Dear Wasim
great question. From my experience the greater risk is "getting lost in listing". Since you're expected to summarise research done in a certain field, the first impulse is to include everything and make sure and not to forget anything. While this is fair enough I think it is indispensable to "tell a story". A good review article should tell the readers where we started, and inform about developments, variations, (dead ends?) and open questions. In short: the reader should learn where we are and how we got there.
Hope this a little useful
Best, Alex
The following papers and link (please refer to the discussions/guidance and some more referred publications) may further help.
- Davidson, A. J. and Carlin, J. B. (2008) Review article: What a reviewer wants, Pediatric Anesthesia, 18, 12, pp. 1149-1156.
- Hoppin, F. G. J. (2002) How I Review an Original Scientific Article, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 166, 8, pp. 1019-1023.
- Review article writing: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Review_article_writing
Use the least number of papers possible then it will be elegant and easy to understand
Thnx a lot all for your great input. I vl go through the guidelines shared by you people.
follow the link:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715443/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing