Guidelines for writing a Review Article:
A) Good to know about review articles
B) Elements of a review article
C) Guidelines for preparing a review article in 18 steps
D) Examples of high-quality review articles in the plant sciences (to be used in your own work)
E) References used in this Guideline .
http://ueberfachliche- ompetenzen.ethz.ch/dopraedi/pdfs/Mayer/guidelines_review_article.pdf
hello
this link below could be help
http://ueberfachliche-kompetenzen.ethz.ch/dopraedi/pdfs/Mayer/guidelines_review_article.pdf
regards
In the process of writing a review article, it is possible to refer to the procedures to be achieved as follows: 1) The writer must have constant ideas with a sense of criticism and knowledge,,2) Scientific articles and references used in the research should be within the context of systematic and interrelated with the philosophy of research ,, 3) Finally, data must be interpreted in a good and coherent manner.
Please refer to the following link for details, although I agree with the comment of Mahmood Yenkimaleki :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_article
Regards
I believe you get some different responses here, because it is unclear what reviews do you have in mind (and in what field)...
A systematic review of studies published on a topic in medicine is somehow different than 'topic' review in social sciences, isn’t it, even if some common criteria apply in both cases. Much also depends on what the publishing outlet wants from you (& from your review) and on the audience (I believe that having in mind when you write a general audience, not necessarily familiar with the subject, always helps, as it forces you to discern the bigger ideas, the links between these ideas, and also to write everything in a language that is accessible to a wide variety of potential readers). Just for the record, for social sciences an useful book is this:http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405121106.html
Hello
I agree with Mahmood Yenkimaleki. I like your scientific answer dear colleague.
Liqaa
I would think Prof Al-Ani ,
1. Same field
2. Same specialty , since we need to understand the dos and don'ts
3. A deeper understanding or comprehension
4. May be a clear visualization of what is being told ...
1. Define the scope of the article.
2. Your labmates and collaborators are invaluable resources.
3. Don’t dwell on previous review articles
4. Make yourself comfortable.
5. Spend some time writing with all your PDFs and Web browsers closed and your desk cleared of any paper.
6. Don’t be shy about clearly defining your role relative to that of your co-author(s) before you begin, or even along the way, if you feel amendments are needed.
7. Read the journal’s instructions for submissions carefully.
http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=15161
A critical review is not to be mistaken for the literature review. A 'critical review' is a complete type of text, discussing one particular article or book in detail. The 'literature review', which also needs to be 'critical', is a part of a larger type of text e.g. a chapter of your dissertation.
Most importantly: Read your article / book as many times as possible, as this will make the critical review much easier.
Contents
1. Read and take notes 2. Organising your writing 3. Summary 4. Evaluation 5. Linguistic features of a critical review 6. Summary language 7. Evaluation language 8. Conclusion language 9. Example extracts from a critical review 10. Further resources
Read and Take Notes
To improve your reading confidence and efficiency, visit our pages on reading.
Further reading: Read Confidently
After you are familiar with the text, make notes on some of the following questions. Choose the questions which seem suitable:
https://www.monash.edu/rlo/quick-study-guides/writing-a-critical-review
I agree with all the point and opinion raised so far, but please how many journal articles are required for one to used and review a subject matter? Does it have minimum number?
I utterly agree with Mahmood's comprehensive submission. Best regards
Dickson Adom
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications. Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills. In this contribution, I share ten simple rules from [1]:
See below for details:
[1] Marco Pautasso, Philip E. Bourne, Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review, PLoS Comput Biol. 2013 Jul; 9(7): e1003149.
Published online 2013 Jul 18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
Article Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
P.S: New papers on the reviewed topic will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science. I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.
I think that the answer of Mr. Mahmood Yenkimaliki is so informative.
Typically a scholar is chosen by a journal to compose a review article on a new work if the scholar is an established expert on the subject of that work and is thus in a position to judge the extent to which the work is a valuable contribution to scholarship on that subject.
he or she needs to know about research methodologies first, also consider good research characteristics and also consider any ethical issues related to doing a research, finally know how to publish in good journals
It is not necessary to continue long answers of my forerunners, so I minimize my contribution. The reviewer should know the book and some interesting ideas to say something about it.
Author shoud first and foremost read the articles published in his domain from journals preferably in IEEE transactions
understand the concepts presented and prepare your work in way that the people around the world acknowledge and accept your contribution
In my opinion the review article should be written by experience in a specific field. The review article is important to analysis and discuss the previously published paper so that the reader knows where the research reached in a field and what future studies to cover aspects of the studied.
Review articles targeted at the last two groups: Extended explanations of subjects or of subject-specific language are mandatory (e.g. through the uses of information boxes or glossaries).
may be the attached file is good for answer the question
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications. Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills. There are many rules to write the paper such as:
Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience
How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review.
Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature
After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers.
Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading
If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper.
Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write
Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest
Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent
Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure
Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback
Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective
Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies
The first and foremost criteria to write a review article is you should be
having the authority in that particular subject.
You should having specific experience and expertise to go through all the content available on the subject matter
Finally you should be able to give a meaningful interpretation with your input, which is a must.
Should be subject mater expert and understand the standards requirement
First : one who reviews and writes
Last : the Prof
In between - well they might have done some stuff ...
For a narrative review of an article I believe the criteria us not as stringent as a systemic article. For a narrative one just needs a general understanding and knowledge of the topic and should be able to critique through analysis and synthesis. For a systemic article critique the criteria are more stringent. One must not only have strong knowledge of the topic but also the hypothesis used, the theory proposed and to conduct an exhaustive literature review to see if the author of the article being critiqued left out important literature or overlooked any gaps. Also it is crucial to understand the research method being used in order to critique it. Thus, the critic must analyse the data collection and analysis as well as the information and general content of the article. Moreover the critic must also analyse the conclusion. Therefore the critic must be a scholar in the same field as that author of the article and be a researcher. I also believe the critic like the author should have at least a masters degree but preferably a doctorate
Dr Réagan
The requirements for authors of review articles that are presented to be evaluated and meet requirements, can be published in a scientific journal, are established by the editorial committees of the journals.
More or less have been standardized at present in terms of form and content, quality and quantity of information and data.
However, the differences in the criteria are due to the type of Review; I give the specific example of the Revisions in Biomedicine and Scientific, Clinical and Epidemiological Medicine:
- Open or Free Narrative Reviews
- Narrative Reviews Based on Evidence
- Revisions based on Randomized, Double Blind and Controlled Clinical Trials; Meta-analysis calls.
- Systematic Epidemiological Reviews based on Clinical, Cohort and Case Studies and Transversal Controls; o Cases and Controls Nested in a Cohort.
- Systematic Reviews based on Meta-analysis
regards
Jose Luis
Los requisitos para autores de artículos de revisión que se presenten para evaluarse y de cumplir requisitos, se pueda publicar en una revista científica, se establecen por los comités editoriales de las revistas.
Más o menos se han estandarizado en la actualidad en cuanto a forma y contenido, en calidad y cantidad de información y datos.
Sin embargo, las diferencias en los criterios se deben al tipo de Revisión; pongo el ejemplo específico de las Revisiones en Biomedicina y Medicina Científica, Clínica y Epidemiológica:
- Revisiones Narrativas Abiertas o Libres
- Revisiones Narrativas con Base en Evidencias
- Revisiones con Base en Ensayos Clínicos al Azar, Doble Ciego y Controlados; llamadas Meta-análisis.
- Revisiones Sistemáticas Epidemiológicas con Base en Estudios de Cohorte y en Casos y Controles Transversales; o Casos y Controles Anidados en una Cohorte.
- Revisiones Sistemáticas con Base en Meta-análisis
Saludos
José Luis
Most of the important points regarding withing of Review article have been discussed. From the point of view of journal Editorial Board member of one journal, I can add that we give importance to the previous research works and previous publications of the review article writer/s.
Hi
Review article is a article when you are reviewing the existing work with your observation and experience on a particular topic.
For a review article one should have a sound knowledge of the subject.
Taking into account the scientific foundations and presenting them in a smooth and understandable manner
Every person that contributed significantly to the literature search, literature exploration and/or writing process.
Regards,
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing