feature article reviewer

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• How to write a feature...

How to write a feature article

• Related content
• Peer review
• Rebecca Ghani , freelance journalist, London
• bexghani{at}live.co.uk

Interested in writing for a medical journal? Rebecca Ghani finds out from the experts where you can start

You have an excellent idea for a feature article that you would like to publish: you know that the topic is relevant; you’re sure the audience would be interested; you can access the facts and statistics; and you know that you could source a great interview or two.

So where do you go from here?

Know the publication

Read the latest copies of the publication or journal to get a feel for the style and tone. Think about the different sections and where your idea would best fit.

Scan the online archives for similar subjects: it’s unlikely that your piece will be commissioned if the topic has already been covered recently.

Edward Davies, editor of BMJ Careers, says, “The first thing that I would say is absolutely crucial for anyone submitting a pitch is to make sure we haven’t done it before. Google is your friend on this; Google the idea you’re thinking of—and search within the BMJ , BMJ Careers, and Student BMJ websites to see if there’s anything that’s been done on this before.”

Know your audience

If you’re writing for the Student BMJ , and you’re a medical student, you’ll have a good idea of what your peers will be interested in reading about. Sound it out with your colleagues and get input about your idea. Remember that the Student BMJ has an international readership and that your piece should be accessible and relevant to a worldwide audience.

Other medical journals have an even wider reach: the BMJ has a circulation of over 100 000 and a mixed audience of hospital doctors, GPs, retired doctors, and almost 5000 international doctors. 1

Even though most of your readers will be medics, don’t assume knowledge: there is always a lay audience, and keep in mind that the mainstream media often pick up on stories published in medical journals. Don’t dumb it down, but ensure it is accessible to a layperson.

In particular, spell out acronyms, explain colloquialisms, and use straightforward language. It shouldn’t be written as a research piece, so steer clear of academic jargon.

Udani Samarasekera, senior editor at the Lancet , makes the point that features are different from academic work: “Features are actually very different from essays: they’re a lot more colourful and journalistic and much more engaging. My advice would be not to think too much along the lines of an essay, which can be some students’ downfall,” she says.

Samarasekera also advises researching what makes a good feature: “There is a certain structure: they have an intro, background, new development, and then some debate. And often if it’s a journalistic piece it will describe the scene or have a character that draws you into the beginning of the story as well. So, very different from essays.”

When is a feature not a feature?

It’s important to understand what a feature is. Such articles showcase a topic or subject and weave in quotes, facts, and statistics to frame a topic and give it context and flavour. Although there is a place for opinion writing, this is a distinct type of writing and should be approached differently. A straight feature should not include your opinions: it will be your writing style that adds personality to the piece, not your viewpoint.

Davies outlines why it’s important to avoid airing your views if you’re pitching a standard feature: “We get a lot of things pitched as features that are actually opinion—so, people who’ve done a little survey or found a topic that bugs them. And actually what they’re writing about is their feelings on it, what they think of it. And you’ve got to be quite careful with that.”

Features will generally take straightforward news items or topical stories and examine them in more depth, bringing in original quotes from experts and often adding a human interest angle.

Profile articles focus on one person and should include a first hand interview and contextual information about the subject. The BMJ , BMJ Careers, and Student BMJ all publish profiles of eminent doctors or healthcare professionals, as do most general medical journals: the Lancet publishes a profile in its perspectives section.

This section of a publication can include editorials and first hand experience pieces; in Student BMJ and BMJ there’s the personal view section, and in BMJ Careers there is an opinion slot each week. Here, your voice and your opinions shape the piece and give readers an understanding of your experience and viewpoint. You should still support your opinions with facts and evidence, where appropriate.

Most features will have a peg or a hook on which the rest of the item will hang. This helps to shape the piece and give it a focus. Think about what will draw in your reader: something funny, controversial, or shocking; a new angle on an old subject; or something that generates conflicting viewpoints.

Human interest stories usually work well and can liven up an otherwise dry feature. Generally, features published in medical journals have a topical peg. One example is “The case of M,” 2 which took a recent court ruling about a patient’s right to die and then looked more closely at the current debate and research about ethics and the law surrounding this issue.

Samarasekera of the Lancet emphasises the importance of this: “Topicality is a big thing,” she says. “A feature needs to have something that’s interesting—maybe a recent controversy with an issue, but also a recent development to expand the feature—and to tell your readers why you’re covering it now.” She goes on to say the peg can be “a new piece of research, a report, a pending court case, or something like the first world hepatitis day or some big global health news.”

Once you have a firm idea of your subject, the publication, the audience, and the appropriate section, you are ready to make a pitch to the editor.

Be targeted —Once you’ve selected the journal, think about which section to target within the journal, and make this clear.

Be concise —Your pitch should be one or two paragraphs in the main body of an email. Do not send attachments, as editors may not have time to open them. Ensure that the subject line of the email is descriptive and introduces the pitch in a few words.

Engage —Say why your idea is relevant, why the audience will be interested, and what it adds to existing published work.

Follow up —If you don’t hear back within two weeks, follow up with a phone call to talk your idea through.

Davies says: “Put it down in writing—send an email pitch. And then if you haven’t heard within two weeks, get the phone number and pester them.

“And while the editor might not like it, giving them a quick nag on the phone is no bad thing, as your pitch comes back to the top of their pile and they reconsider it,” he advises.

Liaise with your editor

If your pitch is successful, your editor might allow you to run with it in your own style or could be more prescriptive and will brief you with some guidelines on tone, style, and what to include or avoid.

Make sure you and your editor are thinking along the same tracks. Should the piece be informal, chatty, or serious? Is there anyone specific you should be interviewing? Do you need to reference any other research or articles—particularly if the BMJ itself has published a relevant piece.

Agree a word count and deadline and stick to them.

Be organised

Although the final product will be one article, you will use many sources of information to inform your piece, which can easily get lost or mixed up.

Approach writing a feature like a mini-project. Keep your electronic files in a properly labelled folder and use descriptive file names—labelling a file “interview” probably won’t be that useful. Use dates and names to help you keep track of your research and interviews.

Log all requested interviews with latest notes, press office details, contact details, and any other notes that could be useful. Note whether a potential interviewee is in your own time zone or abroad and calculate time differences to make sure that you don’t call them in the middle of the night.

Keep links to any online research. You might find the perfect statistic or fact to back up your article, but it will be of no use if you can’t reference it properly.

Interviews can be face to face or on the phone. Although face to face is best, Skype is a great way to conduct international interviews.

Keep interviews to the point. Although it’s tempting to veer off to other topics, this can waste time and means that you have more audio to wade through.

Record or take shorthand notes. If you’re quoting someone directly, this needs to be an accurate representation of what they have said. Request permission if recording, and check equipment beforehand.

Don’t allow copy approval. It’s sometimes acceptable to show interviewees their words before publication, but for viewing—not for approval.

Interviewees

Features should contain original quotes from experts in the subject area. This will give your piece a fresh angle on a subject and first hand quotes will help to bring the story to life.

Allow interviews to shine through and don’t stifle with too much “framing”—often direct quotes don’t need much explanation and add to the authority of the piece.

Try not to use “quote sluts” 3 —overused media friendly sources who can churn out the same old line to each interviewer they speak to. Think about who might give a different, fresh, and possibly more controversial viewpoint.

Approach more interviewees than required. People may not respond, may be too busy, or just might not be interested. The risk here is that you end up with too much material, but that is better than not enough.

Your piece needs to be accurate, and any statements should be backed up by well sourced references. Try to verify statistics and facts from at least two sources, at first hand from the original source if possible. Don’t just repeat a fact you’ve read elsewhere. Libel laws apply each time a defamatory comment is repeated. If you’re using a non-primary quote or text, reference it properly so that the reader can see it in its original context.

Unlike news stories, which are written with the least important information at the end, the final paragraphs of a feature often tie up the loose ends. This could be an answer to the original question; a quote that sums up the gist of the piece; or a weighing up of the arguments within.

Competing interests: None declared.

From the Student BMJ .

• ↵ BMJ Group Journals Division. Media Pack 2012 http://group.bmj.com/group/advertising/BMJ%20Group%20Journals%20Division%20Media%20Pack%202012.pdf .
• ↵ Jacobs B. The case of M. Student BMJ 2012 ; 20 : e236 . OpenUrl
• ↵ Matalin M, Carville J. All’s fair. Random House, 1994.

• Submit your Research
• My Submissions
• Article Guidelines
• Article Guidelines (New Versions)
• Data Guidelines
• Posters and Slides Guidelines
• Document Guidelines
• Article Processing Charges
• Peer Review
• The Peer Review Process
• The Editorial Team’s Role
• Understanding Peer Review Reports and Statuses
• Revising and Responding to Reviewers

Finding Article Reviewers

• Reviewer Criteria
• Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
• Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
• Identity transparency: All identities visible
• Reviewer interacts with: Editor, other reviewers, authors
• Review information published: Review reports, submitted manuscript, reviewer identities
• Post publication commenting: Open
• Qualified: Reviewers should typically hold a doctorate (PhD/MD/MBBS or equivalent). Exceptions will be made for scholarly disciplines where doctorates are not necessary (e.g. Education, Library Science), or when an individual has a demonstrable public record of expertise. If possible, when a reviewer suggestion is rejected due to lack of qualifications, the editorial team will suggest that their Principal Investigator/Supervisor is invited instead, and the original person could then take the role of co-reviewer.
• Expert: Reviewers should have published at least three articles as lead author in a relevant topic, with at least one article having been published in the last five years . In fields where a reviewer’s expertise is not typically measured by their publication record or if the suggested reviewer’s expertise is demonstrable in ways other than their publication record, please provide an explanation of their suitability.
• have co-authored with any of the lead authors in the three years preceding publication of Version 1;
• have co-authored with any of the lead authors since the publication of Version 1;
• currently work at the same institution as the authors;
• be a close collaborator with an author.
• Global: For any given article, we require that reviewers are from different institutions . (This does not apply to large, multi-site institutions, such as Max-Planck Institutes or University of California). We also strongly encourage that geographically-diverse reviewers are invited to review, to gain an international perspective on the article. In cases where we receive multiple reviewer suggestions from the same country, the editorial team can only invite one of these reviewers at a time. Providing a geographically-diverse set of reviewers will help to prevent delays to the peer review process.
• Use the authors of the references cited in your article as a starting point for finding reviewers working in your specific field.
• Search abstracting and indexing databases such as Google Scholar , PubMed , Web of Science * and Scopus * (or other subject-specific literature databases) for recent articles with specific keywords can help you to identify authors currently working in the same field as yourself, and who may be suitable to review your article. As an expert in your area of research, you will likely be aware of prominent laboratories whose staff may be suitable to review your articles - try searching their website for potential reviewers. You can also search for specific experts with whom you have no recent collaborations, as they or their postdocs may be suitable to review.
• Try the Journal/Author Name Estimator and other similar tools can help to identify authors who have published related articles.
• Use our Reviewer Finder Tool. This tool analyzes the submission and provides a ranked list of reviewer candidates based on leading authors of related published studies. Authors can access this tool via the 'Suggest Reviewers' link next to submitted and published articles in the Submissions section in My Research . As this is an automatically generated list of potential reviewers, authors must use their own judgement to determine if the suggested reviewers have the appropriate expertise to review the article.
• Make sure suggested reviewers are experts in the relevant subject area F1000Research will only invite reviewers who have expertise in the field of research covered by the article. Not only does this ensure thorough peer review, but also reviewers are more likely to agree to provide a report when the subject matter is close to their own area of expertise.
• Try and ensure a global spread of reviewers For any given article, the reviewers must come from separate institutions and should not be affiliated with the authors’ institutions. We also strongly encourage that reviewers from around the world are invited to review where possible so that a global perspective can be gained for the article, and to ensure that all aspects of the work are reviewed.
• Ensure reviewers from the algorithm are suitable before approving them To provide authors who wish to suggest reviewers with a shortlist, each article is scanned by our Reviewer Finder Tool, which automatically provides a list of researchers who have published related articles. Authors can suggest appropriate reviewers from this automatically generated list (which can be accessed via the ‘Suggest Reviewers’ link next to your submitted or published article in My Research ), but must use their own judgement to determine if the suggested reviewers have the appropriate expertise to review the article.
• Discuss with your co-authors It may be that your co-authors would like to suggest reviewers – only the submitting author is able to provide these, however we welcome suggestions on your other authors’ behalfs. We would also be happy to change the submitting author so that a co-author can submit reviewers directly, please contact the editorial team if you wish to do this.
• Contact us if you have any questions If we have rejected a reviewer who you believe to be suitable, or if you have any questions or concerns about our reviewer criteria, we are always happy to discuss. Please email us so that we can explore possible options.
• Suggest reviewers who have recently closely collaborated with you or your co-authors We consider this to be a potential conflict of interest. A reviewer should not be based at the same institution as any author, be a close collaborator, or have co-authored with any of the lead authors for three years before the publication of the article. Please note that we make exceptions for cases where researchers have published together on the findings or consensus from a large consortia.
• Suggest reviewers who do not have the right expertise The editorial team will not invite reviewers who do not appear to have appropriate expertise. Suggesting inappropriate reviewers can cause significant delays to the peer review process.
• Contact the reviewers directly To ensure a fair peer review process is maintained, the editorial team acts as the intermediary between authors and reviewers. By directly contacting the reviewers, authors could not only influence their assessment of the article, but could also dissuade them from reviewing. Please be aware that if evidence of an author coercing reviewers is brought to our attention, we will investigate and take appropriate action. Authors can respond to a peer review report by posting a comment under the report.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Clin Exp Hepatol
• v.12(4); Jul-Aug 2022

How to be a Good Reviewer for a Scientific Journal

∗ Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, UK

† Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Anand V. Kulkarni

‡ Department of Hepatology, AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India

Emad El-Omar

§ UNSW Microbiome Research Centre, St George & Sutherland Clinical Campuses, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Australia

In academia, peer-review refers to a fundamental quality control process whereby external experts (reviewers) are invited to provide unbiased critique of a paper (or other submitted material) and advise on suitability for publication. The process must be robust and conducted with honor and integrity and to the highest professional standards. It is not only the responsibility of the authors but also the reviewers to assess the manuscript appropriately and help in improving the quality of the finished article. A good reviewer not only assists the editors and the journal but can also benefit the authors, the wider scientific community and the general readership. In this article, we discuss the salient features of the peer-review process and tips for undertaking peer-review on scientific papers in an effective and professional manner, including opportunities to develop reviewer skills.

Peer-review is a quality control process whereby external experts (reviewers) are invited to objectively critique a paper (or other submitted material) and advise on suitability for publication. Peer-review is fundamental to the integrity of academia and is central to the selection of high-quality papers in academic journals. The success of peer-review hinges on reviewers, many of whom serve in a voluntary capacity to provide expertise and unbiased critique to safeguard the validity and integrity of research. Reviewers are entrusted to provide an overview of submitted work which may have been many years in the making, to comment on the quality and significance of the work and recommend the outcome of the paper. Being a reviewer therefore is a privileged role that should be conducted with honour. In this article, we share our tips for undertaking peer-review on scientific papers in an effective and professional manner, including ways to develop reviewer skills.

The peer review process

To merit publication, a paper must fit the scope of the journal and bring novelty, educational value, or impact on future practice. Most journal submissions will have undergone internal screening by the editorial team to determine suitability for peer-review. As the initiating step, papers are handled by editors who send out invitations for reviews. Responses should be confirmed at the earliest convenience to avoid delays. Reviewers can access the manuscript and are usually asked to (a) provide comments to authors, (b) provide comments to editors, (c) provide an overall recommendation or rating. Once completed, reports are amalgamated by the editorial board to reach a ‘first decision’. If revisions are required, the original reviewers (and occasionally new ones) may be invited back to review the revised manuscript and a ‘response to reviewers’ letter to determine suitability for acceptance.

The key journal metrics influenced by reviewers include:

• (a) Direct: Time to first decision
• (i) Impact factor (or equivalent), i.e., citation potential.
• (ii) Number of downloads.
• (iii) Social media metrics (e.g., Altmetrics/PlumX scores).

Deciding the outcome of a paper

The primary objective of a review is to provide a summative outcome on the manuscript to assist the editorial board with making a decision. Peer-review outcomes may include: (a) accept (rare), (b) minor revisions, (c) major revisions, or (d) reject. This should include a full appraisal of the submitted materials (text, figures and tables, supplementary files, references). The reasons for supporting the decision should be clearly outlined. Comments may be: (a) shared with the authors or (b) confidentially shared with the Editor in Chief. These should be prioritized in order of importance succinctly, e.g., in bullet point form, and courteously.

Deciding factors:

• 1. Novelty—does this paper address knowledge gap or add to the existing body of evidence?
• 2. Is this the right fit for the journal? Although peer-review should be consistent, the summative outcome of peer-review should be personalized according to the journal's standing and impact. Journals with higher impact factors are typically more competitive and incur higher rejection rates.
• 3. Will this inspire or lead to better clinical practice or understanding?
• 4. Fatal limitations—are there critical flaws, e.g. with validity, integrity or impact, that cannot be overcome?

Attributes of a good peer reviewer

The positive qualities of a good peer-reviewer include the following:

• 1. Expertise
• 2. Timeliness
• 3. Good written communication—with authors and editors
• 4. Professionalism
• 5. Empathy and kindness
• 6. Thoroughness
• 7. Intuition and judgement
• 8. Ability to maximize potential of a paper
• 9. Be open to novel and unique ideas

Approach to reviewing a paper

• 1. Responding to the invitation —Consider whether you should take it on. Is the paper within your expertise, and do you have time and the enthusiasm to do this? If you are unfamiliar with the journal, look up the journal and its standing in the field, and scout the quality of similar papers. Avoid reviewing for predatory journals which are often open access and not PubMed indexed. Even if you are unable to review, you should respond promptly to minimize delays and consider recommending alternative reviewers which will assist the editor.
• 2. Preparation – This depends on the type of submission. A full review for original research papers requires approximately 3–4 h on average, whereas case reports or letters will be more straightforward. Reviewing a ‘review article’ requires more attention to the flow of the article, citation of recent articles, and is generally dependent on the presentation of the article and figures/tables. This can be mentally intensive. Allocate time for when you are at your sharpest, ideally with coffee in hand. Reviews can either be printed out (and annotated) or done online. This can be completed all at once or in a staggered manner (go away and think about it). Comments should be typed on to a Word document (with Autosave function), ideally with your review paper side-by-side to make comments as you read. Perform a literature search to ensure you are up-to-date with the latest on the topic of the paper. Look for the duplication of data/papers through a Google/PubMed search.

High Impact Areas During Peer-Review.

• a. Overall —Consider readability: flow (does the story make sense), language (spelling, grammar, and syntax), word count, and overall feel and quality of the manuscript.
• b. Title —Does this capture the essence of the study? Could this be improved to capture keywords, including the study type? This is important for search engine optimization to maximize the paper's visibility on Internet search engines.
• c. Abstract —Has this been optimized to contain accurate facts, headline results? Does it answer the question ‘so what?’. Does the conclusion of the abstract and title match?
• d. Introduction —Does this give a true, up to date and balanced background and set out the need for the study? Are the aims and objectives appropriate?
• e. Methods —Is the study ethical? Are methods (+/− materials) adequately described to enable reproducibility? Is the study design, outcomes, timelines, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and statistical analyses clear to infer validity and generalizability? What are the sources of bias and what steps have been taken to minimize these? Is the study powered to detect a true difference? If there is a registered study protocol, check if this aligns. Have the authors followed standardized reporting guidelines for their type of study? Is an ethics statement included?
• f. Results —Do these flow logically? Are they structured in a readable form? Are they represented in major Figures (and Tables) and do they stand out? Are the statistical tests appropriate? Look in the supplementary files (if available).
• g. Discussion —Do they contain a summary of their key findings? Have they performed an up-to-date literature review and discussed how it adds to the existing literature? Is there any scope for future areas which is appropriately addressed in Discussion? Are the limitations sufficiently presented?
• h. References —Are they recent and relevant? Are there any notable omissions? Are the references presented uniformly?
• 5. Providing feedback —Reflect on the paper, with focus on the high-impact areas. Read and re-read these areas, especially the Title, to ensure this is the best version it can be. Look in the Cover Letter and Supplementary Files in case there are high impact points that have been missed, e.g., important results or figures, what the study adds or how the study changes practice. These are important for dissemination, especially on social media, which can enhance the impact of the work and increase citations. 1 Also consider the flow and ease of comprehension of the article, particularly to non-native English speakers. Consider the merits of the paper and the limitations, in order to deliberate on the paper's outcome. Feedback should be structured below.

Structure of a good peer review

A good peer-reviewer can give added value to the authors, the editors, the journal, and the general readership ( Figure 1 ). There are 3 components to the review process ( Table 2 ):

• (a) Writing comments to the authors
• (b) Writing confidential comments to the editors
• (c) Overall recommendation

How to be a good reviewer.

Suggested Template for a Reviewer Report.

For the comments to authors, consider the following tips:

• • First and foremost, you should write something! There is nothing more useless to editors and to the external peer review process, than a reviewer simply stating that this is an outstanding piece of work and that you have no comments. Nothing is perfect, and we should all strive to make things better by our critique.
• • Always be fair, balanced, polite, and civil. Even if you are going to trash the work, use language that is professional, non-accusatory, does not belittle the authors, and is not sarcastic or cynical. Essentially, be tough but nice. Equally, do not gush too much in your praise of the work even if you think it is the best thing since sliced bread!
• • Treat the paper with respect and review it in a manner that you wish for your paper to be reviewed.
• • Start with the summary of the study and its major findings (without judgement at this stage).
• • Give a comment on the novelty (or lack of) and what it brings to the field. Point out if similar findings have previously been published. You do this to back up your conclusion that the work is perhaps not as novel as the authors claim but express this politely by stating that ‘similar work has recently been reported by X et al, so the novelty of this work is perhaps modest.’
• • Outline your comments as MAJOR and MINOR. These should also be structured and prioritized, so that authors can provide point-by-point responses.
• • MAJOR means either fatal or requiring substantive effort to upgrade to an acceptable scientific level. This includes flawed design, wrong or inadequate controls, wrong statistics leading to wrong interpretation of results, etc.
• • MINOR means things that must be fixed but are not fatal, e.g., confusing charts/tables/figures, language, wrong/old references, data that is missing and could/should be included, organization of sections.
• • If the paper is clearly flawed, you should outline the major flaws and deliver a clear outline of the issues.
• • Do not give away your overall recommendation.
• • Do not spend hours picking out minutiae, such as spelling and grammar mistakes. If these are widespread, simply state that the manuscript would benefit from thorough proofreading or editing.
• • If the paper is clearly suitable for publication, give advice that will improve the impact of the paper. Figures are especially helpful for social media dissemination. Graphical abstracts can also be high-yield and increase the paper's citation potential. 2

There is usually a separate section for comments to the editors—this is confidential and should include a brief rationale for your decision or significant concerns. At all costs, please avoid simply copying and pasting your comments to the authors. This is a very important part of the review process, and you must communicate to the editors your confidential views about the work. This may include major concerns, so go for the fatal issues and justify your recommendation. Equally, if you think this work is outstanding, you should explain why. Include any professional concerns with the paper, e.g., ethics, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, etc. Any editorial considerations should be included here, e.g. need for formal statistical review, special issue, value of an accompanying editorial, graphical abstract, 2 social media promotion, 3 controversies that may damage the reputation of the journal, or any unintended consequences in publishing the paper.

According to the editors of one journal, the three factors that determine a high-quality peer-review include 4 :

• • Completeness of the review and the accuracy of assessment of the strengths and limitations
• • Constructiveness of comments
• • Timeliness

Reviewing the revised manuscript

The majority of original articles will either be rejected outright or require revisions. If you are invited to review a revised manuscript, you should accept this opportunity as you will be familiar with the manuscript. Start by studying the point-by-point responses and ensure that these have been addressed satisfactorily. Review the tracked changes to the manuscript to ensure that the reviewers’ comments have been addressed. At this point, avoid subjecting the authors to excessive rounds of revisions as this can not only be frustrating but can also lead to delays with publication, and potential loss of novelty.

Common mistakes in peer-review

Avoid the following mistakes in peer-review:

• • Excessive delays with responses or completion
• • Not being thorough
• • Demanding recommendations that are impossible to remedy
• • Not maintaining confidentiality
• • Duplicating what has been included under limitations
• • Use of discourteous or overly negative language
• • Not providing added value
• • Focus on language versus content
• • Low threshold to accept submissions
• • Failing to justify their decision
• • Lacking professionalism, e.g., self-citations, not declaring conflicts of interest, not respecting intellectual property.
• • Not considering the unintended consequences of a paper
• • Biased by the author's name or institution

Improving your reviewer skills

Good peer-review can be gained through the following:

• (a) Self-reflection : Consider creating a free-to-use Publons ( http://www.publons.com ) account to maintain an electronic portfolio of reviews over time. These are stored confidentially and can be browsed to aid reflection and development. Users can access their peer-review metrics (e.g. reviews per month; average word count, Altmetrics activity, contributions to different journals) and can also inform you if rejected papers are published in another journal. Reviewer metrics help to quantify your reviewer contributions and can give indicators on your work-life balance. Formal feedback on the quality of your reviews can also be requested from editors enrolled on Publons.
• (b) Other reviewers' feedback : On average, each review is undertaken by 2.2 reviewers. 5 After submitting your review, you will usually receive the outcome letter containing all reviewers' comments. Compare and contrast your comments to learn from other reviewers. This can be hugely rewarding and eye-opening. Inspiration can also be gained by observing the format, writing style, and tone of others.
• (c) Formal mentorship : For those within their formative phase of being a reviewer, there is ample opportunity to engage in peer review under expert supervision or mentorship. Many reviews are turned down due to lack of time but offer an ideal opportunity for fellows to take part. This can be done locally or through distant mentorship.

Being a reviewer for a scientific journal is an honor and a privilege. The role not only serves the editors and the journal but also benefits the authors, the wider scientific community, and the general readership. In order to be a good reviewer, one must focus on timeliness, completeness, and constructiveness of reviews, whilst maintaining integrity and empathy with their approach. This can be gained with experience, reflective practice by maintaining an electronic portfolio, and with mentorship.

Credit authorship contribution statement

KS, AVK, and EEO made the study concept and design. Compilation and initial drafting by KS. Final editing and critical revision by KS, AVK and EEO. All members approved the final draft.

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Siau, Dr Kulkarni and Prof El-Omar have nothing to disclose.

None applicable.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

How I fled bombed Aleppo to continue my career in science

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

US halts funding to controversial virus-hunting group: what researchers think

News 16 MAY 24

Japan can embrace open science — but flexible approaches are key

Correspondence 07 MAY 24

US funders to tighten oversight of controversial ‘gain of function’ research

News 07 MAY 24

Mount Etna’s spectacular smoke rings and more — April’s best science images

News 03 MAY 24

Research Associate - Metabolism

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoc Fellowships

Train with world-renowned cancer researchers at NIH? Consider joining the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) at the National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, Maryland

NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

PhD/master's Candidate

PhD/master's Candidate    Graduate School of Frontier Science Initiative, Kanazawa University is seeking candidates for PhD and master's students i...

Kanazawa University

Senior Research Assistant in Human Immunology (wet lab)

Senior Research Scientist in Human Immunology, high-dimensional (40+) cytometry, ICS and automated robotic platforms.

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Boston University Atomic Lab

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

How to Write an Effective Journal Article Review

• First Online: 01 January 2012

Cite this chapter

• Dennis Drotar PhD 2 ,
• Yelena P. Wu PhD 3 &
• Jennifer M. Rohan MA 4  

5637 Accesses

2 Citations

The experience of reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals is an important one in professional development. Reviewing articles gives trainees familiarity with the peer review process in ways that facilitate their writing. For example, reviewing manuscripts can help students and early career psychologists understand what reviewers and editors look for in a peer-reviewed article and ways to critique and enhance a manuscript based on peer review. Experiences in review can facilitate early career faculty with early entry into and experience being a reviewer for a professional journal. The experience of journal reviews also gives students a broader connection to the field of science in areas of their primary professional interest. At the same time reviewing articles for scientific journals poses a number of difficult challenges (see Hyman, 1995; Drotar, 2000a, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2010, 2011; Lovejoy, Revenson, & France, 2011). The purpose of this chapter is to provide an introduction to the review process and give step by step guidance in conducting reviews for scientific journals. Interested readers might wish to read Lovejoy et al.’s (2011) primer for manuscript review, which contains annotated examples of reviews and an editor’s decision letter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association Science Student Council. (2007). A graduate students’ guide to involvement in the peer review process. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.apa.org/research/publishing/

APA Publications and Communications Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology. Why do we need them? What do they need to be? American Psychologist, 63 , 839–851.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2008). Putting research in context: Understanding confidence intervals from one or more studies. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 (9), 903–916.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2000a). Reviewing and editing manuscripts for scientific journals. In D. Drotar (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in clinical child and pediatric psychology (pp. 409–425). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2000b). Training professional psychologists to write and publish. The utility of a writer’s workshop seminar. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31 , 453–457.

Drotar, D. (2009a). Editorial: How to write effective reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 113–117.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2009b). Editorial: Thoughts in improving the quality of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: How to write a convincing introduction. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 1–3.

Drotar, D. (2009c). Editorial: How to report methods in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 227–230.

Drotar, D. (2009d). How to write an effective results and discussion section for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 339–343.

Drotar, D. (2010). Editorial: Guidance for submission and review of multiple publications derived from the same study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35 , 225–230.

Drotar, D. (2011). Editorial: How to write more effective, user friendly reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36 , 1–3.

Durlak, J. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 917–928.

Fiske, D. W., & Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper: Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 40 , 591–598.

Holmbeck, G. N., & Devine, K. A. (2009). Editorial: An author’s checklist for measure development and validation manuscripts. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 (7), 691–696.

Hyman, R. (1995). How to critique a published article. Psychological Bulletin, 118 , 178–182.

Journal of Pediatric Psychology mentoring policy & suggestions for conducting mentored reviews (2009). Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jpepsy/for_authors/msprep_submission.html

Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42 , 1–13.

Palermo, T. M. (2010). Editorial: Exploring ethical issues in peer review for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35 (3), 221–224.

Routh, D. K. (1995). Confessions of an editor, including mistakes I have made. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24 , 236–241.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2006). Reviewing scientific works in psychology . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stinson, J. N., McGrath, P. J., & Yamada, J. T. (2003). Clinical trials in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology : Applying the CONSORT statement. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28 , 159–167.

Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses . Medford, NY: Information Today, Inc.

Wu, Y. P., Nassau, J. H., & Drotar, D. (2011). Mentoring reviewers: The Journal of Pediatric Psychology experience. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36 , 258–264.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, MLC 7039, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Dennis Drotar PhD

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Yelena P. Wu PhD

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Jennifer M. Rohan MA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Drotar PhD .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel H, Davie Hall, Campus Box 3270, Chapel Hill, 27599-3270, North Carolina, USA

Mitchell J. Prinstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Drotar, D., Wu, Y.P., Rohan, J.M. (2013). How to Write an Effective Journal Article Review. In: Prinstein, M. (eds) The Portable Mentor. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_11

Published : 25 July 2012

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3993-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3994-3

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How to Write an Article Review: Tips, Outline, Format, & Examples

• Icon Calendar 15 May 2024
• Icon Page 5804 words
• Icon Clock 26 min read

This guideline is about how to write an article review, pointing out what students should do to produce high-standard texts, such as preparing themselves, setting the stage, and perfecting the documents by revising and editing words, sentences, and paragraphs to eliminate grammatical and formatting flaws and logical inconsistencies. Basically, an article review presents a constructive analysis of the literature. In this case, scholars use summary, classification, investigation, and appraisal when reviewing scholarly sources. Moreover, such papers help people to identify knowledge gaps in a source and recommend new research areas. In turn, target groups are experts in specific fields, novice researchers, and decision-makers. Other vital information includes a sample outline and an example of an article review paper, the dos and don’ts, and essential tips for writing this type of text. Therefore, reading this guideline prepares one to write an outstanding article review paper that meets the instructor’s expectations and satisfies the rules of academic writing.

General Aspects of How to Write an Outstanding Article Review Paper & Example

Students are individually responsible for excellent academic performance. Anyone in college must develop a mindset that promotes this noble goal. Writing is an activity that helps individuals in a learning institution to convert ideas into text, enhancing intellectual creativity. There are various types of papers that students write as part of ongoing or end-year assessments. Writing different types of essays requires learners to review and apply what they have learned in class or private study to produce a logical document. Therefore, individuals must always endeavor to learn more because no one knows when such knowledge may prove valuable. This article outlines essential details that college students should read, comprehend, and utilize when writing an article review paper. Thus, reading this guideline equips one with valid knowledge that proves fundamental when writing this type of academic text.

Definition of What Is an Article Review and Its Meaning

An article review is a document that examines a literary text and summarizes it by addressing the most critical elements, such as the topic and its background, and its relevance. Ideally, scholars review articles to address specific issues that stand out, such as the author’s controversial or erroneous arguments. Students may need to start writing an article review to demonstrate critical thinking because such a task requires one to state what is in the text and evaluate it and its significance. Therefore, when reviewing an article, it means that one must use intellectual creativity to interrogate the author’s ideas and presume their intention. However, an article review differs from academic texts, like an argumentative essay, a research proposal or research paper, and reports, because students use an author’s content as subject material.

Choose Wr1ter Team for reliable, plagiarism-free papers that meet your specific requirements.

Unique Structure Features of an Article Review

One reason why an article review differs from other scholarly texts is its set of unique features. The first is that it is based on an existing document. While writers begin other academic texts, like essays from scratch, students start writing their papers by reviewing the assigned source, or they search for it on their own. The second feature is a summary since writers focus on reading the article and highlighting the essential details, like the topic, thesis statement, and central ideas. The third unique feature is evaluation, while the purpose of an article review is not to report what the text says but evaluate its content from the reviewer’s perspective. In this case, people must know the topical area to assess the source. The fourth and most critical feature is significance because an article review must communicate the relevance of the text. In turn, students must incorporate all these four elements when writing an article review.

🔹 Title of an Article Review

An excellent article review must have a unique title. For example, an essay title should be informative, while the heading should include essential terms and indicate that the text is under review. In this case, the title of any article review paper should influence the audience to read the text. For instance, a compelling title should include a message about the review materials, and readers should understand the author’s goal. Thus, an article review must have a clear and relevant title.

🔹 Overview Paragraph or Introduction

The first paragraph of an article review must provide the background information on the source under investigation, like any college essay introduction presents a brief overview of the paper. In this case, the introductory section should include the title of the source under review and its authors, following the title case rule. Then, the introduction must describe the focus of the source, develops a knowledge question, and clarifies the organization of the text under evaluation. Along these lines, this paragraph must have a narrow focus on the relevant source. Therefore, the overview paragraph section must provide appropriate background information on the corresponding source and develop a research question.

🔹 Body of an Article Review or Its Content

The body of an article review must be relevant to the assigned source. For example, paragraph writing should present the material and method used in the source under consideration. In this case, some sections that people may consider when writing their papers reveal the data sources, research strategies, and selection criteria. Besides, the material and method sections should entail the number of studies included and statistical approaches used to analyze data. Thus, body paragraphs should cover the strategies used to gather and analyze data in the source under analysis.

🔹 Conclusion or Final Paragraph

Being the last section of an article review, the conclusion paragraph should answer the research question presented in the introductory paragraph and what the author intends to share. For instance, the conclusion should reveal the implication of the findings. Besides, this part of the paper should identify the interpretations by the author and unresolved knowledge questions. Thus, the ending paragraph must justify the research question identified in the introduction.

🔹 Reference List and Illustrations (Optional)

An excellent article review should contain a reference list to avoid plagiarism and illustrations that are optional. For example, the reference list should include the full bibliographic information of the evaluated sources to acknowledge credible sources. In turn, illustrations may help students to visualize the analyzed sources. For instance, a compelling article review paper may include concept maps. In turn, this method may help to show a clear relationship between perceptions and theories used by authors. Thus, this type of paper should acknowledge reliable sources and may include illustrations to enhance a better understanding of central concepts.

Possible Formatting Examples of Sources for an Article Review

Because an article review is a scholarly document, students must incorporate citations to indicate ideas they have borrowed from other scholars. There are four primary formatting styles: APA, MLA, Harvard, and Chicago/Turabian. Each style has unique features that make it distinct, although some of them have several similarities. When writing an article review, students should adopt the style their instructor explicitly specified. However, without such specifications, one should choose a style they have used before because they grasp the unique elements that the text should emphasize. These elements should appear in all formatting styles and include the author’s name, the source’s title, the date or year of publication, and the publisher’s name. All headings are in the title case for level one, two, and three headings across all the styles.

📕 APA (American Psychological Association) Formatting Style for an Article Review

The APA style is among the most common formatting styles for most academic texts. When using this style, students should focus on three aspects: outline, in-text citations, and References. The outline is the overall appearance of a document. Although most academic texts have a three-part outline (introduction, body, conclusion), writers use headings and subheadings to organize their work logically. Rules for APA headings require students to bold and center the first-level headings, bold and flush left the second-level headings, and bold, italicize, and flush left the third-level headings. In-text citations should capture the author’s surname, year of publication, and paragraph or page number. Essential details for entries in the References page are the author’s surname, publication year in brackets, source’s title italicized in sentence case, and the publisher. The following examples for a review show APA References entries and corresponding in-text citations:

Web article ‘References’ entry:

Paluch, J., & Herrera, J. (2023, February 21). Homeless populations are rising around California . Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/

In-text citation at the end of a sentence:

(Paluch & Herrera, 2023, para. 2).

Scholarly or scientific article under review:

Somerville, P. (2013). Understanding homelessness. Housing, Theory, and Society , 30 (4), 384-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2012.756096

News article under review:

Kang, J. C. (2023, July 2). What does California’s homeless population actually look like. The New Yorker . https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-does-californias-homeless-population-actually-look-like

📕 MLA (Modern Language Association) Formatting Style for an Article Review

Students should focus on the most critical features when adopting the MLA style to write an article review. They are the outline, in-text citations, and Works Cited. Concerning MLA format heading, writers should ensure the first level is in the title case, bolded, and flushed left; the second is in the title case, bolded, italicized, and flushed left; and the third is bolded and centered in the title case. For in-text citations, students should capture the author’s name and the paragraph or page number. However, for entries on the works cited page, one should provide more details, including the author’s name, the article in the title case, the publisher in italics, and the publication year. The following examples for a review show Works Cited entries for various sources:

Web article ‘Works Cited’ entry:

Paluch, Jennifer, and Joseph Herrera. “Homeless Populations Are Rising Around California.” Public Policy Institute of California , 2023, https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/

(Paluch and Herrera para. 2).

Somerville, Peter. “Understanding Homelessness.” Housing, Theory, and Society, vol. 30, no. 4, 2013, pp. 384-415, https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2012.756096.

Kang, Jay Caspian. “What Does California’s Homeless Population Actually Look Like.” The New Yorker , 2023. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-does-californias-homeless-population-actually-look-like

📕 Harvard Formatting Style for an Article Review

The Harvard formatting style resembles the APA style in some aspects. When using this style, an article reviewer should focus on the outline, in-text citations, and the References List. Regarding the outline, writers should bold and center the first-level headings and write it in the title case. They should equally bold the second-level headings and write them in the title case but flush it left. Lastly, students should indent and bold the third-level headings but write them in sentence case. They should begin writing after the period. In-text citations should have the name of the author, publication year, and page or paragraph number. The essential details for entries in the References List are the author’s name, the publication year, the source, and the publisher. Such entries for a review should appear differently for various sources as follows:

Web article ‘References List’ entry:

Paluch, J and Herrera, J 2023, ‘Homeless populations are rising around California,’ Public Policy Institute of California . Available from: <https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/>. [13 August 2023].

(Paluch & Herrera 2023, para. 2).

Somerville, P 2013, ‘Understanding homelessness,’ Housing, Theory, and Society , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 384-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2012.756096.

Kang, JC 2023, ‘What does California’s homeless population actually look like,’ The New Yorker . Available from: < https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-does-californias-homeless-population-actually-look-like>. [13 August 2023].

📕 Chicago/Turabian Formatting Style for an Article Review

The Chicago/Turabian formatting style is similar to the MLA style in some aspects. When writing an article review, students should focus on the outline, in-text citations, and the Bibliography. Regarding the outline, they should center and bold the first-level headings and write them in the title case. They should also center and write the second-level headings in the title case without the boldface. Finally, writers should bold and flush left the third-level headings and ensure they are in the title case. In-text citations should appear in the footnotes, while the most critical elements for Bibliography entries are the author’s name, the source’s title, the publisher, and the publication year. These entries for a review should read as follows for various sources:

Web article ‘Bibliography’ entry:

Paluch, Jennifer, and Joseph Herrera. “Homeless Populations Are Rising Around California.” Public Policy Institute of California , 2023, https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/.

In-text citation appears in the footnote as:

Jennifer Paluch and Joseph Herrera, “Homeless Populations Increasing in California,” Public Policy Institute of California , 2023, par. 6, https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/.

Kang, Jay Caspian. “What Does California’s Homeless Population Actually Look Like.” The New Yorker , 2023. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-does-californias-homeless-population-actually-look-like.

Enhance your academic performance with our top-notch, plagiarism-free papers.

Common Types of Article Reviews

Article reviews come in different forms precisely because different sources are emerging across multiple platforms daily. The common platforms include the Web, online publications, news outlets, and online databases. Therefore, when reviewing an article, students should consider the platform upon which it exists because such details must appear when formatting the paper.

The Web is the most robust platform for scholarly and other types of documents. Ideally, anyone who writes an article can post it on this platform because of fewer rules or limitations, such as the need for a standard text. As such, students can access all types of documents on the Web, including articles addressing various societal issues like homelessness. Bloggers view the Web as the ideal place to spread ideas because of the enormous traffic of people that visit it daily. When reviewing articles from the Web, students should understand that such documents can be academically valid or invalid depending on the author. The best way to determine an article’s intellectual validity is to consider the author’s credentials. What they write must be valid if they are scholars, such as architects, physicians, or software engineers.

Online Publications

Online publications for a review include journals and magazines that provide professionals with a good place to share ideas and review them. Almost every profession has an online journal or magazine where individuals in the trade and those interested in it can exchange thoughts regarding various issues. For example, the scientific community has New Scientist , Architectural Digest , and Tech Briefs , which are online magazines where people interested in essay topics in science, architecture, and engineering can find intellectually nourishing articles. As such, writings on these online platforms are academically valid because the authors are professionals with experience in diverse fields. When reviewing such articles, students should not be casual but intellectually alert because those who consume their work may want to know how they appraise or critique a text by a professional.

Online News Outlets

With the Internet becoming the most accessible educational platform in the world in contemporary society, news organizations have developed online outlets to keep the public informed at all times. The advantage of these outlets for a review is that the public can read about breaking news before the mainstream broadcast and print media can communicate. Although news articles are not scholarly, they are academically valid because they undergo editing by professional journalists. Generally, these reading materials are about emerging issues across diverse fields, including politics, economy, society, and international relations. Therefore, when reviewing news articles, students should consider their topical area and mention how the author addresses or fails to include the most critical details, such as the pressing needs of the public if the source is about politics.

Online Databases

Online databases are the primary reservoirs of research knowledge because they hold various research studies and credible sources. Like online publications that are professionally based, these platforms are discipline-based. In other words, each online database is unique because it contains reliable articles within a specific field of study, such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science, law, and linguistics. Therefore, when reviewing research articles, students should find out the database they belong. However, since most researches exist in different databases, writers should focus on the journal that publishes the article. As previously stated, the journal’s name should appear in the citation at the end of the document. Examples of online databases where students can access research articles for a review include JSTOR, EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and others. Since most of these databases require students to have access credentials, most scholars use Google Scholar to find specific articles for their reviews.

Examples of Topics for Writing an Article Review

Based on the preceding sections, students can review articles from various platforms. The most important thing to note is that each platform specializes in a particular discipline, such as sociology or political science. Typically, instructors specify the assigned article students should review. However, they may sometimes choose reading materials themselves. The following are possible examples of topics for writing an article review paper that students can choose because they are based on articles.

• Review a research article, “Sex Differences Across Developmental Domains in Children With a Familial Risk of Severe Mental Disorders,” authored by Birgitte Klee Burton and colleagues, and explain the significance of the life continuum.
• What does Daniel Warton see as the real problem in American Politics in the article “‘Ripe for Political Violence’: US Election Officials Are Quitting at an Alarming Rate.”
• What does Chika Anekwe prescribe for physical fitness in the article “Can Fitness Counter Fatness.”
• What is Medha Mehta’s main message in the article “Hard Work Is the Key to Success…Or Is It Not?”
• Write an article review for “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of Value Systems in the Public Domain” by Udo Pesch.

Outline Sample Template for Writing a Good Article Review Paper

I. introduction section of an article review.

• Introduce the article and rationale for the review. Students should state why the article’s topic is essential, such as addressing a social issue.
• Clearly define what the review will discuss. Writers outline the order in which they will review each aspect of the article, such as the title, author, content, and significance.
• State the thesis. People communicate their main focus in reviewing the article, such as critiquing it.

II. Body Paragraphs Section

For each of the body paragraphs, students should incorporate:

• A topic sentence: The student communicates an idea that supports the thesis.
• Evidence: The student includes quotes or paraphrases information in the article, following the referencing rules.
• Evaluation: The student evaluates the information from the assigned article to make an argument, such as critique the author.
• A concluding sentence: It is a statement that summarizes the student’s thinking about the article under review.
• Transition: This sentence concludes the paragraph with a statement establishing a logical flow to the next paragraph or section.

III. Conclusion Section

• Remind the reader of the purpose of the review by rewording the thesis statement.
• Briefly mention the main points as they appear in body paragraphs, following their order.
• Make a final remark about the article under review that is intellectually stimulating.

Example of an Article Review Paper

Topic: Write an article review for “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of Value Systems in the Public Domain” by Udo Pesch

I. Introduction Sample for an Article Review

Udo Pesch’s article, “Administrators and Accountability: The Plurality of Value Systems in the Public Domain,” emphasizes the significance of the interplay between accountability and value systems in public administrators’ decision-making process. The researcher’s primary focus is whether society should hold public administrators accountable and responsible for their decisions. In this respect, Pesch’s article considers the various influences that impact public administrators’ decisions.

II. Example of the First Body Paragraph Review

From the start, Pesch points out that accountability in decision-making is a challenging matter in public administration. The article under review clarifies that codes of ethics are essential accountability systems in organizations because they define expected behaviors. As such, these explicit ethical systems influence people’s actions in the workplace and even elsewhere. However, the author cautions that differences between one’s moral values and the terms of the ethical codes can trigger conflict often characterized by a blatant failure to follow policies. In turn, public administrators’ motivations and inability to perceive the consequences of their decisions are the primary factors that complicate accountability.

III. Example of the Second Body Paragraph Review

The social context is another factor influencing public administrators’ sense of accountability. According to Pesch, diverse ethical domains in the social environment prescribe “their own standards of good and bad behavior.” In this respect, individuals operate in a social setting without clearly understanding what attitudes, behaviors, and actions they should demonstrate. This lack of clarity about ethical standards explains why many administrators make bad decisions or refuse to submit to accountability frameworks for reviewing them. Ideally, people feel trapped in a system that demands more without moral support. For example, while top leadership understands what they must do to be accountable, those at lower levels do not. This gap occurs because organizations invest heavily in top leadership, such as training seminars, but view lower cadre employees as the support base.

IV. Example of the Third Body Paragraph Review

In commenting about the context that makes accountability a complicated matter in public administration, Pesch blames the lack of universal moral codes as why this is the norm. According to the article, public administrators often violate codes of ethics because they do not believe a universal moral code demands civil servants “to live up to integrity standards.” For most administrators, laws and organizational procedures are perfect for holding individuals accountable. The author argues that acknowledging that civil servants have a sense of responsibility is the most effective approach in designing accountability frameworks like codes of ethics under review. However, this is not the case in most contexts because these accountability systems do not address the potential differences between authorized rules and universal principles of good behavior.

V. Conclusion Sample of an Article Review

Overall, Pesch’s article systematically addresses the issues that complicate the sense of accountability in public administration. The source identifies people’s moral values, ethical codes, and the social environment as the principal factors influencing civil servants’ sense of accountability. Pesch is adamant that codes of ethics are insufficient to motivate civil servants to be accountable and responsible because there is no universal understanding of ethical or moral behavior.

4 Easy Steps for Writing an Article Review Paper

Academic activities can be time-consuming and mentally challenging. While the former is easy to manage because one can be flexible, the latter is complicated and has little room for maneuver. Writing falls in this latter category because producing an article review is a complex process requiring students to grasp technical details. Notably, from times when an instructor tells students they need to write this type of text to when they submit completed work, several things must happen to ensure the final product is of high standard. The technical details one should focus on fall within four stages of writing: preparation, stage set-up, actual writing, and wrap-up. While some steps are simple, others are complex and require students’ utmost focus.

Step 1: Preparation

Like any vital activity or process, writing an article review should begin with preparation. In this initial step of writing, students should choose their article to review if the instructor has not explicitly specified what the class should use. One needs to select a good source from an online database if the requirement is to review a research article. The next task is to generate ideas through brainstorming sessions with classmates or peers. This activity should happen with the audience of an assigned source in mind. Writers need to review an article in a manner that makes sense to those who will consume their work. As such, students should produce an intellectually stimulating document. When writing an article review, people should know why they are writing it: appraise, critique, or summarize.

Step 2: Stage Set-Up

The next step of writing an article review paper is to set up the stage, meaning making the necessary arrangements to initiate the writing process. Students should search for a good article on the relevant platform while writing an article review. In essence, one should use the article’s title as the keyword to browse the Web or search online databases. However, if students choose their sources, they should use the study area, such as sociology or psychology, as their keywords. The next activity is to read articles available online while noting essential information, such as the author’s name and credentials, the topical area, the thesis, key concepts, and central arguments. Students also should create a clear essay outline comprising three main sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. Lastly, they should undertake expanded research to critique the chosen article under review.

Step 3: The Writing Process

The third step is to initiate the actual writing of an article review, where one puts ideas into paper. In this stage, article reviewers should focus on producing an initial draft by translating all the ideas they have generated into text. Since some ideas may need to be more for the length of an article review paper, students should search for more sources to generate additional points of discussion or analysis. However, deleting some sources may be necessary if the ideas are too many for a single article. Students can also replace sources if they find new ones with better, convincing content. A possible outcome of adding or deleting sources is the alteration of the outline. For example, one may add new body paragraphs to accommodate more ideas. Students should focus on their outlines when writing the first draft because it determines whether an article review document meets essential requirements.

Writing an Introduction for an Article Review Paper

The introduction is the first part of an article review. When writing this section, students should focus on three things: introducing the title and author(s), clarifying the primary focus of the evaluation, and creating a clear thesis. The first element concerns the source’s title under review and who wrote it, while the second concerns what the text is about, such as appraising, critiquing, or summarizing the article under review. The third element is where students state their focus emphatically to establish the ground for the ideas in body paragraphs. As a result, when writing the introduction of their article review paper, students should know their goal is to analyze an existing text and inform readers how they intend to accomplish this task.

Writing Body Paragraphs for an Article Review Paper

The body of an article review paper is the most comprehensive section because it comprises the ideas that writers use to analyze an existing document. In this respect, its main feature is body paragraphs, which may be two or more depending on the requirements of the paper’s length. While all body paragraphs capture different content, they have a uniform outline. The first element is the topic sentence, which means words that students use to open the section. This sentence must emphasize a central idea that reminds readers about the thesis. The next element is evidence from the source, such as a quote, since people need to include author’s statements, arguments, or other evidence for analysis. The third element is the evaluation of the evidence, which is the point at which students review articles. The final elements are a concluding sentence and a transition, and they help readers to connect to the next paragraph or section.

Writing a Conclusion Part for an Article Review

Every academic text must have a final paragraph, the stage at which writers complete the writing process. In this stage, writers should summarize their work by restating the thesis using different words and emphasizing the main points in body paragraphs. The last element is a final remark that allows writers to judge the chosen reading material using their own words. Students must understand that they must refrain from introducing new ideas at this stage. Therefore, when writing this part, one should focus on reminding readers of what they have read, emphasizing the most critical aspects of the article under review.

Step 4: Wrap Up

The last activity in writing any document is to wrap it up by ensuring its content follows a logical order. Students should wrap up article review papers by perfecting the initial draft. The primary focus at this stage is eliminating all flaws that might affect the article review paper’s quality, such as missing citations and punctuation or inconsistent arguments and ideas. Ideally, students perfect their documents by revising sections that seem illogical and editing sections to ensure they align with the initial outline. The greatest focus should be on body paragraphs because that is where students execute their objectives. Some details one should confirm include topic sentences, correct citing, concluding sentences, transition, and formatting. Formatting is critical because citations are a crucial feature of body paragraphs. In turn, students should cite all information from the source and other documents, following APA, MLA, Harvard, or Chicago/Turabian paper formats.

20 Tips for Writing an Article Review Paper

Based on the preceding sections, writing an article review paper is complex and technical. As such, students need to learn how to simplify the process because writing this type of text is a norm in college education. Generally, students should choose a source of interest that is less complicated in terms of language, identify and summarize the central ideas of the text, appraise and critique the document, and comment on the source’s significance for the area of study.

10 ‘Things to Do’ When Writing an Article Review Are:

•  choose a well-defined topic,
• thoroughly search the literature to find the right article,
• create an outline,
• develop a thesis,
• formulate the topic sentences,
• extract information (evidence) from the article (quotes),
• evaluate the information,
• create a first draft,
• perfect the draft to create a final paper,
• proofread the final document.

10 ‘Not to Do Things’ Are:

• do not choose an easy topic,
• do not pick articles that are not academically stimulating,
• do not skip writing the outline,
• do not generate ideas not backed by evidence,
• do not assume what the article says,
• do not be rigid in accommodating new ideas,
• do not consider sources that are not scholarly,
• do not simply summarize the article,
• do not ignore formatting rules,
• do not use informal language.

Summing Up on How to Write a Perfect Article Review Paper

An article review analyzes specific literature and targets experts in particular fields, novice researchers, and decision-makers. Basically, such papers should have a unique structure that helps to communicate important concepts. In this case, the acceptable structure of article reviews contains a compelling title, introduction, relevant body paragraphs, conclusion, and references. As a result, students should learn essential tips for producing a high-standard article review paper:

• The first tip is to choose a topic one has studied in class or private study. Doing so helps in idea generation because students have previous knowledge in their heads.
• The second tip is to choose an article one can support using scholarly sources. The best approach is to focus on online publications and databases because they contain scholarly articles.
• The third tip is to follow the standard outline: introduction, body, and conclusion.
• The fourth tip is to generate ideas using evidence from the article under review. One must understand that an article review can be done without creating new knowledge.
• The fifth tip is to consult widely through research to ensure the content is intellectually engaging.
• Other tips include incorporating expert opinion into the body paragraphs, creating logical sentences, correcting grammatical and formatting errors, and eliminating the illogical flow of ideas and thoughts.

• Programmes NewsWise Behind the Headlines Hugo Young Award Scott Trust Bursary Media Makers Incubator for Independent Media Podcasting Guardian News & Media Archive Past Programmes
• About Our team Our board

Behind the Headlines

Feature and opinion writing resources.

Research widely - facts, statistics, different sides of the story and quotes.

Spend time planning your feature article and organise your ideas.

Don’t reveal everything at the beginning. Features have a narrative structure and draw in the reader gradually.

The key paragraph is the nutgraph, usually the second or third paragraph, where the feature is put in context and its significance is explained.

Reveal a key piece of information, quote or statistic in each paragraph and use quotes from a range of people to give a rounded view.

Think about the ending of the feature. It should not be a summary. A good final paragraph might include a powerful quote, a call to action or leave the reader in a different place from where you started.

Be passionate and opinionated - choose a subject you feel strongly about, and then work on communicating that passion to your readers.

Start with what you know - you will probably write a stronger piece if you have some awareness in, or experience of, your subject. What is the point of your article? You should be able to sum it up in a couple of sentences.

Do your research - a strong argument is important, so too is a grasp of the facts. Your task is to persuade others, so you need to make the strongest possible case for your opinion – strong enough to persuade your opponents.

Construct a clear argument - reflect your opinion on your chosen subject. Remember to persuade your reader by including evidence, addressing other perspectives directly, presenting a conclusion and structuring your writing in a way that is easy to follow.

Stay in touch

Email:  [email protected].

• Reviewer Guidelines
• Peer review model
• Scope & article eligibility
• Reviewer eligibility
• Peer reviewer code of conduct
• Guidelines for reviewing
• How to submit
• The peer-review process
• Benefits for Reviewers

Guidelines for Article Reviewers

• Authors are eligible to publish - authors must be formally affiliated with Wellcome funding.
• Article types – articles are checked whether they meet the criteria and format of specific article types .
• Readability – as we do not copy edit articles, the standard of language and readability must be sufficient for readers to be able to follow the article.
• Plagiarism – articles are checked for plagiarism before publication.
• Methods section – we check that details of methods and resources are provided, so that the work can be assessed (we will ask you as an expert reviewer to comment whether more information would be required for others to reproduce the work).
• Policies – we check that articles publishing research involving humans or animals adhere to our ethical policies .
• Data – we check that the source data underlying the results are made openly available (we will ask you as an expert reviewer to comment whether the source data are appropriate for others to reproduce the work).
• Read the article fully – please read the full text of the article and view all associated figures, tables and data;
• Be thorough – a peer review report should discuss the article in full as well as individual points, and should demonstrate your understanding of the article;
• Be specific – your comments should contain as much detail as possible, with references where appropriate, so the authors are able to fully address the issue;
• Be constructive in your criticism – do not hesitate to include any concerns or criticisms you may have in your review, however, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner;
• Avoid derogatory comments or tone – review as you wish to be reviewed and ensure that your comments focus on the scientific content of the article in question rather than the authors themselves.
• Approved: No or only minor changes are required. For original research, this means that the experimental design, including controls and methods, is adequate; results are presented accurately and the conclusions are justified and supported by the data.
• Approved with Reservations: The reviewer believes the paper has academic merit, but has asked for a number of small changes to the article, or specific, sometimes more significant revisions.
• Not Approved: The article is of very poor quality and there are fundamental flaws in the article that seriously undermine the findings and conclusions.
• Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
• Is the study design appropriate and does the work have academic merit?
• Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
• If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
• Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
• Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
• Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?
• Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
• Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
• Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?
• Is the rationale for developing the new software tool clearly explained?
• Is the description of the software tool technically sound?
• Are sufficient details of the code, methods and analysis (if applicable) provided to allow replication of the software development and its use by others?
• Is sufficient information provided to allow interpretation of the expected output datasets and any results generated using the tool?
• Is the rationale for developing the new method (or application) clearly explained?
• Is the description of the method technically sound?
• Are sufficient details provided to allow replication of the method development and its use by others?
• If any results are presented, are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
• Are the conclusions about the method and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article?
• Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?
• Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?
• Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?
• Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
• Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
• Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
• Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
• Is the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?
• Are enough details provided of any physical examination and diagnostic tests, treatment given and outcomes?
• Is sufficient discussion included of the importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment?
• Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for other practitioners?
• Is the background of the cases’ history and progression described in sufficient detail?
• Is the conclusion balanced and justified on the basis of the findings?
• Is the rationale for commenting on the previous publication clearly described?
• Are any opinions stated well-argued, clear and cogent?
• Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature or by new data and results?
• Is the conclusion balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
• Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?
• Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?
• Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?
• Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?
• Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow?
• Is the study design appropriate for the research question (including statistical power analysis, where appropriate)?
• Have the authors pre-specified sufficient outcome-neutral tests for ensuring that the results obtained can test the stated hypotheses, including positive controls and quality checks?
• Are the data able to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks, positive controls)?
• Are the introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses the same as the approved Stage 1 submission? (required)
• Did the authors adhere precisely to the registered experimental procedures? If not, has an explanation been provided regarding any change?
• Are any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors justified, methodologically sound and informative?

Are you a Wellcome-funded researcher?

If you are a previous or current Wellcome grant holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Wellcome Open Research.

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Wellcome Open Research

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Article Writing

How to Write a Feature Article

Last Updated: March 11, 2024 Approved

This article was co-authored by Mary Erickson, PhD . Mary Erickson is a Visiting Assistant Professor at Western Washington University. Mary received her PhD in Communication and Society from the University of Oregon in 2011. She is a member of the Modern Language Association, the National Communication Association, and the Society for Cinema and Media Studies. There are 7 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. This article has 41 testimonials from our readers, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 1,461,756 times.

Writing a feature article involves using creativity and research to give a detailed and interesting take on a subject. These types of articles are different from typical news stories in that they often are written in a different style and give much more details and description rather than only stating objective facts. This gives the reader a chance to more fully understand some interesting part of the article's subject. While writing a feature article takes lots of planning, research, and work, doing it well is a great way to creatively write about a topic you are passionate about and is a perfect chance to explore different ways to write.

Choosing a Topic

• Human Interest : Many feature stories focus on an issue as it impacts people. They often focus on one person or a group of people.
• Profile : This feature type focuses on a specific individual’s character or lifestyle. This type is intended to help the reader feel like they’ve gotten a window into someone’s life. Often, these features are written about celebrities or other public figures.
• Instructional : How-to feature articles teach readers how to do something. Oftentimes, the writer will write about their own journey to learn a task, such as how to make a wedding cake.
• Historical : Features that honor historical events or developments are quite common. They are also useful in juxtaposing the past and the present, helping to root the reader in a shared history.
• Seasonal : Some features are perfect for writing about in certain times of year, such as the beginning of summer vacation or at the winter holidays.
• Behind the Scenes : These features give readers insight into an unusual process, issue or event. It can introduce them to something that is typically not open to the public or publicized.

Interviewing Subjects

• Schedule about 30-45 minutes with this person. Be respectful of their time and don’t take up their whole day. Be sure to confirm the date and time a couple of days ahead of the scheduled interview to make sure the time still works for the interviewee.
• If your interviewee needs to reschedule, be flexible. Remember, they are being generous with their time and allowing you to talk with them, so be generous with your responses as well. Never make an interviewee feel guilty about needing to reschedule.
• If you want to observe them doing a job, ask if they can bring you to their workplace. Asking if your interviewee will teach you a short lesson about what they do can also be excellent, as it will give you some knowledge of the experience to use when you write.

• Be sure to ask your interviewee if it’s okay to audio-record the interview. If you plan to use the audio for any purpose other than for your own purposes writing up the article (such as a podcast that might accompany the feature article), you must tell them and get their consent.
• Don't pressure the interviewee if they decline audio recording.

• Another good option is a question that begins Tell me about a time when.... This allows the interviewee to tell you the story that's important to them, and can often produce rich information for your article.

Preparing to Write the Article

• Start by describing a dramatic moment and then uncover the history that led up to that moment.
• Use a story-within-a-story format, which relies on a narrator to tell the story of someone else.
• Start the story with an ordinary moment and trace how the story became unusual.

• Check with your editor to see how long they would like your article to be.

• Consider what you absolutely must have in the story and what can be cut. If you are writing a 500-word article, for example, you will likely need to be very selective about what you include, whereas you have a lot more space to write in a 2,500 word article.

Writing the Article

• Start with an interesting fact, a quote, or an anecdote for a good hook.
• Your opening paragraph should only be about 2-3 sentences.

• Be flexible, however. Sometimes when you write, the flow makes sense in a way that is different from your outline. Be ready to change the direction of your piece if it seems to read better that way.

Finalizing the Article

• You can choose to incorporate or not incorporate their suggestions.

• Consult "The Associated Press Stylebook" for style guidelines, such as how to format numbers, dates, street names, and so on. [7] X Research source

• If you want to convey slightly more information, write a sub-headline, which is a secondary sentence that builds on the headline.

How Do You Come Up With an Interesting Angle For an Article?

Sample Feature Article

Community Q&A

• Ask to see a proof of your article before it gets published. This is a chance for you to give one final review of the article and double-check details for accuracy. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• Be sure to represent your subjects fairly and accurately. Feature articles can be problematic if they are telling only one side of a story. If your interviewee makes claims against a person or company, make sure you talk with that person or company. If you print claims against someone, even if it’s your interviewee, you might risk being sued for defamation. [9] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://morrisjournalismacademy.com/how-to-write-a-feature-article/
• ↑ https://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/writing/voices.html
• ↑ http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20007483
• ↑ http://faculty.washington.edu/heagerty/Courses/b572/public/StrunkWhite.pdf
• ↑ https://www.apstylebook.com/
• ↑ http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/166662
• ↑ http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/libel-vs-slander-different-types-defamation.html

About This Article

To write a feature article, start with a 2-3 sentence paragraph that draws your reader into the story. The second paragraph needs to explain why the story is important so the reader keeps reading, and the rest of the piece needs to follow your outline so you can make sure everything flows together how you intended. Try to avoid excessive quotes, complex language, and opinion, and instead focus on appealing to the reader’s senses so they can immerse themselves in the story. Read on for advice from our Communications reviewer on how to conduct an interview! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Kiovani Shepard

Nov 8, 2016

Did this article help you?

Sky Lannister

Apr 28, 2017

Emily Lockset

Jun 26, 2017

Christian Villanueva

May 30, 2018

Richelle Mendoza

Aug 26, 2019

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Article Review

Article Review Writing: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide with Examples

People also read

Learn How to Write an Editorial on Any Topic

Best Tips on How to Avoid Plagiarism

How to Write a Movie Review - Guide & Examples

A Complete Guide on How to Write a Summary for Students

Write Opinion Essay Like a Pro: A Detailed Guide

Evaluation Essay - Definition, Examples, and Writing Tips

How to Write a Thematic Statement - Tips & Examples

How to Write a Bio - Quick Tips, Structure & Examples

How to Write a Synopsis – A Simple Format & Guide

How to Write a Comparative Essay – A Complete Guide

Visual Analysis Essay - A Writing Guide with Format & Sample

List of Common Social Issues Around the World

Writing Character Analysis - Outline, Steps, and Examples

11 Common Types of Plagiarism Explained Through Examples

A Detailed Guide on How to Write a Poem Step by Step

Detailed Guide on Appendix Writing: With Tips and Examples

Struggling to write a review that people actually want to read? Feeling lost in the details and wondering how to make your analysis stand out?

You're not alone!

Many writers find it tough to navigate the world of article reviews, not sure where to start or how to make their reviews really grab attention.

No worries! 

In this blog, we're going to guide you through the process of writing an article review that stands out. We'll also share tips, and examples to make this process easier for you.

Let’s get started.

• 1. What is an Article Review?
• 2. Types of Article Reviews
• 3. Article Review Format
• 4. How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps
• 5. Article Review Outline
• 6. Article Review Examples
• 7. Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

What is an Article Review?

An article review is a critical evaluation and analysis of a piece of writing, typically an academic or journalistic article. 

It goes beyond summarizing the content; it involves an in-depth examination of the author's ideas, arguments, and methodologies. 

The goal is to provide a well-rounded understanding of the article's strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution to the field.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Types of Article Reviews

Article reviews come in various forms, each serving a distinct purpose in the realm of academic or professional discourse. Understanding these types is crucial for tailoring your approach. 

Here are some common types of article reviews:

Journal Article Review

A journal article review involves a thorough evaluation of scholarly articles published in academic journals. 

It requires summarizing the article's key points, methodology, and findings, emphasizing its contributions to the academic field. 

Take a look at the following example to help you understand better.

Example of Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

A research article review focuses on scrutinizing articles with a primary emphasis on research.

This type of review involves evaluating the research design, methodology, results, and their broader implications. 

Discussions on the interpretation of results, limitations, and the article's overall contributions are key. 

Here is a sample for you to get an idea.

Example of Research Article Review

Science Article Review

A science article review specifically addresses articles within scientific disciplines. It includes summarizing scientific concepts, hypotheses, and experimental methods.

The type of review assesses the reliability of the experimental design, and evaluates the author's interpretation of findings. 

Take a look at the following example.

Example of Science Article Review

Critical Review

A critical review involves a balanced critique of a given article. It encompasses providing a comprehensive summary, highlighting key points, and engaging in a critical analysis of strengths and weaknesses. 

To get a clearer idea of a critical review, take a look at this example.

Critical Review Example

Article Review Format

When crafting an article review in either APA or MLA format, it's crucial to adhere to the specific guidelines for citing sources. 

Below are the bibliographical entries for different types of sources in both APA and MLA styles:

How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps

Writing an effective article review involves a systematic approach. Follow this step-by-step process to ensure a comprehensive and well-structured analysis.

Step 1: Understand the Assignment

Before diving into the review, carefully read and understand the assignment guidelines. 

Pay attention to specific requirements, such as word count, formatting style (APA, MLA), and the aspects your instructor wants you to focus on.

Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly

Begin by thoroughly reading the article. Take notes on key points, arguments, and evidence presented by the author. 

Understand the author's main thesis and the context in which the article was written.

Step 3: Create a Summary

Summarize the main points of the article. Highlight the author's key arguments and findings. 

While writing the summary ensure that you capture the essential elements of the article to provide context for your analysis.

Step 4: Identify the Author's Thesis

In this step, pinpoint the author's main thesis or central argument. Understand the purpose of the article and how the author supports their position. 

This will serve as a foundation for your critique.

Step 5: Evaluate the Author's Evidence and Methodology

Examine the evidence provided by the author to support their thesis. Assess the reliability and validity of the methodology used. 

Consider the sources, data collection methods, and any potential biases.

Step 6: Analyze the Author's Writing Style

Evaluate the author's writing style and how effectively they communicate their ideas. 

Consider the clarity of the language, the organization of the content, and the overall persuasiveness of the article.

Step 7: Consider the Article's Contribution

Reflect on the article's contribution to its field of study. Analyze how it fits into the existing literature, its significance, and any potential implications for future research or applications.

Step 8: Write the Introduction

Craft an introduction that includes the article's title, author, publication date, and a brief overview. 

State the purpose of your review and your thesis—the main point you'll be analyzing in your review.

Step 9: Develop the Body of the Review

Organize your review by addressing specific aspects such as the author's thesis, methodology, writing style, and the article's contribution. 

Use clear paragraphs to structure your analysis logically.

Step 10: Conclude with a Summary and Evaluation

Summarize your main points and restate your overall assessment of the article. 

Offer insights into its strengths and weaknesses, and conclude with any recommendations for improvement or suggestions for further research.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Article Review Outline

Creating a well-organized outline is an essential part of writing a coherent and insightful article review.

This outline given below will guide you through the key sections of your review, ensuring that your analysis is comprehensive and logically structured.

Refer to the following template to understand outlining the article review in detail.

Article Review Format Template

Article Review Examples

Examining article review examples can provide valuable insights into the structure, tone, and depth of analysis expected. 

Below are sample article reviews, each illustrating a different approach and focus.

Example of Article Review

Sample of article review assignment pdf

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

Crafting an effective article review involves a combination of critical analysis, clarity, and structure. 

Here are some valuable tips to guide you through the process:

• Start with a Clear Introduction

Kick off your article review by introducing the article's main points and mentioning the publication date, which you can find on the re-title page. Outline the topics you'll cover in your review.

• Concise Summary with Unanswered Questions

Provide a short summary of the article, emphasizing its main ideas. Highlight any lingering questions, known as "unanswered questions," that the article may have triggered. Use a basic article review template to help structure your thoughts.

• Illustrate with Examples

Use examples from the article to illustrate your points. If there are tables or figures in the article, discuss them to make your review more concrete and easily understandable.

• Organize Clearly with a Summary Section

Keep your review straightforward and well-organized. Begin with the start of the article, express your thoughts on what you liked or didn't like, and conclude with a summary section. This follows a basic plan for clarity.

• Constructive Criticism

When providing criticism, be constructive. If there are elements you don't understand, frame them as "unanswered questions." This approach shows engagement and curiosity.

• Smoothly Connect Your Ideas

Ensure your thoughts flow naturally throughout your review. Use simple words and sentences. If you have questions about the article, let them guide your review organically.

• Revise and Check for Clarity

Before finishing, go through your review. Correct any mistakes and ensure it sounds clear. Check if you followed your plan, used simple words, and incorporated the keywords effectively. This makes your review better and more accessible for others.

In conclusion , writing an effective article review involves a thoughtful balance of summarizing key points, and addressing unanswered questions. 

By following a simple and structured approach, you can create a review that not only analyzes the content but also adds value to the reader's understanding.

Remember to organize your thoughts logically, use clear language, and provide examples from the article to support your points. 

Ready to elevate your article reviewing skills? Explore the valuable resources and expert assistance at MyPerfectWords.com. 

Our team of experienced writers is here to help you with article reviews and other school tasks. 

So why wait? Place your " write my essays online " request today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Dr. Barbara is a highly experienced writer and author who holds a Ph.D. degree in public health from an Ivy League school. She has worked in the medical field for many years, conducting extensive research on various health topics. Her writing has been featured in several top-tier publications.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® 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.

Newsmoor.com is an educational website for online learning. It Provides information: on verbal and nonverbal communication elements, noise, models, and theories, print, broadcast, and online journalism, and feature article writing. It also includes business models, theories, plans, profile examples, advantages and disadvantages of several models, facts, research methodology, research proposal writing, assignment writing, a study abroad, including top public and private universities and educational consultants.

Seven Types of Features Writing Examples

Feature Writing in Journalism. Types of Feature Articles and 7 Types of Features Writing With Examples. Types of Feature Stories.

Feature Writing in Journalism

Feature writing refers to the feature article or feature story. In journalism, feature writing is a greater and longer non-fiction story that deals with actual events, issues, and trends. Feature writing is also known as a feature article and story.  According to BBC, the feature articles are soft news and human-interest stories. The significant objectives of feature articles are adding color, humanizing, educating, and entertaining the active and passive audience .

A feature article in journalism must have three essential parts: news lead , body, and end. According to the inverted pyramid style , the news lead presents important info, followed by the news body showing details, and the news tail represents additional info. However, the feature story writing style does not thoroughly comply with the inverted pyramid style of news article writing. The news articles such as hard news follow the inverted pyramid model comprehensively. Feature writing is the genre of print media and digital journalism.

Types of Features Writing

The 7 types of feature articles are:.

• Profile Feature Article
• Round-up Feature Article
• How-To Feature Article
• Personal Experience Feature Article
• Review Feature Article
• Travel Feature Article
• Obituary Feature Article

1. Profile Feature Article

A profile feature article demonstrates a person’s appearance, characteristics, lifestyle, emotions, hobbies, and positive aspects. Therefore, it is also known as personality story writing. People are always curious to know about others. Consequently, it is one of the most important types of human interest features writing in journalism. So, the journalist must need to take the person’s consent and assistance to write a profile feature article. A profile feature story writing aims to show how a person gains recognition and elaborately describes a person, place, idea, and organization. In addition, it displays feelings, exposes attitudes, and captures habits and characteristics. Finally, profile feature writing entertains and informs the audience about the person or group of people.

The profile feature article emphasizes those who have a good position in society: criminals who reach the milestone, gain experiences, and want to justify their attention. The personality news feature article represents basic information about the subject, such as physical characteristics, personality, intelligence and ability, background status, dreams, and surroundings. It is the most significant feature writing among the seven types of feature stories.

Example of Profile Feature Article:

The Untold Stories of Paul McCartney

2. Round-up Feature Article

Round-up feature article refers to a post on blogs and social media platforms where a writer presents various ideas and suggestions. Sometimes, reviewers play the journalist role and evaluate the products that assist potential customers in making decisions. Additionally, the employees write a product round-up feature for the customers and stakeholders.

Example of Round-up Feature Article

Five tips on how to pick the perfect roommate

3. How-To News Feature Article

The how-to feature is the article that shares someone’s experiences to help others know about that phenomenon. It is undoubtedly a great way to assist people in completing new tasks and reaching new goals. Writing a “how-to article” is a great way to share your expertise with other people. Therefore, it is another crucial genre of news feature articles to solve problems.

The scholars propose instructions to write a complete how-to feature article, such as using the transitional verb to maintain sequence, gathering some questions about the topics, elaborating on steps, mentioning what will happen next, and sharing the consequences.

Example of the How-To Feature Writing

How to Write:

Business Proposal Examples For Students

How To Write a TV Program Proposal

 Rule of How-to Feature News Article Writing

Firstly, the writers need to spend 30% of their time researching and finding the story idea. Additionally, they need to pay 30% of their time doing interviews and reporting. Finally, journalists need to spend 40% of their time writing the article. Journalists spend more time studying compared to writing articles.

4. Personal Experience Feature Article

Personal experience feature writing refers to sharing an expert article in journalism. It is another type of feature writing in journalism in which experts share their experiences. Nowadays, writers share their expertise in print media and social media sites, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. The fundamental objectives of the personal experience feature are to share experiences and educate others. It also assists in coping with new challenges.

The Art of Covering Horse Racing

5. Review the Feature Article

The review feature is an article that critically assesses and summarizes topics such as books, movies, articles, fashion, arts, restaurant policies, performances, etc. It is also called the overview or survey article. The most important objective of writing a review article is to give an analysis honestly and provide suggestions to the audience. The 3-Idiots film review writing is an example of a movie review feature in journalism.

Example of Review Feature Article:

Film review: 3IDIOTS (2009)

6. Travel Feature Article

The travel feature in journalism refers to writing a report about travel guides with photos and suggestions. It deals with exploring nature’s beauty and explaining traveling guidelines for the journey. The travel feature in journalism is also known as a travel story and travelogue article. People travel for various perspectives, such as personal business, job purposes, multicultural immigration, curiosity, and adventure. According to Rob McFarland (2007), photos are inevitable elements in travelogue features to make them exciting and vivid for audiences. So, journalists need to follow some instructions when adding photos inside articles, including people’s images, use the rule of thirds, put something in the foreground, fill the frame, and use a frame.

Example of  Travel Feature Article:

Travelogue Example for Students – Tour To Japan

7. The Obituary Features Article

An obituary feature is an article writing that notifies people about the death of someone and details information about the funeral. It also provides background information, including date of birth, birth location, education, job, legacy, and a meaningful summary of a person’s life.

Example of Obituary Feature

Diana, Princess of Wales, 36, Died in a Crash in Paris

The seven types of features stories in journalism are profile, round-up, how-to, personal experience, review, travelogue, and obituary articles. Feature articles in journalism explain and disseminate factual information regarding people, places, processes, history, expertise, experience, and so on. It is a great platform to educate people about unknown phenomena. People are getting beneficial both personal and corporate perspectives with feature articles. Therefore, it substantially impacts society by imparting knowledge and entertainment.

Author: M M Kobiruzzaman

M M Kobiruzzaman, Content Writer View all posts by M M Kobiruzzaman

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Festival Reports
• Book Reviews
• Great Directors
• Great Actors
• Special Dossiers
• Past Issues
• Support us on Patreon

Subscribe to Senses of Cinema to receive news of our latest cinema journal. Enter your email address below:

• Thank you to our Patrons
• Style Guide
• Advertisers
• Call for Contributions

Feature Articles

Echoes of Illusions: Mythical Reverberations: Exploring Folklore and Ta’zieh in Ballad of Tara

Cinema and Guerrilla: An Incomplete Biography of the Film Iracema – Uma Transa Amazônica

The Future Made and Unmade: Andrew Legge’s LOLA (2021)

Looking to the other side: Dismantlement and reimposition of borders in Sicario and The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

A Face in the Crowd: Ritual, Mythological and Political contexts in Stranger and the Fog

Consensus Empire: Empowering the Spectator through Letterboxd Reviews

We Can’t Save The Victims: Hauntology in Tony Scott’s Déjà Vu

Situating Lucile Hadžihalilović’s Good Boys Use Condoms

Songs of Joy and Melancholy: On My Darling in Stirling

Film Criticism and the Grotesque: A Very American Tár & an Oz Elvis

The aesthetics and politics of melodrama, reconsidered: Delitto d’amore / Crime of Love

Horse-People and White Voices: Neoliberalism and Race in Sorry to Bother You

The Exorcism of Sinister Ghosts: Saralisa Volm’s The Silent Forest

Spectatorial Labour: The Political Vision of Sergei Loznitsa’s Documentaries

When Knowledge Takes Over Action: A Narrative Analysis of Three Georgian Conflict-Sensitive Films: The Other Bank , Tangerines , and Corn Island

Values of Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis : A Carnival Ride

Fellini’s Memory: Amarcord

More than Mimicry: On Puppets and Interdependency in Annette and The Double Life of Véronique

After Structural Film: The Conceptual films of Morgan Fisher

This Body Keeps the Score: the films of Saidin Salkic

“A long time ago….”: The Persistence and Longevity of ‘ Star Wars ’ at 45

The Larrikin Girl: Challenging archetypes in Australian cinema

Unrealisable woman: Tania in Stanley Kubrick’s Aryan Papers

Anatomy of a Breakup or Her Life to Fix: The Worst Person in the World

Respecting the Lives of Others: Bergman Island , Hommage and Anaïs in Love

Protestploitation ’70: Revisiting Zabriskie Point and Strawberry Statement

More than a Wink: The Nature of Reality in Blow-Up and Las Babas del Diablo

Suicide and Genius: Insights into One Episode of Akira Kurosawa’s Dreams

Interrogating Identity: The Fractal Self in Le petit soldat

Bigger than life, or stranger: Pedro Costa’s Vitalina Varela : Part III

Bigger than life, or stranger: Pedro Costa’s Vitalina Varela : Part II

Fire Machines: Titane and the Pyrotechnics of Love

Cringing Violently: Reparative Watching, Phenomenology and Discomfort in Australian Cinema

Deleuzian Rumblings: Residue by Desire Machine Collective

Acts of Faith: On Benedetta (Paul Verhoeven, 2021)

‘Is The Power of the Dog a New Zealand film? National Identity, Genre and Jane Campion’

MIT Technology Review

• Newsletters

The Download: rapid DNA analysis for disasters, and supercharged AI assistants

Plus: Google search is harder to find under a load of AI features

• Rhiannon Williams archive page

This is today's edition of  The Download ,  our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what's going on in the world of technology.

This grim but revolutionary DNA technology is changing how we respond to mass disasters

Last August, a wildfire tore through the Hawaiian island of Maui. The list of missing residents climbed into the hundreds, as friends and families desperately searched for their missing loved ones . But while some were rewarded with tearful reunions, others weren’t so lucky. Over the past several years, as fires and other climate-change-fueled disasters have become more common and more cataclysmic, the way their aftermath is processed and their victims identified has been transformed. The grim work following a disaster remains—surveying rubble and ash, distinguishing a piece of plastic from a tiny fragment of bone—but landing a positive identification can now take just a fraction of the time it once did, which may in turn bring families some semblance of peace swifter than ever before. Read the full story .

—Erika Hayasaki

OpenAI and Google are launching supercharged AI assistants. Here’s how you can try them out.

This week, Google and OpenAI both announced they’ve built supercharged AI assistants: tools that can converse with you in real time and recover when you interrupt them, analyze your surroundings via live video, and translate conversations on the fly. 

Soon you’ll be able to explore for yourself to gauge whether you’ll turn to these tools in your daily routine as much as their makers hope, or whether they’re more like a sci-fi party trick that eventually loses its charm. Here’s what you should know about how to access these new tools, what you might use them for, and how much it will cost . 

—James O’Donnell

Last summer was the hottest in 2,000 years. Here’s how we know.

The summer of 2023 in the Northern Hemisphere was the hottest in over 2,000 years, according to a new study released this week. There weren’t exactly thermometers around in the year 1, so scientists have to get creative when it comes to comparing our climate today with that of centuries, or even millennia, ago. 

Casey Crownhart, our climate reporter, has dug into how they figured it out. Read the full story .

This story is from The Spark, our weekly climate and energy newsletter. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Wednesday.

A wave of retractions is shaking physics

Recent highly publicized scandals have gotten the physics community worried about its reputation—and its future. Over the last five years, several claims of major breakthroughs in quantum computing and superconducting research, published in prestigious journals, have disintegrated as other researchers found they could not reproduce the blockbuster results. 

Last week, around 50 physicists, scientific journal editors, and emissaries from the National Science Foundation gathered at the University of Pittsburgh to discuss the best way forward. Read the full story to learn more about what they discussed . —Sophia Chen

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Google has buried search results under new AI features   Want to access links? Good luck finding them! ( 404 Media ) + Unfortunately, it’s a sign of what’s to come. ( Wired $) + Do you trust Google to do the Googling for you? ( The Atlantic $) + Why you shouldn’t trust AI search engines. ( MIT Technology Review )

2 Cruise has settled with the pedestrian injured by one of its cars It’s awarded her between $8 million and $12 million. ( WP $) + The company is slowly resuming its test drives in Arizona. ( Bloomberg $) + What’s next for robotaxis in 2024. ( MIT Technology Review )

3 Microsoft is asking AI staff in China to consider relocating Tensions between the countries are rising, and Microsoft worries its workers could end up caught in the cross-fire. ( WSJ $) + They’ve been given the option to relocate to the US, Ireland, or other locations. ( Reuters ) + Three takeaways about the state of Chinese tech in the US. ( MIT Technology Review )

4 Car rental firm Hertz is offloading its Tesla fleet But people who snapped up the bargain cars are already running into problems. ( NY Mag $)

5 We’re edging closer towards a quantum internet But first we need to invent an entirely new device. ( New Scientist $) + What’s next for quantum computing. ( MIT Technology Review )

6 Making computer chips has never been more important And countries and businesses are vying to be top dog. ( Bloomberg $) + What’s next in chips. ( MIT Technology Review )

7 Your smartphone lasts a lot longer than it used to Keeping them in good working order still takes a little work, though. ( NYT $)

8 Psychedelics could help lessen chronic pain If you can get hold of them. ( Vox ) + VR is as good as psychedelics at helping people reach transcendence. ( MIT Technology Review )

9 Scientists are plotting how to protect the Earth from dangerous asteroids ☄️ Smashing them into tiny pieces is certainly one solution. ( Undark Magazine ) + Earth is probably safe from a killer asteroid for 1,000 years. ( MIT Technology Review )

10 Elon Musk still wants to fight Mark Zuckerberg   The grudge match of the century is still rumbling on. ( Insider $)

Quote of the day

“This road map leads to a dead end.” 

—Evan Greer, director of advocacy group Fight for the Future, is far from impressed with US Senators’ ‘road map’ for new AI regulations, they tell the Washington Post .

The big story

The two-year fight to stop Amazon from selling face recognition to the police 

In the summer of 2018, nearly 70 civil rights and research organizations wrote a letter to Jeff Bezos demanding that Amazon stop providing Rekognition, its face recognition technology, to governments. 

Despite the mounting pressure, Amazon continued pushing Rekognition as a tool for monitoring “people of interest”. But two years later, the company shocked civil rights activists and researchers when it announced that it would place a one-year moratorium on police use of the software. Read the full story .

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or tweet 'em at me .)

The Download

The download: openai’s gpt-4o, and what’s coming at google i/o.

Plus: the US AI roadmap is coming

The Download: the problem with plug-in hybrids, and China’s AI talent

Plus: Silicon Valley is desperate to snap up top AI talent—before anyone else does

The Download: Sam Altman on AI’s killer function, and the problem with ethanol

Plus: this group of tech billionaires want to shape US AI policy

The Download: defining open source AI, and replacing Siri

Plus: the EU has announced a raft of new Big Tech probes

Stay connected

Get the latest updates from mit technology review.

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Movie Review: Amy Winehouse story flattened in frustrating biopic ‘Back to Black’

This image released by Focus Features shows Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse in a scene from “Back to Black.” (Focus Features via AP)

This image released by Focus Features shows Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse, left, and Eddie Marsan as Mitch Winehouse, in a scene from “Back to Black.” (Focus Features via AP)

This image released by Focus Features shows Jack O’Connell as Blake Fielder-Civil, left, and Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse, in a scene from “Back to Black.” (Focus Features via AP)

This image released by Focus Features shows Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse, left, and Jack O’Connell as Blake Fielder-Civil, in a scene from “Back to Black.” (Focus Features via AP)

This image released by Focus Features shows Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse , reflected at left, and Lesley Manville as Cynthia Winehouse, in a scene from “Back to Black.” (Focus Features via AP)

This image released by Focus Features shows Jack O’Connell as Blake Fielder-Civil in a scene from “Back to Black.” (Focus Features via AP)

• Copy Link copied

“ Back to Black ” as a movie is a tame and mediocre affair. A conventionally told biopic about a talented artist who became famous, struggled with drugs, depression and bulimia, and died early. There are nice performances from gifted actors like Marisa Abela, Jack O’Connell, Eddie Marsan and Lesley Manville, and a soundtrack of hits that helps fill the space.

But as a portrait of Amy Winehouse ? It is simply dreadful.

The main problem with any movie about Winehouse is that a defining film already exists — Asif Kapadia’s Oscar-winning documentary “Amy,” released four years after her death from alcohol poisoning at age 27. Told through archival material, home videos and observations from those around her, it felt as intimate and unfiltered as a diary.

“Amy” was a sobering portrait of addiction, fame and complicity that also let you get to know and love the person behind the songs, the eyeliner, the beehive, the bloodied ballet slippers and the invasive paparazzi photos. It was no one’s idea of sensationalistic and she’s doing most of the talking.

“Amy” was also a movie that didn’t sit well with her grieving family. Her father, Mitch Winehouse, said it was misleading and contained “basic untruths.” After it won the Oscar, he doubled down saying that it had no bearing on her life and was manipulative. Kapadia, he said, was more exploitative of his daughter than anyone.

Following her death, Mitch started a foundation in her name to help young people and wrote a book about her and being the father of an addict. Her mother Janis narrated a documentary, “Reclaiming Amy,” released in 2011. And after years of declining to participate in a narrative biopic, the estate decided to allow one with full use the songs. Like many musical biopics made alongside an estate, it’s hard not to look at “Back to Black” skeptically, wondering whose interests the film is serving.

Sam Taylor-Johnson, who directed, has said that she wanted to take the idea of “blame” out of the equation, that the family had zero input on her cut and would not benefit financially. And yet it also seems like a direct response to Kapadia’s film, depicting more than a few key moments wildly differently. They’re not just shown in a different light — some are telling a completely different story.

The screenplay by Matthew Greenhalgh is empathetic to the ex-husband Blake Fielder-Civil (O’Connell) and her father Mitch (Marsan), both of whom have been villainized over the years. In the film, most are just caught up in a whirl of inevitability and the retrospective blur of grief.

There seems to be an excessive amount of rationalizing in the way everyone involved talks about “Back to Black,” over justifying its existence and its choices. But just because everyone keeps telling us that it’s a celebration doesn’t mean that we have to get on board. I’m not sure what is celebratory about dramatizing this tragedy, or helpful, or artful, or particularly revelatory about it either. The media, for example, is reduced mainly to the paparazzi camped outside her place as though that’s where the problem stopped.

Taylor-Johnson has said she didn’t want to glamorize depression, addiction or bulimia either, but the latter, which she struggled with before she was famous, is barely even acknowledged. Depiction of eating disorders is inherently fraught, but there had to have been a way to address such a large part of her life and self-image more directly.

Though linear, the story is also oddly confusing, assuming that the audience knows many details of her life (like, say, the bulimia) and the people in it. The film rushes through major career moments in montage, seeming to slow down only for a few things: A performance, Amy’s face in various forms of drunken distress and agony or scenes with her and Blake. Was it attempting a freewheeling jazz form, or is it just messy?

Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse in a scene from “Back to Black.” (Focus Features via AP)

In some ways, this portrait of Amy Winehouse makes her immense talent the sideshow and her obsession/romance/heartache over Blake the defining story of her adult life. This is at least somewhat redeemed by the chemistry between Abela and O’Connell, who look far too glowing and healthy to be believable as heroin addicts.

But the greatest failing is how shockingly cliche the ending is. For all of “Back to Black’s” tiptoeing around delicate subjects, its romantically photographed sendoff to Amy is perhaps the most dangerously glamorized shot in the film. It doesn’t even fade to black after a title card announces her death. Before anyone can feel anything, they’ve cut to Amy telling the audience that all she wants is for her songs to make people forget about their troubles for a bit.

By this point, it reads more like a closing statement for a film that never wanted to challenge, offend or move anyone. Mission accomplished.

“Back to Black,” a Focus Features release in theaters Friday, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for “drug use, language throughout, sexual content and nudity.” Running time: 122 minutes. One and a half stars out of four.