Specifies the number of studies evaluated orselected
Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]
Steps of a systematic review
Formulation of researchable questions | Select answerable questions |
Disclosure of studies | Databases, and key words |
Evaluation of its quality | Quality criteria during selection of studies |
Synthesis | Methods interpretation, and synthesis of outcomes |
It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).
In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.
Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.
While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.
One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.
As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.
A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]
Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question
I | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies |
II | Randomized controlled study | Crross-sectional study in consecutive patients | Initial cohort study | Prospective cohort study |
III | One of the following: Non-randomized experimental study (ie. controlled pre-, and post-test intervention study) Comparative studies with concurrent control groups (observational study) (ie. cohort study, case-control study) | One of the following: Cross-sectional study in non-consecutive case series; diagnostic case-control study | One of the following: Untreated control group patients in a randomized controlled study, integrated cohort study | One of the following: Retrospective cohort study, case-control study (Note: these are most prevalently used types of etiological studies; for other alternatives, and interventional studies see Level III |
IV | Case series | Case series | Case series or cohort studies with patients at different stages of their disease states |
Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.
In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.
The Savvy Scientist
Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond
Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.
My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!
This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .
When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.
If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.
Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!
When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.
Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .
Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.
The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.
If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.
You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:
Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!
As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!
Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:
Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.
If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.
It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!
You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:
Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.
Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.
Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.
Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!
By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.
So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.
It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.
It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!
There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.
Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:
By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:
Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!
For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:
In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.
The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:
Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here
This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!
One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…
Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!
Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020
Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here
This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.
I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂
Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.
Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:
“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript. Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”
Once you’re ready to submit:
You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!
Best of luck!
I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:
Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper
Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.
8th August 2024 8th August 2024
2nd June 2024 2nd June 2024
25th April 2024 4th August 2024
Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!
No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .
Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.
When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.
The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.
" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)
Informal Structure
Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.
Formal Structure
Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.
In Both Cases
Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.
Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.
The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.
Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.
Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:
While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.
Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."
Examples of possibly major flaws include:
If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.
You might examine:
Major Flaws in Information
If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:
If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).
After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.
The First Paragraph
This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:
The Second Paragraph
This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:
After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.
Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.
A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."
Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.
" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)
Preparation
To save time and simplify the review:
Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.
As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.
With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:
You may also wish to consider:
Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.
Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."
If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:
On Grammar and Punctuation
Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.
A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).
1. The Introduction
A well-written introduction:
Originality and Topicality
Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.
Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.
Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"
It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.
2. Materials and Methods
Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.
Replicable Research
This makes sufficient use of:
These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.
Repeatable Methods
These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.
Robust Research
This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.
Best Practice
During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:
If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.
3. Results and Discussion
This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?
Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:
Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.
4. Conclusions
This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.
5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables
If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.
Where information is clear, you should check that:
You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.
6. List of References
You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.
Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.
You should consider if the referencing is adequate:
Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:
You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.
7. Plagiarism
By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.
Identified Concern
If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.
You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.
"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)
Suspected Concern
If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.
Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.
Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.
For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .
8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.
A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.
So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:
Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"
If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.
Major Issues
Minor Issues
Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.
You should also:
Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.
However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.
Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.
You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.
Recommending Acceptance
If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript
Recommending Revision
Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.
Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.
What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)
Recommending Rejection
If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').
Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.
Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."
In your recommendations for the author, you should:
Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.
" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)
Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.
Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review
COMMUNICATION IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Department of Biology
LITERATURE REVIEW PAPER
WHAT IS A REVIEW PAPER?
CHOOSING A TOPIC
RESEARCHING A TOPIC
HOW TO WRITE THE PAPER
The purpose of a review paper is to succinctly review recent progress in a particular topic. Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic. It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers .
A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report . It is not merely a report on some references you found. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field.
Examples of scientific reviews can be found in:
Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Current Opinion in Genetics & Development
Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology
Annual Review of Physiology
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
You should read articles from one or more of these sources to get examples of how your paper should be organized.
Scientists commonly use reviews to communicate with each other and the general public. There are a wide variety of review styles from ones aimed at a general audience (e.g., Scientific American ) to those directed at biologists within a particular subdiscipline (e.g., Annual Review of Physiology ).
A key aspect of a review paper is that it provides the evidence for a particular point of view in a field. Thus, a large focus of your paper should be a description of the data that support or refute that point of view. In addition, you should inform the reader of the experimental techniques that were used to generate the data.
The emphasis of a review paper is interpreting the primary literature on the subject. You need to read several original research articles on the same topic and make your own conclusions about the meanings of those papers.
Click here for advice on choosing a topic.
Click here for advice on doing research on your topic.
HOW TO WRITE THE PAPER
Overview of the Paper: Your paper should consist of four general sections:
Review articles contain neither a materials and methods section nor an abstract.
Organizing the Paper: Use topic headings. Do not use a topic heading that reads, "Body of the paper." Instead the topic headings should refer to the actual concepts or ideas covered in that section.
Example
What Goes into Each Section:
for how to handle citing sources. |
Home
Hours | |
---|---|
7:30am – 2:00am | |
7:30am – 2:00am | |
7:30am – 2:00am | |
8:00am – 5:00pm | |
Reference Desk | 9:00am – 10:00pm |
I = identify: search for studies that match your criteria, e = evaluate: exclude or include studies, c = collect: extract and synthesize key data, e = explain: give context and rate the strength of the studies, s = summarize: write and publish your final report.
Congratulations!
You've decided to conduct a Systematic Review! Please see the associated steps below. You can follow the P-I-E-C-E-S = Plan, Identify, Evaluate, Collect, Explain, Summarize system or any number of systematic review processes available (Foster & Jewell, 2017) .
P = Plan: decide on your search methods
By now you should have identified gaps in the field and have a specific question you are seeking to answer. This will likely have taken several iterations and is the most important part of the Systematic Review process.
Once you've finalized a research question, you should be able to locate existing systematic reviews on or similar to your topic. existing systematic reviews will be your clues to mine for keywords, sample searches in various databases, and will help your team finalize your review question and develop your inclusion and exclusion criteria. , decide on a protocol and reporting standard, your protocol is essentially a project plan and data management strategy for an objective, reproducible, sound methodology for peer review. the reporting standard or guidelines are not a protocols, but rather a set of standards to guide the development of your systematic review. often they include checklists. it is not required, but highly recommended to follow a reporting standard. .
Protocol registry: Reviewing existing systematic reviews and registering your protocol will increase transparency, minimize bias, and reduce the redundancy of groups working on the same topics ( PLoS Medicine Editors, 2011 ). Protocols can serve as internal or external documents. Protocols can be made public prior to the review. Some registries allow for keeping a protocol private for a set period of time.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (UGA Login) (Health Sciences)
A collection of regularly updated, systematic reviews of the effects of health care. New reviews are added with each issue of The Cochrane Library Reviews mainly of randomized controlled trials. All reviews have protocols.
PROSPERO (General)
This is an international register of systematic reviews and is public.
Campbell Corporation (Education & Social Sciences)
Topics covered include Ageing; Business and Management; Climate Solutions; Crime and Justice; Disability; Education; International Development; Knowledge Translation and Implementation; Methods; Nutrition and Food Security; Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity; Social Welfare; and Training.
Systematic Review for Animals and Food (Vet Med & Animal Science)
Reporting Standards:
Campbell MECCIR Standards (Education & Social Sciences)
Cochrane Guides & Handbooks (Health & Medical Sciences)
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies: Finding What Works in Healthcare: Standards for Systematic Reviews (healthcare)
Because the purpose of a SR is to find all studies related to your research question, you will need to search multiple databases. You should be able to name the databases you are already familiar with using. Your librarian will be able to recommend additional databases, including some of the following:
Depending on your topic, you may want to search clinical trials and grey literature. See this guide for more on grey literature.
Go here for help with writing your search strategy
Each database you use will have different methods of searching and resulting search strings, including syntax. ideally you will create one master keyword list and translate it for each database. below are tools to assist with translating search strings. .
Includes syntax for Cochrane Library, EBSCO, ProQuest, Ovid, and POPLINE.
The IEBH SR-Accelerator is a suite of tools to assist in speeding up portions of the Systematic Review process, including the Polyglot tool which translates searches across databases.
University of Michigan Search 101 - SR Database Cheat Sheet
Because systematic review literature searches may produce thousands of citations and abstracts, the research team will be screening and systematically reviewing large amounts of results. During screening , you will remove duplicates and remove studies that are not relevant to your topic based on a review of titles and abstracts. Of what remains, the full-text screening of the studies will then need to be conducted to confirm that they fit within your inclusion/exclusion criteria.
The results of the literature review and screening processes are best managed by various tools and software. You can also use a simple form or table to log the relevant information from each study. Consider whether you will be coding your data during the extraction process in your decision on which tool or software to use. Your librarian can consult on which of these is best suited to your research needs.
Data extraction processes differ between qualitative and quantitative evidence syntheses. In both cases, you must provide the reader with a clear overview of the studies you have included, their similarities and differences, and the findings. Extraction should be done in accordance to pre-established guidelines, such as PRISMA.
Some systematic reviews contain meta-analysis of the quantitative findings of the results. Consider including a statistician on your team to complete the analysis of all individual study results. Meta-analysis will tell you how much or what the actual results is across the studies and explains results in a measure of variance, typically called a forest plot.
Systematic review price models have changed over the years. Previously, you had to depend on departmental access to software that would cost several hundred dollars. Now that the software is cloud-based, tiered payment systems are now available. Sometimes there is a free tier level, but costs go up for functionality, number or users, or both. Depending on the organization's model, payments may be monthly, annual or per project/review.
Software list
Tool created by Brown University to assist with screening for systematic reviews.
Review Manager (RevMan) is the software used for preparing and maintaining Cochrane Reviews.
Systematic review tool intended to assist with the screening and extraction process. (Requires subscription)
DistillerSR is an online application designed specifically for the screening and data extraction phases of a systematic review (Requires subscription) Student and Faculty tiers have monthly pricing with a three month minimum. Number of projects is limited by pricing.
It includes features such as text mining, data clustering, classification and term extraction
Rayyan is a free web-based application that can be used to screen titles, abstracts, and full text. Allows for multiple simultaneous users.
"System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information, the Joanna Briggs Institutes premier software for the systematic review of literature."
PRISMA guidelines suggest including critical appraisal of the included studies to assess the risk of bias and to include the assessment in your final manuscripts. There are several appraisal tools available depending on your discipline and area of research.
Simple overview of risk of bias assessment, including examples of how to assess and present your conclusions.
CASP is an organization that provides resources for healthcare professionals, but their appraisal tools can be used for varying study types across disciplines.
From the Joanna Briggs Institute: "JBI’s critical appraisal tools assist in assessing the trustworthiness, relevance and results of published papers."
Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model (health sciences)
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Document the search; 5.1.6. Include a methods section
List of additional critical appraisal tools from Cardiff University.
Prepare your process and findings in a final manuscript. Be sure to check your PRISMA checklist or other reporting standard. You will want to include the full formatted search strategy for the appendix, as well as include documentation of your search methodology. A convenient way to illustrate this process is through a PRISMA Flow Diagram.
Attribution: Unless noted otherwise, this section of the guide was adapted from Texas A&M's "Systematic Reviews and Related Evidence Syntheses"
References provide the information necessary for readers to identify and retrieve each work cited in the text .
Check each reference carefully against the original publication to ensure information is accurate and complete. Accurately prepared references help establish your credibility as a careful researcher and writer.
Consistency in reference formatting allows readers to focus on the content of your reference list, discerning both the types of works you consulted and the important reference elements (who, when, what, and where) with ease. When you present each reference in a consistent fashion, readers do not need to spend time determining how you organized the information. And when searching the literature yourself, you also save time and effort when reading reference lists in the works of others that are written in APA Style.
Academic Writer ®
Master academic writing with APA’s essential teaching and learning resource
Course Adoption
Teaching APA Style? Become a course adopter of the 7th edition Publication Manual
Instructional Aids
Guides, checklists, webinars, tutorials, and sample papers for anyone looking to improve their knowledge of APA Style
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Steps for getting started. Register in the myPASS scheduling system. Choose the relevant paper review schedule. Choose a date and make an appointment. Wait for an automated email with the writing expert's feedback comments attached. Review the section on How to Register and Schedule in myPASS for more information.
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
the article, taking the main points of each paragraph. The point of the diagram is to. show the relationships between the main points in the article. Ev en better you might. consider doing an ...
Steps for Conducting a Lit Review; Finding "The Literature" Organizing/Writing; APA Style This link opens in a new window; Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window; MLA Style This link opens in a new window; Sample Literature Reviews. Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts; Have an exemplary literature review? Get Help!
Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest. 4. Write the introduction.
A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship ...
Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom. Here's how your outline might look: 1. Summary of the research and your overall impression. In your own words, summarize what the manuscript ...
One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad ...
Writing a Literature Review. 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 ...
In addition to writing up research papers, writing review articles is a useful skill to develop early on in your career as a scientist, whether pursuing an academic career path or not. ... Here, I provide tips on planning and writing a review article, with examples of well-crafted review articles published in The FEBS Journal.
A literature review is a surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources relevant to a particular. issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, providing a description, summary, and ...
The literature review opening/introduction section; The theoretical framework (or foundation of theory) The empirical research; The research gap; The closing section; We then progress to the sample literature review (from an A-grade Master's-level dissertation) to show how these concepts are applied in the literature review chapter. You can ...
Types Of Review Paper. Not all review articles are created equal. Each type has its methodology, purpose, and format, catering to different research needs and questions. Systematic Review Paper. First up is the systematic review, the crème de la crème of review types. It's known for its rigorous methodology, involving a detailed plan for ...
22 Sep 2016. By Elisabeth Pain. Share: A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach. Credit: dmark/iStockphoto. As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts.
Sample outline. Summary of the research and your overall impression. In your own words, summarize the main research question, claims, and conclusions of the study. Provide context for how this research fits within the existing literature. Discuss the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses and your overall recommendation.
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ...
The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question (s) to be dealt with.
So here are two feedback examples from my own papers: Example Peer Review: Paper 1. Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 - Available here. This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!
Read at least five highquality chapters on a similar topic to make yours better. STEP 2. Gather and read about 50 -100 original articles on a topic within your scientific field. STEP 3. Write down ...
Step by step. guide to reviewing a manuscript. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.
Microsoft Word - Sample Research Review.docx. Following is an example of a research review. This was a complicated paper, consisting of five experiments. I encourage you to choose your article carefully to pick a source that will be shorter and more straightforward. To give you a point of comparison.
A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report. It is not merely a report on some references you found. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field. Examples of scientific reviews can be found in: Scientific American
Format for a review paper Title page: Title-- reflecting topic of review Your Name Date Abstract: An abstract should be of approximately 200-300 words. Provide a brief summary of the review question being addressed or rationale for the review, the major studies reviewed, and conclusions drawn. Please do not cite references in the Abstract.
Once you've finalized a research question, you should be able to locate existing systematic reviews on or similar to your topic. Existing systematic reviews will be your clues to mine for keywords, sample searches in various databases, and will help your team finalize your review question and develop your inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Catalyst papers are a distinct approach to writing Army white papers that encourages all ranks to share observations from the field, introduce suggestions, and examine lessons learned. Such grassroots research papers are written to help busy leaders think, spark dialogue among their peers, and introduce their teams to new methods.
References provide the information necessary for readers to identify and retrieve each work cited in the text. Consistency in reference formatting allows readers to focus on the content of your reference list, discerning both the types of works you consulted and the important reference elements with ease.
The study stands out for its systematic literature review approach, covering over two decades of research and analysing 73 journal papers to elucidate the intricate relationship between digital ...
ObjectivesCriminology has begun to use virtual reality (VR) as a tool to understand criminal behaviour. There have been many advances in VR that open up the possibility of novel research designs, in addition to the inclusion of augmented reality (AR) as a potential research tool. A review of the efficacy of the use of AR and VR (together known as XR) within criminology is now required to guide ...