a good story?
- Is the paper interesting for an international audience?
- Does the insight from the paper stimulate new, important questions?
- Is there a high probability that the paper will be read and cited by others?
Your comments in the review
- Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.
- Your comments for the “Editor only” will NOT be sent to the author.
- Comments that will be transmitted to the author(s) do NOT reveal your identity.
- When providing comments to the authors, please do not suggest that the authors include references to your own work in their article. We do not allow reviewers to instruct authors cite their work unless it seems to be critical for the improvement of the submission. Even then, we only allow reviewers to suggest one of their own papers.
Hint : use your own word processor and copy and paste your comments.
Getting started
Start with the following quick checklist before you consider the content in detail:
- Is the length of the paper within the limits of the journal?
- Is the paper commercial or does it market a particular product or method?
- Is the paper structured properly (abstract, keywords, material and methods, discussion, conclusions, references, etc.)
Abstract, introduction and conclusion
- Make sure that the abstract is informative, can stand alone and covers the content.
- A combination of the problem and the conclusions.
- Maximum length according to the Journal instructions.
- No figures or citations should be included here.
- 3-6 keywords. Should be descriptive. The title words should not be repeated here.
Introduction
It should
- state the objective, the problem - the research question to be addressed,
- provide a concise background: why the work was done,
- quote literature only with direct bearing on the problem - not a textbook,
- state a hypothesis – a suggested solution to the problem.
Conclusions
- This is the “take-home message” of the paper. Should be short and concise.
- Must be possible to derive from the results and discussion.
- It is not a summary of the paper.
- No references.
Read the abstract, introduction and conclusions
- Is there a clear message?
- Having read the introduction – can you find out what the contribution of the paper is? Try to formulate the message in your own words. This can be used later in the reviewer summary.
- Do the perceptions or hypotheses in the introduction match the conclusions?
- You should be able to find this out within half an hour of reading. After this you will probably have a first impression of whether the paper is worth publishing or not. If you are still positive , then continue the review process. If you are negative , you can probably already explain why the paper is not worth publishing .
Detailed review
Materials and methods
- Experiments : are the experiments documented adequately? Have information about positive and/or negative controls, and the numbers of replicated experiments and/or samples been provided?
- Model derivations : is the process model derived properly? Is it already known?
- Results : are they presented so that you can easily see their significance? You may use a comment like: “ The paper would be significantly improved with the addition of more details about…”
- Are concentrations shown with believable accuracy - or are they shown with too many significant digits?
- Data analysis : have statistics been used in an appropriate way? Is the raw data presented in such a way that you can see if the statistical method is adequate? Is the data normally distributed so that standard deviations are motivated? Are outliers discussed?
- Figures : Can the figures explain the results? Are the figure captions informative?
- Tables : are all the inputs in the tables necessary to understand the message?
- You may add comments like “ Overall I do not think that this article contains enough robust data to evidence the statement made on page X, lines Y–Z.
- Note that the discussion section makes the paper scientific! Can the author explain and interpret the results? Can you relate the discussion to the hypotheses? You may write a comment like “ This discussion could be enlarged to explain…”
- Have the results been critiqued against the literature? Have any similarities and discrepancies with other published data been identified and accounted for?
- Can the conclusions be derived from the results and the discussions?
Check the references
- Have the author(s) done their homework with previous contributions?
- Compare the introduction with the reference list. Is it clearly indicated what is new in this paper?
- Are there both older and newer references?
- How many references? There ought to be 20-30 references in most cases.
- Are there any references that cannot be read by an English speaking reader? At most 1-2 references can be allowed (where appropriate) but should be queried.
- Is the author citing the original contribution or citing from a popular source?
- Make sure that the references cited in the text are included in the reference list and vice versa .
- Many authors do not have English as their mother tongue. The text does not have to be perfect English, but it has to be clear and understandable. You may add some comment like “ This paper would benefit from some closer proof reading. It includes numerous linguistic errors (e.g. agreement of verbs) that at times make it difficult to follow. I would suggest that it may be useful to engage a professional English language editor following a restructure of the paper.”
- Phrase your feedback appropriately and with due respect.
- You do not need to go through the language issues yourself.
Your recommendation
Ensure that your final evaluation corresponds to your answers in the review form questions; especially should you be considering major revision or rejection.
Your recommendation will almost surely be one of these:
- Reject (explain reason in your report)
- Accept without revision (remember that this is very unusual! Most papers can be improved in some way)
- Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and inform the editor if you would accept to review the revised paper)
- Open Access
- Collections
- Subscriptions
- Sign Up for Our Mailing List
- IWA Publishing
- Republic – Export Building, Units 1.04 & 1.05
- 1 Clove Crescent
- London, E14 2BA, UK
- Telephone: +44 208 054 8208
- Fax: +44 207 654 5555
- IWAPublishing.com
- IWA-network.org
- IWA-connect.org
- Cookie Policy
- Terms & Conditions
- Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
- ©Copyright 2021 IWA Publishing
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
- Methodology
- How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates
How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates
Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes .
What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .
There are five key steps to writing a literature review:
- Search for relevant literature
- Evaluate sources
- Identify themes, debates, and gaps
- Outline the structure
- Write your literature review
A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.
Table of contents
What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, frequently asked questions, introduction.
- Quick Run-through
- Step 1 & 2
When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:
- Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
- Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
- Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
- Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
- Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.
Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.
Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.
- Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
- Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
- Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
- Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)
You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.
Download Word doc Download Google doc
Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.
Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .
If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .
Make a list of keywords
Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.
- Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
- Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
- Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth
Search for relevant sources
Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:
- Your university’s library catalogue
- Google Scholar
- Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
- Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
- EconLit (economics)
- Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)
You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.
Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.
You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.
For each publication, ask yourself:
- What question or problem is the author addressing?
- What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
- What are the key theories, models, and methods?
- Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
- What are the results and conclusions of the study?
- How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?
Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.
You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.
Take notes and cite your sources
As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.
It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.
To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:
- Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
- Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
- Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
- Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
- Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?
This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.
- Most research has focused on young women.
- There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
- But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.
There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).
Chronological
The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.
Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.
If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.
For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.
Methodological
If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:
- Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
- Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
- Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources
Theoretical
A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.
You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.
Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.
The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.
Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.
As you write, you can follow these tips:
- Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
- Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
- Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
- Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts
In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.
When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !
This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.
Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.
Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .
It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.
There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:
- To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
- To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
- To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
- To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
- To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic
Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.
The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .
A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .
An annotated bibliography is a list of source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a paper .
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, January 02). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved February 27, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/
Is this article helpful?
Shona McCombes
Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.
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 UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Registration 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
- United in Safety
- Vaccine Information
- COVID-19 Testing Information
- United in Safety News
- Our Approach to Safety
- COVID-19 FAQ
- U of I System Vaccination Guidelines
- Weekly COVID Briefings
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.
How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples
An article review format allows scholars or students to analyze and evaluate the work of other experts in a given field. Outside of the education system, experts often review the work of their peers for clarity, originality, and contribution to the discipline of study.
When answering the questions of what is an article review and how to write one, you must understand the depth of analysis and evaluation that your instructor is seeking.
What Is an Article Review
That is a type of professional paper writing which 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 use 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
There are few types of article reviews.
Journal Article Review
Much like all other reviews, a journal article review evaluates strengths and weaknesses of a publication. A qualified paper writer must provide the reader with an analysis and interpretation that demonstrates the article’s value.
Research Article Review
It 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.
Science Article Review
Scientific article review involves anything in the realm of science. Often, scientific publications include more information on the background that you can use to analyze the publication more comprehensively.
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.
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 you should 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.
The Pre-Writing Process
Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you being unsure where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages 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.
Organization in an assignment like this is of utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you could outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts more coherently.
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 prewriting and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.
Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:
- Pre-title page : here, you will want to list the type of the article that you are reviewing, the title of the publication, all the authors who contributed to it, author’s affiliations (position, department, institute, city, state, country, email ID)
- Optional corresponding author details : name, address, phone number, email, and fax number.
- Running head : Only in the APA format. It is the title of your paper shortened to less than 40 characters.
- Summary page : Optional, depending on the demands of your instructor. The summary should be maximum 800 words long. Use non-technical and straightforward language. Do not repeat text verbatim or give references in this section. Give 1) relevant background 2) explain why the work was done 3) summarize results and explain the method.
- Title page : full title, 250-word abstract followed by “Keywords:” and 4-6 keywords.
- Introduction
- Body : Include headings and subheadings
- Works Cited/References
- Optional Suggested Reading Page
- Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor.)
Do you need some help with your article review?
Count on the support of our essay writing service
Steps for Writing an Article Review
Here is a guide with critique paper format from our research paper writing service 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
Example: 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.
Example: 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 through 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 with reading it fully and by checking the following points:
- Punctuation
- Other mistakes
Next, identify whether or not there is any unnecessary data in the paper and remove it. Lastly, check the points you discussed in your work; make sure you discuss at least 3-4 key points. In case you need to proofread, rewrite an essay or buy essay , our dissertation services are always here for you.
Example of an Article Review
Why have we devoted an entire section of this article to talk about an article review sample, you may wonder? Not all of you may recognize it, but in fact, looking through several solid examples of review articles is actually an essential step for your writing process, and we will tell you 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.
As you can see, reading through a few samples can be extremely beneficial for you. Therefore, the best way to learn how to write this kind of paper is to look for an article review example online that matches your grade level.
View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!
Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?
Need a Hand From Professionals?
Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!
Related Articles
Purdue Online Writing Lab College of Liberal Arts
Writing a Literature Review
Welcome to the Purdue OWL
This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.
Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.
A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.
Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?
There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.
A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.
Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.
What are the parts of a lit review?
Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.
Introduction:
- An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
- A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
- Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
- Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
- Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
- Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
- Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.
Conclusion:
- Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
- Connect it back to your primary research question
How should I organize my lit review?
Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:
- Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
- Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
- Qualitative versus quantitative research
- Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
- Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
- Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.
What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?
Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .
As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.
Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:
- It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
- Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
- Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
- Read more about synthesis here.
The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.
COMMUNICATION IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Department of Biology
LITERATURE REVIEW PAPER
WHAT IS A REVIEW PAPER?
CHOOSING A TOPIC
RESEARCHING A TOPIC
HOW TO WRITE THE 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:
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
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.
Click here for advice on choosing a topic.
Click here for advice on doing research on your topic.
HOW TO WRITE THE PAPER
Overview of the Paper: Your paper should consist of four general sections:
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:
Home
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential
Unless the journal uses a structured review format, I usually begin my review with a general statement of my understanding of the paper and what
Reviewing a scientific paper - some guidelines · state the objective, the problem - the research question to be addressed, · provide a concise background: why the
When you write a thesis, dissertation, or research paper, you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research
Questions to Consider · How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study? · How detailed are the methods being described? Is the
How to write a Review Paper | How to write a Review Article | Step-by-step process explained · TIPS for Reading & Summarizing Research Articles.
Much like all other reviews, a journal article review evaluates strengths and weaknesses of a publication. A qualified paper writer must provide
A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In
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
A review article or review paper is based on other published articles. It does not report original research. Review articles generally summarize