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
![](http://rss3.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
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
![review paper essay review paper essay](https://media.nature.com/lw100/magazine-assets/d41586-020-03422-x/d41586-020-03422-x_16726000.jpg)
- Research management
![review paper essay Massive Attack’s science-led drive to lower music’s carbon footprint](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02835-2/d41586-024-02835-2_27620774.jpg)
Massive Attack’s science-led drive to lower music’s carbon footprint
Career Feature 04 SEP 24
![review paper essay Tales of a migratory marine biologist](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02795-7/d41586-024-02795-7_27497252.jpg)
Tales of a migratory marine biologist
Career Feature 28 AUG 24
![review paper essay Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02790-y/d41586-024-02790-y_27472586.jpg)
Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques
Career Column 28 AUG 24
![review paper essay Why I’m committed to breaking the bias in large language models](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02839-y/d41586-024-02839-y_27647644.jpg)
Why I’m committed to breaking the bias in large language models
Career Guide 04 SEP 24
Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!
Correspondence 27 AUG 24
![review paper essay No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02598-w/d41586-024-02598-w_27469906.jpg)
No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find
Nature Index 27 AUG 24
![review paper essay Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02554-8/d41586-024-02554-8_27619784.jpg)
Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized
News 04 SEP 24
![review paper essay Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02838-z/d41586-024-02838-z_27508390.jpg)
Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI
![review paper essay How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02849-w/d41586-024-02849-w_27632130.jpg)
How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?
Career Feature 02 SEP 24
Postdoctoral Associate- Genetic Epidemiology
Houston, Texas (US)
Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)
NOMIS Foundation ETH Postdoctoral Fellowship
The NOMIS Foundation ETH Fellowship Programme supports postdoctoral researchers at ETH Zurich within the Centre for Origin and Prevalence of Life ...
Zurich, Canton of Zürich (CH)
Centre for Origin and Prevalence of Life at ETH Zurich
13 PhD Positions at Heidelberg University
GRK2727/1 – InCheck Innate Immune Checkpoints in Cancer and Tissue Damage
Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg (DE) and Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg (DE)
Medical Faculties Mannheim & Heidelberg and DKFZ, Germany
Postdoctoral Associate- Environmental Epidemiology
Open faculty positions at the state key laboratory of brain cognition & brain-inspired intelligence.
The laboratory focuses on understanding the mechanisms of brain intelligence and developing the theory and techniques of brain-inspired intelligence.
Shanghai, China
CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology (CEBSIT)
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
![review paper essay U.S. flag](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/coreutils/uswds/img/favicons/favicon-57.png)
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
- Noro Psikiyatr Ars
- v.59(1); 2022
![review paper essay Logo of archneuro](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/logo-archneuro.png)
Basics of Writing Review Articles
Almıla erol.
Adjunct Faculty, Psychiatry & Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
Evidence-based medicine forms the essence of medical practice in the modern world. No wonder review articles are the mainstay for evidence-based medicine.
Review articles provide a critical summary of the existing literature to explain the current state of scientific evidence on a particular topic. A well-written review article must summarize key research findings, reference must-read articles, describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, depict unanswered questions, and suggest directions for future research ( 1 ).
During the last decades, there has been a great expansion in the range of review methodologies resulting in many new review types ( 2 , 3 ). In an attempt to classify review types, Sutton et al. defined 48 different review types which they categorized into seven review families: traditional reviews, systematic reviews, review of reviews, rapid reviews, qualitative reviews, mixed method reviews and purpose specific reviews (for the full list of review types please see Sutton et al.) ( 2 ). To date, traditional reviews and systematic reviews have been most widely used in the field of medicine.
Traditional reviews usually cover advances in different aspects of a chosen topic and provide assessment of the subject within a broad spectrum. No formal guidance exists for traditional reviews. However, they have become increasingly more comprehensive and systematic since the emergence of systematic reviews. Narrative review, narrative summary, critical review, integrative review, and state of the art review are examples of traditional reviews ( 2 ).
Systematic reviews adopt a specific aim and a well-defined, rigorous methodology to enlighten a particular question. They usually focus on specific study types such as randomized controlled studies, observational studies, etc. They have well-defined reporting standards and guidance. Systematic reviews provide the highest level of evidence in medical sciences, playing an important role in the development of clinical guidelines ( 4 ). Meta-analysis is the most popular example of quantitative systematic review types.
- Review articles summarize the current state of evidence on a particular topic
- Review articles translate the relevance of evidence for readers
- Independent of the review type, all reviews must have a predefined methodology
- The methods utilized for the review should be explained clearly in the review paper
- Review papers should be written in a structured format
Considering the overwhelming number of diverse review types, the initial burden authors face is to choose the review type that matches their purpose best. Despite the continuous rise in the number of review types, there are sources that provide guidance about this issue ( 5 ). Authors are highly recommended to examine and learn about different review methodologies before they decide on their review approach.
International guidelines such as PRISMA ( 6 ), Cochrane ( 7 ), and JBI ( 8 ) provide detailed information about how to conduct reviews starting from the planning and protocol writing phases. The purpose of these international guidelines is to ensure transparent, unbiased, and complete reporting. Although the guidelines are focused on systematic reviews, they can also be used as bases for conducting other types of reviews. PRISMA encourages journal editors and reviewers to use the guideline for evaluation of review papers. PRISMA checklist is available online in different languages including Turkish at www.prisma-statement.org ( 9 ).
No matter what type of review is undertaken, the key points in a review article are to have a predefined methodology which is clearly explained in the text, and to have a structured format. Just like research papers, the most common and convenient practice is to write review papers in “introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRaD)” format accompanied by title, abstract, key words, and references.
The title makes the first introductory and is the most important sentence of the review paper. Like research paper titles, it must be brief, informative, and interesting all at the same time. It must contain the key words or their derivatives to increase the discoverability of the article via search engines. In addition, the type of the review should be accurately stated in the title.
The aim of the introduction is to explain why the review is undertaken and to persuade the readers for its necessity. In the introduction section, the authors must mention the latest developments about the subject of concern and explain why a review is needed. It is a good practice to refer to previous review papers on the subject and state what makes the current review different than the previous ones.
The methods section of the review paper should be written detailed enough to prove its adequacy and make it possible to be reconducted including more recent papers in the future. Explicit scientific methods are required for systematic reviews as defined by international guidelines ( 7 – 9 ). Although no guidelines exist for traditional narrative reviews, they too should have a rational methodology explained clearly. The methods section of every review article should state the key words used for the search, data bases screened, and the time frame chosen for the literature search. It should also explain the inclusion and exclusion criteria used for the selection of papers.
The results section should include a flow chart which shows the number of identified, included, and excluded papers along with the reasons for exclusion, as described in PRISMA flow diagram guidelines ( 9 ). Results section should cite and present characteristics and outcomes of each one of the included studies, providing the necessary information to assess their quality, validity, and contribution. The most relevant information about the included articles should be depicted in literature summary tables. They are an essential part of the review article as they provide information at one glance and make the paper more readable. Literature summary tables must contain information about methods, frameworks, strengths, limitations, and conceptual contribution of each article ( 10 ). Oversized tables must be presented as supplementary files.
Discussion section provides a general interpretation of the results and presents expert opinion. Writing a review article is not only about extracting relevant previous work and analyzing them, but also about making synthesis and drawing conclusions. Therefore, providing an objective interpretation of the results and guiding readers for better understanding of the current evidence should form the central part of the discussion. Wherever there is not enough evidence to make objective conclusions, the lack of evidence should be stated instead. Limitations, biases and gaps of the included literature should be discussed along with the limitations of the review process itself. It is critical to discuss the potential impacts of the results for future research and clinical practice.
In conclusion, reviews are objective attempts to examine the current state of evidence on a particular topic and its impacts. A review paper should explain why the review is undertaken, describe the methodology used, introduce the articles included, and provide expert opinion on the evidence achieved in a structured format. High quality reviews are essential in guiding clinical practice and future research along with policy making.
- Search Menu
Sign in through your institution
- Advance Articles
- Editor's Choice
- CME Reviews
- Best of 2021 collection
- Abbreviated Breast MRI Virtual Collection
- Contrast-enhanced Mammography Collection
- Author Guidelines
- Submission Site
- Open Access
- Self-Archiving Policy
- Accepted Papers Resource Guide
- About Journal of Breast Imaging
- About the Society of Breast Imaging
- Guidelines for Reviewers
- Resources for Reviewers and Authors
- Editorial Board
- Advertising Disclaimer
- Advertising and Corporate Services
- Journals on Oxford Academic
- Books on Oxford Academic
![review paper essay Society of Breast Imaging](https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/data/SiteBuilderAssets/Live/Images/jbi/jbi_h1-533563285.png)
- < Previous
A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article
- Article contents
- Figures & tables
- Supplementary Data
Manisha Bahl, A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article, Journal of Breast Imaging , Volume 5, Issue 4, July/August 2023, Pages 480–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028
- Permissions Icon Permissions
Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.
- narrative discourse
![review paper essay Society of Breast Imaging](https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/data/SiteBuilderAssetsOriginals/Live/Images/jbi/jbi_soc_auth1.png)
Society of Breast Imaging members
Personal account.
- Sign in with email/username & password
- Get email alerts
- Save searches
- Purchase content
- Activate your purchase/trial code
- Add your ORCID iD
Institutional access
Sign in with a library card.
- Sign in with username/password
- Recommend to your librarian
- Institutional account management
- Get help with access
Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:
IP based access
Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.
Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.
- Click Sign in through your institution.
- Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
- When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
- Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.
If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.
Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.
Society Members
Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:
Sign in through society site
Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:
- Click Sign in through society site.
- When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.
Sign in using a personal account
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.
A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.
Viewing your signed in accounts
Click the account icon in the top right to:
- View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
- View the institutional accounts that are providing access.
Signed in but can't access content
Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.
For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.
Short-term Access
To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.
Don't already have a personal account? Register
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
May 2023 | 171 |
June 2023 | 115 |
July 2023 | 113 |
August 2023 | 5,013 |
September 2023 | 1,500 |
October 2023 | 1,810 |
November 2023 | 3,849 |
December 2023 | 308 |
January 2024 | 401 |
February 2024 | 312 |
March 2024 | 415 |
April 2024 | 361 |
May 2024 | 306 |
June 2024 | 283 |
July 2024 | 309 |
August 2024 | 243 |
Email alerts
Citing articles via.
- Recommend to your Librarian
- Journals Career Network
Affiliations
- Online ISSN 2631-6129
- Print ISSN 2631-6110
- Copyright © 2024 Society of Breast Imaging
- About Oxford Academic
- Publish journals with us
- University press partners
- What we publish
- New features
- Open access
- Rights and permissions
- Accessibility
- Advertising
- Media enquiries
- Oxford University Press
- Oxford Languages
- University of Oxford
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide
- Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
- Cookie settings
- Cookie policy
- Privacy policy
- Legal notice
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
Home ➔ How to Write an Essay ➔ Review Essay
Review Essay Guide
Review essays are fundamental to academic and professional fields, offering more than just summaries of existing literature. They provide critical analysis, synthesize various viewpoints, and evaluate the contributions of scholarly works to a particular field. In this introductory section, we’ll outline what review essays are, their purpose, and their importance:
- Definition : Review essays are analytical writings that go beyond summarizing existing research. They involve a comprehensive assessment of scholarly works, discussing their strengths, weaknesses, and contributions to a particular field of study.
- Purpose : In academic settings, review essays are crucial for fostering deep engagement with subject matter, developing critical thinking, and enhancing scholarly discourse. Professionally, they can influence policy decisions, guide research directions, and impact industry practices.
We aim to provide a thorough guide on crafting effective review essays. This includes understanding their key elements, exploring various approaches, and offering practical advice for writing, structuring, and refining your work.
This guide will serve as a comprehensive resource, whether you’re a student, researcher, or professional, offering insights into the art of writing impactful review essays.
Key Elements of a Review Essay
When crafting a review essay, understanding its key components is crucial. A well-structured review essay not only showcases the writer’s comprehension of the subject but also provides valuable insights into the field of study. Below are the essential elements that should be included in a review essay:
- The essay should demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic under review. This includes grasping the core issues, problems, or debates that the subject encompasses.
- A critical part of the review essay is briefly summarizing the main arguments and conclusions of the sources under review. This summary should capture the essence of the authors’ viewpoints and findings.
- An effective review essay goes beyond summarizing by critically analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed material. This analysis evaluates the arguments’ validity, the evidence’s sufficiency, and the conclusions’ soundness.
- The essay should also discuss how the reviewed works contribute to the broader field of study. This involves analyzing the significance of the research, its impact on existing knowledge, and potential implications for future research.
To further clarify these elements, the following table provides a breakdown of each component and its significance:
![review paper essay review essay key elements](https://essayreply.com/wp-content/uploads/review-essay-key-elemets-1024x332.webp)
By incorporating these elements, a review essay provides a comprehensive, analytical, and insightful look into the subject matter, offering both a summary and a critical evaluation of the existing literature.
Approaches to Writing a Review Essay
Selecting the right approach is pivotal when writing a review essay. The approach you choose should align with your essay’s objective and the nature of the subject matter. Here are some of the common approaches to writing a review essay and guidelines on how to choose the most suitable one:
- State of the Art Review : This approach focuses on the most current research in a given area. It’s ideal when your objective is to offer new perspectives or highlight areas needing further research in rapidly evolving fields.
- Historical Review : A historical review explores the development of a particular field of study over time. This approach suits essays aiming to provide context, trace the evolution of thought, or understand the historical progression of a subject.
- Comparison of Perspectives Review : This method contrasts different viewpoints on a topic. It’s particularly effective when there’s a debate or various perspectives on the subject matter. It helps in illustrating contrasting research and introducing new viewpoints by comparison.
- Synthesis of Two Fields Review : Useful when different fields intersect on a common problem or topic, this approach brings together literature from multiple disciplines, providing a comprehensive view and uncovering insights that might not be apparent within a single field.
- Theoretical Model Building Review : Involves examining literature to develop new theoretical assumptions or models. This is apt for essays that propose new theories or conceptual frameworks based on existing research.
Choosing the Right Approach
The choice of approach largely depends on your essay’s objective and the subject matter’s nature. Consider the following when deciding:
- Purpose of the Essay : Are you aiming to provide a comprehensive overview, challenge existing theories, introduce new perspectives, or trace historical developments? Your purpose will guide the choice of approach.
- Nature of the Subject Matter : Some subjects might be better suited to particular approaches. For instance, rapidly advancing scientific fields might benefit more from a state of the art review.
- Available Literature : The amount and type of literature available on your topic can also influence your approach. A rich historical body of work lends itself to a historical review, while a topic with diverse viewpoints might be better suited for comparing perspectives.
- Your Expertise and Interest : Your academic background and interests can also guide your choice. An area you are more familiar with might lend itself to a more complex approach, like theoretical model building.
By thoughtfully selecting the appropriate approach, your review essay can effectively achieve its objectives and make a meaningful contribution to understanding the topic.
Preparation for Writing
Adequate preparation is crucial for writing a well-organized review essay. This involves thorough reading of the primary sources and engaging critically with the material. Here are key steps and strategies for preparing to write a review essay:
- Reading and Understanding Primary Sources : Begin with a comprehensive reading of your primary sources. This includes not just the main content but also supplementary sections like prefaces, introductions, and conclusions, which often provide valuable insights into the author’s intentions and the scope of the work.
- Engaging in Critical Thinking : As you read, engage in critical thinking. Ask yourself questions about the author’s arguments, the evidence presented, and the overall coherence of the work. This critical engagement will help in forming a deeper understanding of the material.
- Formulating Questions During Reading : Develop questions as you read through the material. These questions can range from inquiries about the author’s perspective to the implications of their arguments. This practice helps identify gaps, contradictions, or areas that need further exploration.
- Read Prefaces and Introductions : These sections often set the tone of the work and provide a roadmap of the content.
- Review Each Chapter : After reading each chapter, take a moment to summarize the major points in your own words.
- Engage with the Author’s Ideas : Imagine having a conversation with the author. This can help in critically analyzing the text and formulating your own viewpoints.
The following table provides a summary of these strategies:
![review paper essay review essay approach strategies](https://essayreply.com/wp-content/uploads/review-essay-approach-strategies-1024x347.webp)
By following these steps, you will be well-prepared to write a review essay that is insightful, well-informed, and critically engaging.
Structuring the Review Essay
The structure of a review essay is fundamental to its effectiveness and clarity. A well-structured essay not only guides the reader through your arguments but also enhances the impact of your analysis. To achieve this, a review essay should be clear, concise, focused, and analytical.
- Clear and Concise Communication : The hallmark of a good review essay is its clarity. Complex ideas should be conveyed in an understandable manner, making the essay accessible to a broad audience. Avoid unnecessary jargon or overly complex sentences. Conciseness is equally important. Your essay should be direct and to the point, providing enough detail to support your arguments without becoming verbose.
- Defining Terms and Providing Evidence : A crucial step in structuring your essay is defining key terms central to your argument. This clarifies your position and ensures your reader is not lost in specialized terminology. Equally important is backing up your claims with appropriate examples and evidence . This could range from quotations and data to specific instances or case studies that illustrate your points.
- Maintaining an Informative and Focused Approach : Your essay should have a clear and narrow focus. This focus allows you to delve deeply into your topic and provide detailed insights. Every part of the essay should serve the purpose of reinforcing your main argument or thesis. This focused approach ensures that your essay remains informative and relevant to your topic.
- Beyond Summarization – Analysis, Synthesis, and Interpretation : A review essay should not merely summarize the existing literature. Instead, it should add to the conversation through analysis, synthesis , and interpretation. Analyze the material to identify patterns, contradictions, or gaps. Synthesize different viewpoints to create a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Interpret the findings in a way that provides new insights or perspectives, thereby contributing to the academic discussion on the subject.
Structuring your review essay with clarity, conciseness, focus, and analytical depth is essential. This approach makes your essay more engaging and informative and demonstrates your ability to critically engage with and contribute to the academic discourse.
Academic Rigor and Documentation
A key aspect of writing a review essay is maintaining academic rigor and ensuring proper documentation. This not only reinforces the credibility of your essay but also upholds the ethical standards of academic writing.
- Utilizing Academic Sources : The backbone of a review essay is the sources it draws upon. Prioritize using academic sources, including peer-reviewed journals, scholarly books, and authoritative research articles. These sources provide reliable, vetted information that forms a strong foundation for your arguments and analyses. Using academic sources enhances your essay’s validity and shows your engagement with the scholarly community.
- The Imperative of Proper Documentation : Accurate and consistent documentation is crucial in a review essay. It serves a dual purpose – preventing plagiarism and directing readers to the original sources. Whether you are paraphrasing or quoting directly , each instance of sourced information must be properly cited according to the appropriate academic style guide (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). This practice is not just about avoiding plagiarism; it is about contributing to an ongoing scholarly conversation by acknowledging the work of others.
- Quoting with Precision and Purpose : When it comes to quoting sources, less is often more. Over-reliance on direct quotations can overshadow your own voice and analytical insights. Use quotes sparingly and ensure they are directly relevant to your argument. When you do quote, integrate the quotation seamlessly into your essay, maintaining the flow and coherence of your writing. Paraphrasing is another effective way to reference ideas from your sources while maintaining your unique voice and perspective. Remember that proper citation is non-negotiable regardless of whether you quote directly or paraphrase.
Incorporating these practices in your review essay not only upholds academic integrity but also strengthens your arguments, ensuring that your essay is both credible and ethically sound.
Writing the Review
Writing a review essay involves a series of actionable steps to ensure clarity, depth, and coherence in your work. Here’s a detailed guide to help you navigate through the process:
Step 1: Define Your Thesis or Research Question
Begin by clearly stating the thesis or main research question of your essay. This statement should be concise and articulate the central theme or argument you intend to explore. It will guide your writing process, ensuring that all your analysis and critical discussion are relevant and focused.
Step 2: Organize Your Research
Gather and organize your research materials. Create an outline based on the themes, methodologies, or chronological order of the sources. This outline will help structure your essay and ensure you cover all the necessary points in a logical sequence.
Step 3: Critical Reading and Note-Taking
As you read through your sources, engage in critical thinking. Take notes on key arguments, methodologies, findings, and how these relate to your thesis. Look for patterns, contradictions, and gaps in the literature. This step is crucial for understanding the broader context of your topic and for forming your own perspective.
Step 4: Develop Your Argument
Using your outline and notes, start developing your argument. Ensure each paragraph or section clearly addresses a part of your thesis. Use evidence from your sources to support your points, and explain how this evidence relates to your overall argument.
Step 5: Address Controversies and Debates
Identify and discuss any controversies or major debates present in the literature. Present these objectively, showing how they relate to your thesis. Use these discussions to demonstrate research gaps or pose new questions that could be explored in further studies.
Step 6: Synthesize and Analyze
Go beyond summarizing your sources. Synthesize the information to draw new insights and critically analyze the texts to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. Your analysis should add to the existing literature by providing a unique perspective or interpretation.
Step 7: Write the Introduction and Conclusion
Craft your introduction to set the context for your essay and present your thesis. Your conclusion should summarize the key points of your analysis and reiterate how they support your thesis. It should also suggest implications, future research directions, or final thoughts on the subject.
Step 8: Review and Refine
Review your essay for clarity and coherence. Check if each section transitions smoothly and contributes to your overall argument. Look for areas that need more development or clarification. Proofread to correct grammatical errors and ensure consistency in style and formatting.
Step 9: Proper Documentation
Throughout your essay, ensure that all sources are properly cited. This includes both in-text citations and a comprehensive bibliography. Proper documentation is crucial to establish credibility and to allow readers to follow up on your sources.
Step 10: Seek Feedback
Before finalizing your essay, consider getting feedback from peers, mentors, or advisors. They can provide valuable insights, point out areas that need improvement, and help refine your argument.
By following these steps, you can systematically approach writing your review essay, ensuring that it is well-researched, coherent, and critically engaging. Each step is designed to build upon the last, culminating in a comprehensive and insightful piece of academic writing.
In this guide, we have explored the essential steps and strategies for writing a successful review essay. To recap, here are the key points to remember:
- Define Your Thesis : Clearly state the central argument or research question of your essay.
- Organize and Analyze Your Research : Gather your sources, create an organized outline, and engage in critical reading and analysis.
- Develop a Coherent Argument : Build your essay around your thesis, using evidence from your research to support your points.
- Address Controversies and Debates : Objectively discuss any debates or controversies in the literature, using them to enrich your analysis.
- Synthesize Information : Go beyond summarizing sources to draw new insights and perspectives.
- Write Clearly and Concisely : Ensure that your essay is well-structured, with clear transitions and a logical flow of ideas.
- Review and Refine : Revise your essay for clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy.
- Proper Documentation : Cite your sources correctly to avoid plagiarism and provide references for further reading.
- Seek Feedback : Get input from peers or mentors to refine your argument and writing.
The table below provides a quick reference to these key steps:
![review paper essay review essay writing steps](https://essayreply.com/wp-content/uploads/review-essay-writing-steps-1024x494.webp)
We encourage you to apply these guidelines in your own review essay writing. These steps, when followed diligently, can help you craft an insightful and impactful essay.
Further Resources
To deepen your understanding of writing review essays, consider exploring the following resources:
- Books on Academic Writing : Look for books that specifically focus on academic writing skills, including essay structure, argument development, and effective communication.
- Online Writing Workshops : Many universities offer online workshops or webinars on academic writing, which can provide practical tips and interactive guidance.
- Writing Centers : Utilize the resources available at your institution’s writing center. They often offer one-on-one consultations, workshops, and writing guides.
- Scholarly Journals : Read review essays published in academic journals to get a sense of different writing styles and approaches.
- Style Guides : Familiarize yourself with style guides like APA, MLA, or Chicago, which provide detailed instructions on citation and formatting.
- Research Methodology Books : These can help you understand how to analyze and synthesize research effectively.
- Peer-Review Platforms : Engage with platforms where you can submit your work for peer review or review others’ essays to gain different perspectives.
These resources can provide additional guidance and support as you refine your skills in writing review essays. Remember, writing is a skill that improves with practice, so continue to seek out opportunities to learn and grow as a writer.
Was this article helpful?
![review paper essay The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill](https://writingcenter.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/346/2018/08/writingcenterlogo-oneline.png)
Literature Reviews
What this handout is about.
This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.
Introduction
OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?
Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.
What is a literature review, then?
A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.
A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.
But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?
The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.
Why do we write literature reviews?
Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.
Who writes these things, anyway?
Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.
Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?
If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:
- Roughly how many sources should you include?
- What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
- Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
- Should you evaluate your sources?
- Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?
Find models
Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.
Narrow your topic
There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.
Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .
And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.
Consider whether your sources are current
Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.
Strategies for writing the literature review
Find a focus.
A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.
Convey it to your reader
A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:
The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.
Consider organization
You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:
First, cover the basic categories
Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:
- Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
- Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
- Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?
Organizing the body
Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.
To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:
You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.
Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:
- Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
- By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
- By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
- Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
- Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.
Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:
- Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
- History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
- Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.
Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?
Begin composing
Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:
However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).
Use evidence
In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.
Be selective
Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.
Use quotes sparingly
Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.
Summarize and synthesize
Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.
Keep your own voice
While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.
Use caution when paraphrasing
When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .
Revise, revise, revise
Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .
Works consulted
We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.
Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.
Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.
Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.
Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.
Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.
You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Make a Gift
How to Write Critical Reviews
When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.
Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.
Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.
Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.
Understanding the Assignment
To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.
Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.
Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!
Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.
Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.
Write the introduction
Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.
Introduce your review appropriately
Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.
If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.
If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.
Explain relationships
For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.
Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.
In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.
Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).
As you write, consider the following questions:
- Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
- Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
- What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
- What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?
Provide an overview
In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.
Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.
The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.
- What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
- How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?
Write the body
The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.
Organize using a logical plan
Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:
- First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
- Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.
Questions to keep in mind as you write
With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:
- What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
- What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
- Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
- Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
- Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?
Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources
Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.
Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.
And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.
Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.
Write the conclusion
You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.
You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.
Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.
Consider the following questions:
- Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
- How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
- How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
- What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?
![review paper essay](https://writing.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/535/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2019-08-06-at-6.26.02-PM-e1565383158628.png)
Academic and Professional Writing
This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.
Analysis Papers
Reading Poetry
A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis
Using Literary Quotations
Play Reviews
Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts
Incorporating Interview Data
Grant Proposals
Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics
Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing
Job Materials and Application Essays
Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs
- Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
- Guided brainstorming exercises
- Get more help with your essay
- Frequently Asked Questions
Resume Writing Tips
CV Writing Tips
Cover Letters
Business Letters
Proposals and Dissertations
Resources for Proposal Writers
Resources for Dissertators
Research Papers
Planning and Writing Research Papers
Quoting and Paraphrasing
Writing Annotated Bibliographies
Creating Poster Presentations
Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper
Thank-You Notes
Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors
Reading for a Review
Critical Reviews
Writing a Review of Literature
Scientific Reports
Scientific Report Format
Sample Lab Assignment
Writing for the Web
Writing an Effective Blog Post
Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics
Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts
Writing a Literature Review
![review paper essay OWL logo](https://owl.purdue.edu/images/logos/owllogo_black.png)
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.
![review paper essay Academia Insider](https://academiainsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/AI-logo-full-colour.png)
Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast
This guide aims to demystify the review paper format, presenting practical tips to help you accelerate the writing process.
From understanding the structure to synthesising literature effectively, we’ll explore how to create a compelling review article swiftly, ensuring your work is both impactful and timely.
Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a budding scholar, these info on review paper format and style will streamline your writing journey.
Research Paper, Review Paper Format
Parts | Notes |
---|---|
Title & Abstract | Sets the stage with a concise title and a descriptive abstract summarising the review’s scope and findings. |
Introduction | Lays the groundwork by presenting the research question, justifying the review’s importance, and highlighting knowledge gaps. |
Methodology | Details the research methods used to select, assess, and synthesise studies, showcasing the review’s rigor and integrity. |
Body | The core section where literature is summarised, analysed, and critiqued, synthesising evidence and presenting arguments with well-structured paragraphs. |
Discussion & Conclusion | Weaves together main points, reflects on the findings’ implications for the field, and suggests future research directions. |
Citation | Acknowledges the scholarly community’s contributions, linking to cited research and enriching the review’s academic discourse. |
What Is A Review Paper?
Diving into the realm of scholarly communication, you might have stumbled upon a research review article.
This unique genre serves to synthesise existing data, offering a panoramic view of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
![review paper essay](https://academiainsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Review-Paper-Format-1.jpg)
Unlike a standard research article that presents original experiments, a review paper delves into published literature, aiming to:
- clarify, and
- evaluate previous findings.
Imagine you’re tasked to write a review article. The starting point is often a burning research question. Your mission? To scour various journals, piecing together a well-structured narrative that not only summarises key findings but also identifies gaps in existing literature.
This is where the magic of review writing shines – it’s about creating a roadmap for future research, highlighting areas ripe for exploration.
Review articles come in different flavours, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses being the gold standards. The methodology here is meticulous, with a clear protocol for selecting and evaluating studies.
This rigorous approach ensures that your review is more than just an overview; it’s a critical analysis that adds depth to the understanding of the subject.
Crafting a good review requires mastering the art of citation. Every claim or observation you make needs to be backed by relevant literature. This not only lends credibility to your work but also provides a treasure trove of information for readers eager to delve deeper.
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. Here’s a couple of types of review paper for you to look at:
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:
- identifying,
- selecting, and
- critically appraising relevant research.
The aim? To answer a specific research question. Systematic reviews often include meta-analyses , where data from multiple studies are statistically combined to provide more robust conclusions.
This review type is a cornerstone in evidence-based fields like healthcare.
Literature Review Paper
Then there’s the literature review, a broader type you might encounter.
Here, the goal is to give an overview of the main points and debates on a topic, without the stringent methodological framework of a systematic review.
Literature reviews are great for getting a grasp of the field and identifying where future research might head. Often reading literature review papers can help you to learn about a topic rather quickly.
![review paper essay review paper format](https://academiainsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Review-Paper-Format-2.jpg)
Narrative Reviews
Narrative reviews allow for a more flexible approach. Authors of narrative reviews draw on existing literature to provide insights or critique a certain area of research.
This is generally done with a less formal structure than systematic reviews. This type is particularly useful for areas where it’s difficult to quantify findings across studies.
Scoping Reviews
Scoping reviews are gaining traction for their ability to map out the existing literature on a broad topic, identifying:
- key concepts,
- theories, and
Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews have a more exploratory approach, which can be particularly useful in emerging fields or for topics that haven’t been comprehensively reviewed before.
Each type of review serves a unique purpose and requires a specific skill set. Whether you’re looking to summarise existing findings, synthesise data for evidence-based practice, or explore new research territories, there’s a review type that fits the bill.
Knowing how to write, read, and interpret these reviews can significantly enhance your understanding of any research area.
What Are The Parts In A Review Paper
A review paper format has a pretty set structure, with minor changes here and there to suit the topic covered. The review paper format not only organises your thoughts but also guides your readers through the complexities of your topic.
Title & Abstract
Starting with the title and abstract, you set the stage. The title should be a concise indicator of the content, making it easier for others to quickly tell what your article content is about.
As for the abstract, it should act as a descriptive summary, offering a snapshot of your review’s scope and findings.
Introduction
The introduction lays the groundwork, presenting the research question that drives your review. It’s here you:
- justify the importance of your review,
- delineating the current state of knowledge and
- highlighting gaps.
This section aims to articulate the significance of the topic and your objective in exploring it.
Methodology
The methodology section is the backbone of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, detailing the research methods employed to select, assess, and synthesise studies.
![review paper essay review paper format](https://academiainsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Review-Paper-Format-3.jpg)
This transparency allows readers to gauge the rigour and reproducibility of your review. It’s a testament to the integrity of your work, showing how you’ve minimised bias.
The heart of your review lies in the body, where you:
- analyse, and
- critique existing literature .
This is where you synthesise evidence, draw connections, and present both sides of any argument. Well-structured paragraphs and clear subheadings guide readers through your analysis, offering insights and fostering a deeper understanding of the subject.
Discussion & Conclusion
The discussion or conclusion section is where you weave together the main points, reflecting on what your findings mean for the field.
It’s about connecting the dots, offering a synthesis of evidence that answers your initial research question. This part often hints at future research directions, suggesting areas that need further exploration due to gaps in existing knowledge.
Review paper format usually includes the citation list – it is your nod to the scholarly community, acknowledging the contributions of others.
Each citation is a thread in the larger tapestry of academic discourse, enabling readers to delve deeper into the research that has shaped your review.
Tips To Write An Review Article Fast
Writing a review article quickly without sacrificing quality might seem like a tall order, but with the right approach, it’s entirely achievable.
Clearly Define Your Research Question
Clearly define your research question. A focused question not only narrows down the scope of your literature search but also keeps your review concise and on track.
By honing in on a specific aspect of a broader topic, you can avoid the common pitfall of becoming overwhelmed by the vast expanse of available literature. This specificity allows you to zero in on the most relevant studies, making your review more impactful.
Efficient Literature Searching
Utilise databases specific to your field and employ advanced search techniques like Boolean operators. This can drastically reduce the time you spend sifting through irrelevant articles.
Additionally, leveraging citation chains—looking at who has cited a pivotal paper in your area and who it cites—can uncover valuable sources you might otherwise miss.
Organise Your Findings Systematically
Developing a robust organisation strategy is key. As you gather sources, categorize them based on themes or methodologies.
This not only aids in structuring your review but also in identifying areas where research is lacking or abundant. Organize your findings based on the review paper format.
Tools like citation management software can be invaluable here, helping you keep track of your sources and their key points. We list out some of the best AI tools for academic research here.
![review paper essay](https://academiainsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Review-Paper-Format-4.jpg)
Build An Outline Before Writing
Don’t underestimate the power of a well-structured outline. A clear blueprint of your article can guide your writing process, ensuring that each section flows logically into the next.
This roadmap not only speeds up the writing process by providing a clear direction but also helps maintain coherence, ensuring your review article delivers a compelling narrative that advances understanding in your field.
![](http://rss3.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
Start Writing With The Easiest Sections
When it’s time to write, start with sections you find easiest. This might be the methodology or a particular thematic section where you feel most confident.
Getting words on the page can build momentum, making it easier to tackle more challenging sections later.
Remember, your first draft doesn’t have to be perfect; the goal is to start articulating your synthesis of the literature.
Learn How To Write An Article Review
Mastering the review paper format is a crucial step towards efficient academic writing. By adhering to the structured components outlined, you can streamline the creation of a compelling review article.
Embracing these guidelines not only speeds up the writing process but also enhances the clarity and impact of your work, ensuring your contributions to scholarly discourse are both valuable and timely.
A review paper serves to synthesise existing data, offering a panoramic view of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic
A Review Paper Format Usually Contains What Sections?
You usually will see sections like introduction, literature review, methodology, analysis and findings, discussions, citation and conclusion.
How To Write A Review Paper Fast?
The key is to organize, pre-plan things out before writing it.
![review paper essay](https://academiainsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/DR-ANDREW-STAPPLETON-PORTRAIT-THE-HEADSHOT-CREATIVE-LO-RES-19931-1024x684.jpg)
Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.
Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.
We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!
![review paper essay](https://academiainsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/AI-full-logo-Black-1024x270.png)
2024 © Academia Insider
![review paper essay](https://academiainsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/quora.png)
- UWF Libraries
Literature Review: Conducting & Writing
- Sample Literature Reviews
- 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 Lit Reviews from Communication Arts
Have an exemplary literature review.
- Literature Review Sample 1
- Literature Review Sample 2
- Literature Review Sample 3
Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?
Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?
Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.
- << Previous: MLA Style
- Next: Get Help! >>
- Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
- URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview
![review paper essay review paper essay](https://cdn.paperpal.com/assets/images/paperpal_editage_logo.webp)
What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
![review paper essay literature review](https://pp-blog.paperpal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/literature-review-1170x780.jpeg)
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, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process.
Table of Contents
What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .
- Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:
- Decide on the Scope of Your Review:
- Select Databases for Searches:
- Conduct Searches and Keep Track:
- Review the Literature:
- Organize and Write Your Literature Review:
- How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?
Frequently asked questions
What is a literature review .
A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.
![review paper essay](https://pp-blog.paperpal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/RPaperpal_BlogBanners-1_02_.png)
A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2
1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge.
2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.
Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal
3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research.
4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered.
5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research.
6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature.
Literature review example
Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic.
Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:
Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies:
Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements.
Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources.
The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems.
Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning.
Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!
How to write a good literature review
Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements.
Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review.
- Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field.
- Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address.
- Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research.
- Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic.
- Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review.
Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria.
- Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement.
- Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic.
- Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature.
- Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps.
- Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review.
Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!
Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research.
- Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective.
- Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field.
- Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice.
- Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field.
- Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community.
![review paper essay what is a literature review](https://pp-blog.paperpal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/blog-banner_audio-streaming.png)
Conducting a literature review
Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1
Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:
- Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study.
- Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore?
Decide on the Scope of Your Review:
- Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview?
- Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region?
- Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude?
Select Databases for Searches:
- Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
- Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic.
Conduct Searches and Keep Track:
- Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques.
- Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability.
- Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references.
Review the Literature:
- Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies.
- Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research.
- Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives.
- Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions.
- Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research?
Organize and Write Your Literature Review:
- Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches.
- Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered.
- Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).
- Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research.
Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!
How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?
Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.
Here’s how to use the Research feature:
- Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations.
![review paper essay Paperpal Research Feature](https://pp-blog.paperpal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-09-03-134011.png)
- Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access.
- Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review.
![review paper essay](https://pp-blog.paperpal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-09-03-134033.png)
The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.
A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.
Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.
Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic.
Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods.
Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers. Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved. Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic. Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings. Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject. It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.
The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review: Introduction: Provide an overview of the topic. Define the scope and purpose of the literature review. State the research question or objective. Body: Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology. Critically analyze and evaluate each source. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies. Highlight any methodological limitations or biases. Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research. Conclusion: Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review. Highlight the research gap. Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction. Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.
Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows:
Annotated Bibliography | Literature Review | |
Purpose | List of citations of books, articles, and other sources with a brief description (annotation) of each source. | Comprehensive and critical analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. |
Focus | Summary and evaluation of each source, including its relevance, methodology, and key findings. | Provides an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular subject and identifies gaps, trends, and patterns in existing literature. |
Structure | Each citation is followed by a concise paragraph (annotation) that describes the source’s content, methodology, and its contribution to the topic. | The literature review is organized thematically or chronologically and involves a synthesis of the findings from different sources to build a narrative or argument. |
Length | Typically 100-200 words | Length of literature review ranges from a few pages to several chapters |
Independence | Each source is treated separately, with less emphasis on synthesizing the information across sources. | The writer synthesizes information from multiple sources to present a cohesive overview of the topic. |
References
- Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review. Journal of criminal justice education , 24 (2), 218-234.
- Pan, M. L. (2016). Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis.
- Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review. San José State University Writing Center .
Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.
Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.
Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!
Related Reads:
- Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics
- How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps
- How Long Should a Chapter Be?
- How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?
6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level
Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).
How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples
![review paper essay](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e5d43546b94f97f39c228fa/664584fe87188723dd6f7a83_Adam%20Jason.webp)
Did you know that article reviews are not just academic exercises but also a valuable skill in today's information age? In a world inundated with content, being able to dissect and evaluate articles critically can help you separate the wheat from the chaff. Whether you're a student aiming to excel in your coursework or a professional looking to stay well-informed, mastering the art of writing article reviews is an invaluable skill.
Short Description
In this article, our research paper writing service experts will start by unraveling the concept of article reviews and discussing the various types. You'll also gain insights into the art of formatting your review effectively. To ensure you're well-prepared, we'll take you through the pre-writing process, offering tips on setting the stage for your review. But it doesn't stop there. You'll find a practical example of an article review to help you grasp the concepts in action. To complete your journey, we'll guide you through the post-writing process, equipping you with essential proofreading techniques to ensure your work shines with clarity and precision!
What Is an Article Review: Grasping the Concept
A review article is a type of professional paper writing that demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.
If you write a scientific review, you have to use database searches to portray the research. Your primary goal is to summarize everything and present a clear understanding of the topic you've been working on.
Writing Involves:
- Summarization, classification, analysis, critiques, and comparison.
- The analysis, evaluation, and comparison require the use of theories, ideas, and research relevant to the subject area of the article.
- It is also worth nothing if a review does not introduce new information, but instead presents a response to another writer's work.
- Check out other samples to gain a better understanding of how to review the article.
Types of Review
When it comes to article reviews, there's more than one way to approach the task. Understanding the various types of reviews is like having a versatile toolkit at your disposal. In this section, we'll walk you through the different dimensions of review types, each offering a unique perspective and purpose. Whether you're dissecting a scholarly article, critiquing a piece of literature, or evaluating a product, you'll discover the diverse landscape of article reviews and how to navigate it effectively.
![review paper essay types of article review](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e5d43546b94f97f39c228fa/65424c75f48ca0e500f60dc8_Types%20of%20Article%20Reviews-(Compressify.io).webp)
Journal Article Review
Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.
Research Article Review
Distinguished by its focus on research methodologies, a research article review scrutinizes the techniques used in a study and evaluates them in light of the subsequent analysis and critique. For instance, when reviewing a research article on the effects of a new drug, the reviewer would delve into the methods employed to gather data and assess their reliability.
Science Article Review
In the realm of scientific literature, a science article review encompasses a wide array of subjects. Scientific publications often provide extensive background information, which can be instrumental in conducting a comprehensive analysis. For example, when reviewing an article about the latest breakthroughs in genetics, the reviewer may draw upon the background knowledge provided to facilitate a more in-depth evaluation of the publication.
Need a Hand From Professionals?
Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!
Formatting an Article Review
The format of the article should always adhere to the citation style required by your professor. If you're not sure, seek clarification on the preferred format and ask him to clarify several other pointers to complete the formatting of an article review adequately.
How Many Publications Should You Review?
- In what format should you cite your articles (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)?
- What length should your review be?
- Should you include a summary, critique, or personal opinion in your assignment?
- Do you need to call attention to a theme or central idea within the articles?
- Does your instructor require background information?
When you know the answers to these questions, you may start writing your assignment. Below are examples of MLA and APA formats, as those are the two most common citation styles.
Using the APA Format
Articles appear most commonly in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. If you write an article review in the APA format, you will need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use:
- Web : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
- Journal : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
- Newspaper : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.
Using MLA Format
- Web : Last, First Middle Initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
- Newspaper : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print.
- Journal : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
Enhance your writing effortlessly with EssayPro.com , where you can order an article review or any other writing task. Our team of expert writers specializes in various fields, ensuring your work is not just summarized, but deeply analyzed and professionally presented. Ideal for students and professionals alike, EssayPro offers top-notch writing assistance tailored to your needs. Elevate your writing today with our skilled team at your article review writing service !
![review paper essay order review](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e5d43546b94f97f39c228fa/6560561e33b515404cc58ef6_%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B8%CC%86%D0%BD%20%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%20(1).jpg)
The Pre-Writing Process
Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you unsure of where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages from our dissertation services to get you started:
Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow:
- Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
- Define the positive points — identify the strong aspects, ideas, and insightful observations the author has made.
- Find the gaps —- determine whether or not the author has any contradictions, gaps, or inconsistencies in the article and evaluate whether or not he or she used a sufficient amount of arguments and information to support his or her ideas.
- Identify unanswered questions — finally, identify if there are any questions left unanswered after reading the piece.
Step 2: Move on and review the article. Here is a small and simple guide to help you do it right:
- Start off by looking at and assessing the title of the piece, its abstract, introductory part, headings and subheadings, opening sentences in its paragraphs, and its conclusion.
- First, read only the beginning and the ending of the piece (introduction and conclusion). These are the parts where authors include all of their key arguments and points. Therefore, if you start with reading these parts, it will give you a good sense of the author's main points.
- Finally, read the article fully.
These three steps make up most of the prewriting process. After you are done with them, you can move on to writing your own review—and we are going to guide you through the writing process as well.
Outline and Template
As you progress with reading your article, organize your thoughts into coherent sections in an outline. As you read, jot down important facts, contributions, or contradictions. Identify the shortcomings and strengths of your publication. Begin to map your outline accordingly.
If your professor does not want a summary section or a personal critique section, then you must alleviate those parts from your writing. Much like other assignments, an article review must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Thus, you might consider dividing your outline according to these sections as well as subheadings within the body. If you find yourself troubled with the pre-writing and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.
Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:
- Pre-Title Page - Before diving into your review, start with essential details: article type, publication title, and author names with affiliations (position, department, institution, location, and email). Include corresponding author info if needed.
- Running Head - In APA format, use a concise title (under 40 characters) to ensure consistent formatting.
- Summary Page - Optional but useful. Summarize the article in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology, avoiding verbatim text or references.
- Title Page - Include the full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
- Introduction - Set the stage with an engaging overview of the article.
- Body - Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
- Works Cited/References - Properly cite all sources used in your review.
- Optional Suggested Reading Page - If permitted, suggest further readings for in-depth exploration.
- Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor) - Include visuals when requested by your professor for clarity.
Example of an Article Review
You might wonder why we've dedicated a section of this article to discuss an article review sample. Not everyone may realize it, but examining multiple well-constructed examples of review articles is a crucial step in the writing process. In the following section, our essay writing service experts will explain why.
Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:
- To get you introduced to the key works of experts in your field.
- To help you identify the key people engaged in a particular field of science.
- To help you define what significant discoveries and advances were made in your field.
- To help you unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of your field—which contributes to finding fresh solutions.
- To help you find solid references and arguments for your own review.
- To help you generate some ideas about any further field of research.
- To help you gain a better understanding of the area and become an expert in this specific field.
- To get a clear idea of how to write a good review.
View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!
Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?
Steps for Writing an Article Review
Here is a guide with critique paper format on how to write a review paper:
![review paper essay steps for article review](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e5d43546b94f97f39c228fa/65424c94db2e5377b95e2451_Steps%20for%20Writing%20an%20Article%20Review-(Compressify.io).webp)
Step 1: Write the Title
First of all, you need to write a title that reflects the main focus of your work. Respectively, the title can be either interrogative, descriptive, or declarative.
Step 2: Cite the Article
Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper. For example, an article citation in the MLA style should look as follows:
Author's last and first name. "The title of the article." Journal's title and issue(publication date): page(s). Print
Abraham John. "The World of Dreams." Virginia Quarterly 60.2(1991): 125-67. Print.
Step 3: Article Identification
After your citation, you need to include the identification of your reviewed article:
- Title of the article
- Title of the journal
- Year of publication
All of this information should be included in the first paragraph of your paper.
The report "Poverty increases school drop-outs" was written by Brian Faith – a Health officer – in 2000.
Step 4: Introduction
Your organization in an assignment like this is of the utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you should outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts coherently.
- If you are wondering how to start an article review, begin with an introduction that mentions the article and your thesis for the review.
- Follow up with a summary of the main points of the article.
- Highlight the positive aspects and facts presented in the publication.
- Critique the publication by identifying gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions.
Step 5: Summarize the Article
Make a summary of the article by revisiting what the author has written about. Note any relevant facts and findings from the article. Include the author's conclusions in this section.
Step 6: Critique It
Present the strengths and weaknesses you have found in the publication. Highlight the knowledge that the author has contributed to the field. Also, write about any gaps and/or contradictions you have found in the article. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge. Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article.
Step 7: Craft a Conclusion
In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study. Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:
- As you read the article, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they used to support that argument.
- While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point. This is best done using direct quotations.
- Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly. Take time to analyze the article adequately.
- Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation, use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article.
- Re-read your piece a day after you finish writing it. This will help you to spot grammar mistakes and to notice any flaws in your organization.
- Use a spell-checker and get a second opinion on your paper.
The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work
Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.
To proofread your paper properly, start by reading it fully and checking the following points:
- Punctuation
- Other mistakes
Afterward, take a moment to check for any unnecessary information in your paper and, if found, consider removing it to streamline your content. Finally, double-check that you've covered at least 3-4 key points in your discussion.
And remember, if you ever need help with proofreading, rewriting your essay, or even want to buy essay , our friendly team is always here to assist you.
Need an Article REVIEW WRITTEN?
Just send us the requirements to your paper and watch one of our writers crafting an original paper for you.
What Is A Review Article?
How to write an article review, how to write an article review in apa format.
![review paper essay Daniel Parker](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e5d43546b94f97f39c228fa/664585124776bc0664a74017_Daniel%20Parker.webp)
Daniel Parker
is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.
![review paper essay](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e5d43546b94f97f39c228fa/664584fe87188723dd6f7a83_Adam%20Jason.webp)
is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.
![review paper essay research paper abstract](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e5d43546b94f97f39c228fa/65147adc19fdb4d335fe03e0_63197627044d1e051c6a1cce_How_to_Write_an_Abstract_for_a_Research_Paper-p-800.webp)
Free Essay and Paper Checker
Try our other writing services
![review paper essay Paraphrasing Tool](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/paraphraser64x64.png)
Correct your entire essay within 5 minutes
- Proofread on 100+ language issues
- Specialized in academic texts
- Corrections directly in your essay
Correct your entire essay in 5 minutes
Why this is the best free essay checker.
![review paper essay Best Grammar Checker Test Result Graph](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/eng_01.webp)
Tested most accurate
In the test for the best grammar checker , Scribbr found 19 out of 20 errors.
![review paper essay No Signup Needed](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/eng_02.webp)
No signup needed
You don’t have to register or sign up. Insert your text and get started right away.
![review paper essay Unlimited words and characters](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/eng_03.webp)
Long texts, short texts it doesn’t matter – there’s no character or word limit.
![review paper essay The Grammar Checker is Ad-Free](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/eng_04.webp)
Don’t wait for ads or distractions. The essay checker is ad-free!
![review paper essay Punctuation checker](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/punctuation-checker.webp)
Nobody's perfect all the time—and now, you don’t have to be!
There are times when you just want to write without worrying about every grammar or spelling convention. The online proofreader immediately finds all of your errors. This allows you to concentrate on the bigger picture. You’ll be 100% confident that your writing won’t affect your grade.
![review paper essay grammar mistake](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/grammar-mistake-1.webp)
Correcting your grammar
The Scribbr essay checker fixes grammar mistakes like:
- Sentence fragments & run-on sentences
- Subject-verb agreement errors
- Issues with parallelism
![review paper essay spelling mistake](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/spelling-mistake-1.webp)
Spelling & Typos
Basic spell-checks often miss academic terms in writing and mark them as errors. Scribbr has a large dictionary of recognized (academic) words, so you can feel confident every word is 100% correct.
Punctuation errors
The essay checker takes away all your punctuation worries. Avoid common mistakes with:
- Dashes and hyphens
- Apostrophes
- Parentheses
- Question marks
- Colons and semicolons
- Quotation marks
![review paper essay word use](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/word-use-1.png)
Avoid word choice errors
Should you use “affect” or “effect” ? Is it “then” or “than” ? Did you mean “there,” “their,” or “they’re” ?
Never worry about embarrassing word choice errors again. Our grammar checker will spot and correct any errors with commonly confused words .
![review paper essay accept all](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/accept-all-1.webp)
Improve your text with one click
The Scribbr Grammar Checker allows you to accept all suggestions in your document with a single click.
Give it a try!
![review paper essay](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/free-grammar-checker.webp)
Correct your entire document in 5 minutes
Would you like to upload your entire essay and check it for 100+ academic language issues? Then Scribbr’s AI-powered proofreading is perfect for you.
With the AI Proofreader, you can correct your text in no time:
- Upload document
- Wait briefly while all errors are corrected directly in your document
- Correct errors with one click
Proofread my document
![review paper essay all english variants](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/test-1.png)
A Grammar Checker for all English variants
There are important differences between the versions of English used in different parts of the world, including UK and US English . Our essay checker supports a variety of major English dialects:
- Canadian English
- Australian English
Why users love our Essay Checker
🌐 English | US, UK, CA, & AU |
---|---|
🏆 Quality | Outperforms competition |
✍️ Improves | Grammar, spelling, & punctuation |
⭐️ Rating | based on 13,657 reviews |
Save time and upload your entire essay to fix it in minutes
Scribbr & academic integrity.
Scribbr is committed to protecting academic integrity. Our plagiarism checker , AI Detector , Citation Generator , proofreading services , paraphrasing tool , grammar checker , summarizer , and free Knowledge Base content are designed to help students produce quality academic papers.
We make every effort to prevent our software from being used for fraudulent or manipulative purposes.
Ask our team
Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.
- Email [email protected]
- Start live chat
- Call +1 (510) 822-8066
- WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040
![review paper essay Support team - Nina](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/nina-250x250a.jpg)
Frequently asked questions
Our Essay Checker can detect most grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes. That said, we can’t guarantee 100% accuracy.
Absolutely! The Essay Checker is particularly useful for non-native English speakers, as it can detect mistakes that may have gone unnoticed.
The exact time depends on the length of your document, but, in most cases it doesn’t take more than a minute.
- 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 Happiness Hub 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
- Happiness Hub
- This Or That Game
- Train Your Brain
- Explore More
- Support wikiHow
- About wikiHow
- Log in / Sign up
- Education and Communications
- Critical Reviews
How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)
Last Updated: August 26, 2024 Fact Checked
Preparing to Write Your Review
Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.
This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,135,908 times.
An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.
Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."
Article Review 101
- Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
- Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
- Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.
![review paper essay Step 1 Understand what an article review is.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/3/39/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-1-Version-3.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-1-Version-3.jpg)
- Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
- An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
- An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.
![review paper essay Step 2 Think about the organization of the review article.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/e/e2/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-2-Version-3.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-2-Version-3.jpg)
- Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
- Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
- Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.
![review paper essay Step 3 Preview the article.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/8/8d/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-3-Version-3.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-3-Version-3.jpg)
- Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
- Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.
![review paper essay Step 4 Read the article closely.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/4/4e/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-4-Version-3.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-4-Version-3.jpg)
- Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.
![review paper essay Step 5 Put the article into your words.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-5-Version-3.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-5-Version-3.jpg)
- With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
- After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
- Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.
![review paper essay Step 6 Write an outline of your evaluation.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/5/5e/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-6-Version-3.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-6-Version-3.jpg)
- What does the article set out to do?
- What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
- Are the central concepts clearly defined?
- How adequate is the evidence?
- How does the article fit into the literature and field?
- Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
- How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.
![review paper essay Step 1 Come up with...](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/b/ba/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-7-Version-3.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-7-Version-3.jpg)
- For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source
![review paper essay Step 3 Identify the article.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/f/f6/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-9.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-9.jpg)
- For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.
![review paper essay Step 4 Write the introduction.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/f/ff/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-10.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-10.jpg)
- Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
- End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.
![review paper essay Step 5 Summarize the article.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/4/49/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-11.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-11.jpg)
- Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
- Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.
![review paper essay Step 6 Write your critique.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/1/18/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-12.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-12.jpg)
- Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
- The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
- Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
- Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.
![review paper essay Step 7 Conclude the article review.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/a/ae/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-13.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-13.jpg)
- This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
- For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.
![review paper essay Step 8 Proofread.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/5/5b/Write-an-Article-Review-Step-14.jpg/v4-460px-Write-an-Article-Review-Step-14.jpg)
- Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.
![review paper essay review paper essay](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/e/e2/Research-Article-Review.png/340px-Research-Article-Review.png)
You Might Also Like
![review paper essay Write Articles](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/e/e6/Write-Articles-Step-28-Version-2.jpg/-crop-342-184-245px-Write-Articles-Step-28-Version-2.jpg)
- ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
- ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
- ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
- ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
- ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
- ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
- ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
- ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
- ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
- ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
- ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/
About This Article
![review paper essay Jake Adams](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/a/ab/Jake_Adams.png/-crop-100-100-100px-Jake_Adams.png)
If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No
- Send fan mail to authors
Reader Success Stories
![review paper essay Prince Asiedu-Gyan](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/b/b0/CommunityAvatar2.png/-crop-100-100-100px-CommunityAvatar2.png)
Prince Asiedu-Gyan
Apr 22, 2022
Did this article help you?
![review paper essay review paper essay](https://www.wikihow.com/images/0/04/Wpro_v01_0728x0180.jpg)
Sammy James
Sep 12, 2017
![review paper essay Juabin Matey](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/f/f2/CommunityAvatar3.png/-crop-100-100-100px-CommunityAvatar3.png)
Juabin Matey
Aug 30, 2017
![review paper essay Vanita Meghrajani](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/f/f5/CommunityAvatar4.png/-crop-72-72-72px-CommunityAvatar4.png)
Vanita Meghrajani
Jul 21, 2016
![review paper essay F. K.](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/f/f2/CommunityAvatar3.png/-crop-72-72-72px-CommunityAvatar3.png)
Nov 27, 2018
![review paper essay Do I Have a Dirty Mind Quiz](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/7/72/Dirty_mind_test.png/-crop-127-140-127px-Dirty_mind_test.png)
Featured Articles
![review paper essay Enjoy Your Preteen Years](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/9/9c/Wh_square_512_optimized.png/-crop-127-140-127px-Wh_square_512_optimized.png)
Trending Articles
![review paper essay Pirate Name Generator](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/a/ad/Pirate_gen_2.png/-crop-127-140-127px-Pirate_gen_2.png)
Watch Articles
![review paper essay Make Fluffy Pancakes](https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/3/39/Make-Fluffy-Pancakes-Step-14-Version-5.jpg/-crop-127-140-127px-Make-Fluffy-Pancakes-Step-14-Version-5.jpg)
- Terms of Use
- Privacy Policy
- Do Not Sell or Share My Info
- Not Selling Info
Get all the best how-tos!
Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter
Essay Papers Writing Online
Mastering the art of crafting a review essay – a comprehensive guide for writers.
![Mastering the Art of Crafting a Review Essay - A Comprehensive Guide for Writers How to write a review essay](https://studbaywritingvip.com/wp-content/images/how-to-write-a-review-essay.jpg)
Writing a review essay can be a challenging task, but with the right approach and structure, you can create a comprehensive and insightful piece of writing that engages your readers. Whether you are reviewing a book, a movie, a restaurant, or any other type of work, a well-written review essay can provide valuable insights and opinions that help your audience make informed decisions.
As you begin the process of writing a review essay, it is important to first understand the purpose of the review and the expectations of your audience. A review essay is not just a summary of the work you are reviewing; it is an analysis and evaluation that considers the strengths and weaknesses of the work, as well as its overall impact and significance.
In order to write a comprehensive review essay, you should start by introducing the work you are reviewing and providing some context for your review. This could include information about the author, director, or creator of the work, as well as the genre or category to which the work belongs. This introduction should also include your thesis statement, which outlines the main point or argument of your review.
Key Elements of a Review Essay
A review essay includes several key elements that are essential for creating a comprehensive and effective review. These elements help the reader gain a clear understanding of the subject matter and provide valuable insights and analysis. Here are some key elements to consider when writing a review essay:
Provide an overview of the topic and the importance of the review. | |
Summarize the main points, arguments, and key findings of the work being reviewed. | |
Provide an in-depth analysis and critical evaluation of the work’s strengths and weaknesses. | |
Compare the reviewed work with other relevant works in the field to provide context and perspective. | |
Conclude by summarizing the main points and offering your final thoughts on the work. |
Tips for Choosing a Topic
![review paper essay Tips for Choosing a Topic](https://studbaywritingvip.com/wp-content/images/how-to-write-a-review-essay-uso40ebe.jpg)
When selecting a topic for your review essay, consider the following tips:
Look for a subject that you are passionate about or curious to learn more about. This will make the writing process more engaging and enjoyable. | |
Make sure the topic is not too broad or too narrow. Find a balance that allows you to explore the subject in-depth without overwhelming yourself. | |
Look for recent publications, news articles, and scholarly sources to see what topics are trending or have sufficient research material available. | |
If you are having trouble choosing a topic, seek guidance from your instructor or supervisor. They may provide suggestions or insights to help you narrow down your options. | |
Write down a list of potential topics that interest you and align with the assignment requirements. Consider the pros and cons of each topic before making a final decision. |
By following these tips, you can choose a topic that will allow you to write a comprehensive and engaging review essay.
Research Strategies for a Review Essay
When writing a comprehensive review essay, it is crucial to employ effective research strategies to gather relevant information and support your arguments. Here are some key research strategies to consider:
1. Conduct a thorough literature review: Start by exploring existing literature on the topic you are reviewing. Look for scholarly articles, books, and other sources that provide valuable insights and information.
2. Use a variety of sources: It is essential to gather information from diverse sources to ensure a well-rounded review. Consider using academic journals, reputable websites, and other reliable sources.
3. Take notes and organize information: Keep track of important points, quotes, and data as you conduct your research. Organize your notes in a systematic way to facilitate the writing process.
4. Analyze and synthesize the information: Once you have gathered sufficient information, analyze and synthesize the key findings to identify trends, patterns, and varying perspectives on the topic.
5. Evaluate the credibility of sources: Be critical of the sources you use in your review essay. Consider the author’s credentials, publication date, and methodology to determine the credibility of the information.
By following these research strategies, you can produce a comprehensive review essay that is well-informed and impactful.
Structuring Your Review Essay
When structuring your review essay, it is important to organize your thoughts and arguments in a clear and logical manner. Here are some key steps to help you create a well-structured review:
1. Introduction:
Start your review essay with an engaging introduction that provides an overview of the topic and sets the stage for the rest of the review. Clearly state your thesis or main argument in this section.
2. Summary of the Work:
Provide a brief summary of the work you are reviewing, including key points, arguments, and themes. This will give your readers a clear understanding of the work before you delve into your analysis.
3. Critical Analysis:
In this section, analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the work. Discuss any key themes, arguments, or ideas presented by the author and provide evidence to support your analysis.
4. Comparison and Contrast:
Consider how the work you are reviewing compares and contrasts with other works in the field. Discuss similarities and differences and highlight any unique contributions made by the author.
5. Conclusion:
Conclude your review essay by summarizing your main points and reiterating your thesis. Reflect on the significance of the work and its implications for the field.
By following these steps, you can create a well-structured review essay that is engaging and insightful for your readers.
Writing a Strong Thesis Statement
A thesis statement is the central idea of your review essay, providing a concise summary of the main point you will be making. It should be specific, clear, and arguable to engage your readers and guide your writing process. A strong thesis statement sets the tone for the entire essay and informs readers about the focus and perspective of your review.
Analyzing and Evaluating Sources
When writing a comprehensive review essay, it is crucial to thoroughly analyze and evaluate the sources you use. This involves assessing the credibility, relevance, and reliability of each source to ensure that your essay is well-supported and based on sound evidence.
Credibility: Consider the author’s qualifications, the publication date, and the reputation of the source. Look for sources from reputable publishers, academic journals, or experts in the field.
Relevance: Evaluate how well each source contributes to your overall argument and thesis. Make sure the information provided is directly related to the topic you are discussing.
Reliability: Check for bias, misinformation, or inaccuracies in the sources you use. Cross-reference information from multiple sources to verify its accuracy and consistency.
By carefully analyzing and evaluating your sources, you can ensure that your review essay is well-researched and persuasive.
Developing a Coherent Argument
When writing a review essay, it is essential to develop a coherent argument that ties together the various aspects of your analysis. Your argument should be clear, logical, and supported by evidence from the text or material you are reviewing. To develop a coherent argument, consider the following strategies:
1. | Begin by crafting a strong thesis statement that clearly presents your main argument or point of view. This statement should guide the rest of your review and provide a roadmap for your readers. |
2. | Organize your review essay in a logical manner, with each paragraph or section contributing to the overall argument. Use transitions to connect your ideas and ensure a smooth flow of thought. |
3. | Support your argument with specific evidence from the text, examples, or other sources. Analyze and interpret this evidence to demonstrate how it relates to your thesis statement and reinforces your argument. |
4. | Acknowledge and address potential counterarguments to your thesis. Anticipating and refuting opposing viewpoints can strengthen your argument and demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the topic. |
5. | Conclude your review essay by summarizing your main argument and restating the significance of your analysis. Leave your readers with a lasting impression and encourage further reflection on the topic. |
By following these steps and developing a coherent argument, you can write a comprehensive review essay that engages your readers and effectively communicates your insights and analysis.
Editing and Proofreading Techniques
Editing and proofreading are crucial steps in the writing process. After completing a comprehensive review essay, it is essential to carefully edit and proofread your work to ensure clarity, correctness, and coherence.
Here are some techniques to help you polish your review essay:
- Read Aloud: Reading your essay aloud can help you identify awkward phrasing, errors, or inconsistencies.
- Use Editing Tools: Utilize spelling and grammar checkers, as well as style guides, to enhance the quality of your writing.
- Take Breaks: Step away from your essay for a while before revisiting it to gain a fresh perspective and catch overlooked mistakes.
- Seek Feedback: Ask a peer or mentor to review your essay and provide constructive criticism.
By incorporating these editing and proofreading techniques , you can elevate the quality of your comprehensive review essay and ensure that your ideas are effectively communicated to your readers.
Related Post
How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.
Page Content
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.
![review paper essay Reviewing with Empathy](https://authorservices.wiley.com/asset/Reviewing-with-Empathy-300x714.jpg)
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:
- What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
- How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
- Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
- Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
- If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
- If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?
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:
- Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
- The use of a discredited method
- Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study
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:
- The sampling in analytical papers
- The sufficient use of control experiments
- The precision of process data
- The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
- The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
- That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups
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:
- Insufficient data
- Unclear data tables
- Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
- Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made
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:
- Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
- Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
- Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well
The Second Paragraph
This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:
- Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
- Are the methods used appropriate?
- Do the data support the conclusions?
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:
- Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
- Try to group similar concerns or praise together
- If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
- Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your 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:
- Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
- Any factual errors
- Any invalid arguments
You may also wish to consider:
- Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
- Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
- Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
- Is the paper an appropriate length?
- Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?
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:
- Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
- Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
- Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?
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:
- Sets out the argument
- Summarizes recent research related to the topic
- Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
- Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
- Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript
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:
- Control experiments
- Repeated analyses
- Repeated experiments
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:
- Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
- The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
- Ethical standards were maintained
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:
- They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
- They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
- Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
- The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected
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:
- The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
- The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
- There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?
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:
- Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
- Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
- If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
- References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable
Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:
- Helpful to the reader
- Fair to competing authors
- Not over-reliant on self-citation
- Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment
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:
- Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
- Highlight important findings sufficiently?
- Present the most interesting data?
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.
- Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
- Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
- Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
- Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
- Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
- State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked
Major Issues
- Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
- Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
- Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
- If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
- Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
- Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section
Minor Issues
- Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
- Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
- Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
- Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not
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:
- Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
- Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
- Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
- If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
- Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated
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:
- Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
- Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
- Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal
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
The full article is available below.
You will also receive a follow-up email containing a link so you can come back to it later.
How Many Graded Essays Are Included in BARBRI Bar Review?
Last Updated: Aug 28, 2024
![review paper essay article image](https://www.barbri.com/documents/107634/0/barbri_student-typing-at-computer-closeup_article.png/6aaf786a-d278-5abe-187e-bb467f8244ca?t=1718227007103)
By Steve Levin, BARBRI Sr. Director of Essay Testing
When shopping and comparing bar prep courses, many students ask us “how many graded essays are included with BARBRI?” The short, sweet answer is that most BARBRI bar prep options include an unlimited number of graded essays.
Now for the more complicated answer. I know that having an unlimited number of graded essays, as you get in most BARBRI bar prep options, sounds really great. However, an unguided and purely “unlimited” essay grading system can actually stunt your progress.
Let’s talk bar exam essay strategy
Before we get too caught up in numbers, let’s first talk overall bar exam essay writing strategy. As you likely know, the written portion is critical to your overall bar exam score in every state and, in some states, is weighted even more heavily than the MBE. Get the details for your jurisdiction in the BARBRI Bar Exam Digest.
What you might not know is that writing essays for the bar exam is very different from writing essays for law school. For example, in most states, there’s actually a “right” answer. That’s not true in many law school essays. Therefore, you must acquire and strengthen your bar exam essay skills during bar prep. Your goal is to learn to write the best essays possible, as quickly as possible, to perform well under the timed conditions of the exam.
First build good bar exam writing habits
In our experience, we’ve seen that submitting practice essay after essay before receiving and digesting feedback actually reinforces bad habits and wastes time. For this reason, an unguided and purely “unlimited” essay grading system can actually stunt your progress. This is why BARBRI uses a Directed Essay Grading strategy.
BARBRI Directed Essay Grading starts online with Essay Architect. You’ll first learn to efficiently read bar exam essay questions and construct quality answers … and you’ll receive immediate feedback.
After working with Essay Architect online, you’ll put “pen to paper” and write answers to assigned practice essays. Some of these assignments require self-analysis by comparing your answers to model answers or score sheets. We see a very strong correlation between bar passage and the practice of writing your essay answer and comparing your answer to a provided model answer. You’ll have access to 100 past bar exam essays for review and self-grading. It’s a very active process and one of the activities that matters most in passing the bar .
After working with Essay Architect online and self-analyzing written essays, you’ll submit essays for expert feedback. BARBRI trained bar exam writing experts will provide feedback that will help you understand where you will capture points, where you may lose points and how to frame a better essay answer.
You’ll incorporate the feedback into future essay submissions, moving you along an upward trajectory of continuous bar exam writing improvement.
Don’t wait to submit essays for grading
When I ask students who didn’t pass the bar on their first try whether they submitted practice essays for grading during bar prep, usually the answer is “not many” or “no.” When I ask them why they didn’t take advantage of this powerful bar prep tool, many told me they felt they didn’t know the law well enough to write an essay for submission.
Practice essays are a great way to learn how to write better essays AND continue to learn the law. Don’t cheat yourself out of one of your best learning opportunities because you don’t feel ready.
BARBRI trained bar exam writing experts can help you learn the substance you need as well as refine your essay writing skills. The individual feedback will help you understand where you will capture points, where you may lose points, and how to frame a better essay answer.
Submitting essays as they are assigned during bar review, over time, will allow you to incorporate feedback into your next practice essay. You’ll move along an upward trajectory of continuous improvement and bar exam readiness.
Want more bar exam study tips? Get them here.
Unlock the Full Article
Tell us a little about yourself and your goals to display the full article and gain access to more resources relevant to your needs.
Interesting in reading more? Fill out the form to read the full article.
How the World Became Rich by Mark Koyama and Jared Rubin and Slouching Towards Utopia, by J. Bradford DeLong: A Review Essay
This essay provides a review of two important recent books on economic growth: How the World Became Rich by Mark Koyama and Jared Rubin and Slouching Towards Utopia, by J. Bradford DeLong. Each book is noteworthy for its erudition and breadth. I explore strengths and weaknesses of these books and make some proposals on new ways to conceptualize and study long run socioeconomic development. My discussion emphasizes the importance of contingency in determining long run inequalities across countries as well the potential for ideas from complexity theory to augment standard growth modelling.
Financial support from the James M. and Cathleen D. Stone Foundation is appreciated. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
MARC RIS BibTeΧ
Download Citation Data
More from NBER
In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .
![review paper essay 2024, 16th Annual Feldstein Lecture, Cecilia E. Rouse," Lessons for Economists from the Pandemic" cover slide](https://www.nber.org/sites/default/files/styles/promo/public/2024-07/SI%202024%20Martin%20Feldstein.png?itok=iMIwiSar)
Peer Reviewed
GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation
Article metrics.
![review paper essay CrossRef](https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/themes/ristretto/img/crossref-logo.png)
CrossRef Citations
Altmetric Score
PDF Downloads
Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research. Our analysis of a selection of questionable GPT-fabricated scientific papers found in Google Scholar shows that many are about applied, often controversial topics susceptible to disinformation: the environment, health, and computing. The resulting enhanced potential for malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base, particularly in politically divisive domains, is a growing concern.
Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Sweden
Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Sweden
Division of Environmental Communication, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
![review paper essay](https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/chat-gpt-8282265_1280-copy.png)
Research Questions
- Where are questionable publications produced with generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) that can be found via Google Scholar published or deposited?
- What are the main characteristics of these publications in relation to predominant subject categories?
- How are these publications spread in the research infrastructure for scholarly communication?
- How is the role of the scholarly communication infrastructure challenged in maintaining public trust in science and evidence through inappropriate use of generative AI?
research note Summary
- A sample of scientific papers with signs of GPT-use found on Google Scholar was retrieved, downloaded, and analyzed using a combination of qualitative coding and descriptive statistics. All papers contained at least one of two common phrases returned by conversational agents that use large language models (LLM) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Google Search was then used to determine the extent to which copies of questionable, GPT-fabricated papers were available in various repositories, archives, citation databases, and social media platforms.
- Roughly two-thirds of the retrieved papers were found to have been produced, at least in part, through undisclosed, potentially deceptive use of GPT. The majority (57%) of these questionable papers dealt with policy-relevant subjects (i.e., environment, health, computing), susceptible to influence operations. Most were available in several copies on different domains (e.g., social media, archives, and repositories).
- Two main risks arise from the increasingly common use of GPT to (mass-)produce fake, scientific publications. First, the abundance of fabricated “studies” seeping into all areas of the research infrastructure threatens to overwhelm the scholarly communication system and jeopardize the integrity of the scientific record. A second risk lies in the increased possibility that convincingly scientific-looking content was in fact deceitfully created with AI tools and is also optimized to be retrieved by publicly available academic search engines, particularly Google Scholar. However small, this possibility and awareness of it risks undermining the basis for trust in scientific knowledge and poses serious societal risks.
Implications
The use of ChatGPT to generate text for academic papers has raised concerns about research integrity. Discussion of this phenomenon is ongoing in editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, and on social media (Bom, 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2024; Thorp, 2023). There are now several lists of papers suspected of GPT misuse, and new papers are constantly being added. 1 See for example Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . While many legitimate uses of GPT for research and academic writing exist (Huang & Tan, 2023; Kitamura, 2023; Lund et al., 2023), its undeclared use—beyond proofreading—has potentially far-reaching implications for both science and society, but especially for their relationship. It, therefore, seems important to extend the discussion to one of the most accessible and well-known intermediaries between science, but also certain types of misinformation, and the public, namely Google Scholar, also in response to the legitimate concerns that the discussion of generative AI and misinformation needs to be more nuanced and empirically substantiated (Simon et al., 2023).
Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com , is an easy-to-use academic search engine. It is available for free, and its index is extensive (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). It is also often touted as a credible source for academic literature and even recommended in library guides, by media and information literacy initiatives, and fact checkers (Tripodi et al., 2023). However, Google Scholar lacks the transparency and adherence to standards that usually characterize citation databases. Instead, Google Scholar uses automated crawlers, like Google’s web search engine (Martín-Martín et al., 2021), and the inclusion criteria are based on primarily technical standards, allowing any individual author—with or without scientific affiliation—to upload papers to be indexed (Google Scholar Help, n.d.). It has been shown that Google Scholar is susceptible to manipulation through citation exploits (Antkare, 2020) and by providing access to fake scientific papers (Dadkhah et al., 2017). A large part of Google Scholar’s index consists of publications from established scientific journals or other forms of quality-controlled, scholarly literature. However, the index also contains a large amount of gray literature, including student papers, working papers, reports, preprint servers, and academic networking sites, as well as material from so-called “questionable” academic journals, including paper mills. The search interface does not offer the possibility to filter the results meaningfully by material type, publication status, or form of quality control, such as limiting the search to peer-reviewed material.
To understand the occurrence of ChatGPT (co-)authored work in Google Scholar’s index, we scraped it for publications, including one of two common ChatGPT responses (see Appendix A) that we encountered on social media and in media reports (DeGeurin, 2024). The results of our descriptive statistical analyses showed that around 62% did not declare the use of GPTs. Most of these GPT-fabricated papers were found in non-indexed journals and working papers, but some cases included research published in mainstream scientific journals and conference proceedings. 2 Indexed journals mean scholarly journals indexed by abstract and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, where the indexation implies journals with high scientific quality. Non-indexed journals are journals that fall outside of this indexation. More than half (57%) of these GPT-fabricated papers concerned policy-relevant subject areas susceptible to influence operations. To avoid increasing the visibility of these publications, we abstained from referencing them in this research note. However, we have made the data available in the Harvard Dataverse repository.
The publications were related to three issue areas—health (14.5%), environment (19.5%) and computing (23%)—with key terms such “healthcare,” “COVID-19,” or “infection”for health-related papers, and “analysis,” “sustainable,” and “global” for environment-related papers. In several cases, the papers had titles that strung together general keywords and buzzwords, thus alluding to very broad and current research. These terms included “biology,” “telehealth,” “climate policy,” “diversity,” and “disrupting,” to name just a few. While the study’s scope and design did not include a detailed analysis of which parts of the articles included fabricated text, our dataset did contain the surrounding sentences for each occurrence of the suspicious phrases that formed the basis for our search and subsequent selection. Based on that, we can say that the phrases occurred in most sections typically found in scientific publications, including the literature review, methods, conceptual and theoretical frameworks, background, motivation or societal relevance, and even discussion. This was confirmed during the joint coding, where we read and discussed all articles. It became clear that not just the text related to the telltale phrases was created by GPT, but that almost all articles in our sample of questionable articles likely contained traces of GPT-fabricated text everywhere.
Evidence hacking and backfiring effects
Generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) can be used to produce texts that mimic scientific writing. These texts, when made available online—as we demonstrate—leak into the databases of academic search engines and other parts of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication. This development exacerbates problems that were already present with less sophisticated text generators (Antkare, 2020; Cabanac & Labbé, 2021). Yet, the public release of ChatGPT in 2022, together with the way Google Scholar works, has increased the likelihood of lay people (e.g., media, politicians, patients, students) coming across questionable (or even entirely GPT-fabricated) papers and other problematic research findings. Previous research has emphasized that the ability to determine the value and status of scientific publications for lay people is at stake when misleading articles are passed off as reputable (Haider & Åström, 2017) and that systematic literature reviews risk being compromised (Dadkhah et al., 2017). It has also been highlighted that Google Scholar, in particular, can be and has been exploited for manipulating the evidence base for politically charged issues and to fuel conspiracy narratives (Tripodi et al., 2023). Both concerns are likely to be magnified in the future, increasing the risk of what we suggest calling evidence hacking —the strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base.
The authority of quality-controlled research as evidence to support legislation, policy, politics, and other forms of decision-making is undermined by the presence of undeclared GPT-fabricated content in publications professing to be scientific. Due to the large number of archives, repositories, mirror sites, and shadow libraries to which they spread, there is a clear risk that GPT-fabricated, questionable papers will reach audiences even after a possible retraction. There are considerable technical difficulties involved in identifying and tracing computer-fabricated papers (Cabanac & Labbé, 2021; Dadkhah et al., 2023; Jones, 2024), not to mention preventing and curbing their spread and uptake.
However, as the rise of the so-called anti-vaxx movement during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing obstruction and denial of climate change show, retracting erroneous publications often fuels conspiracies and increases the following of these movements rather than stopping them. To illustrate this mechanism, climate deniers frequently question established scientific consensus by pointing to other, supposedly scientific, studies that support their claims. Usually, these are poorly executed, not peer-reviewed, based on obsolete data, or even fraudulent (Dunlap & Brulle, 2020). A similar strategy is successful in the alternative epistemic world of the global anti-vaccination movement (Carrion, 2018) and the persistence of flawed and questionable publications in the scientific record already poses significant problems for health research, policy, and lawmakers, and thus for society as a whole (Littell et al., 2024). Considering that a person’s support for “doing your own research” is associated with increased mistrust in scientific institutions (Chinn & Hasell, 2023), it will be of utmost importance to anticipate and consider such backfiring effects already when designing a technical solution, when suggesting industry or legal regulation, and in the planning of educational measures.
Recommendations
Solutions should be based on simultaneous considerations of technical, educational, and regulatory approaches, as well as incentives, including social ones, across the entire research infrastructure. Paying attention to how these approaches and incentives relate to each other can help identify points and mechanisms for disruption. Recognizing fraudulent academic papers must happen alongside understanding how they reach their audiences and what reasons there might be for some of these papers successfully “sticking around.” A possible way to mitigate some of the risks associated with GPT-fabricated scholarly texts finding their way into academic search engine results would be to provide filtering options for facets such as indexed journals, gray literature, peer-review, and similar on the interface of publicly available academic search engines. Furthermore, evaluation tools for indexed journals 3 Such as LiU Journal CheckUp, https://ep.liu.se/JournalCheckup/default.aspx?lang=eng . could be integrated into the graphical user interfaces and the crawlers of these academic search engines. To enable accountability, it is important that the index (database) of such a search engine is populated according to criteria that are transparent, open to scrutiny, and appropriate to the workings of science and other forms of academic research. Moreover, considering that Google Scholar has no real competitor, there is a strong case for establishing a freely accessible, non-specialized academic search engine that is not run for commercial reasons but for reasons of public interest. Such measures, together with educational initiatives aimed particularly at policymakers, science communicators, journalists, and other media workers, will be crucial to reducing the possibilities for and effects of malicious manipulation or evidence hacking. It is important not to present this as a technical problem that exists only because of AI text generators but to relate it to the wider concerns in which it is embedded. These range from a largely dysfunctional scholarly publishing system (Haider & Åström, 2017) and academia’s “publish or perish” paradigm to Google’s near-monopoly and ideological battles over the control of information and ultimately knowledge. Any intervention is likely to have systemic effects; these effects need to be considered and assessed in advance and, ideally, followed up on.
Our study focused on a selection of papers that were easily recognizable as fraudulent. We used this relatively small sample as a magnifying glass to examine, delineate, and understand a problem that goes beyond the scope of the sample itself, which however points towards larger concerns that require further investigation. The work of ongoing whistleblowing initiatives 4 Such as Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . , recent media reports of journal closures (Subbaraman, 2024), or GPT-related changes in word use and writing style (Cabanac et al., 2021; Stokel-Walker, 2024) suggest that we only see the tip of the iceberg. There are already more sophisticated cases (Dadkhah et al., 2023) as well as cases involving fabricated images (Gu et al., 2022). Our analysis shows that questionable and potentially manipulative GPT-fabricated papers permeate the research infrastructure and are likely to become a widespread phenomenon. Our findings underline that the risk of fake scientific papers being used to maliciously manipulate evidence (see Dadkhah et al., 2017) must be taken seriously. Manipulation may involve undeclared automatic summaries of texts, inclusion in literature reviews, explicit scientific claims, or the concealment of errors in studies so that they are difficult to detect in peer review. However, the mere possibility of these things happening is a significant risk in its own right that can be strategically exploited and will have ramifications for trust in and perception of science. Society’s methods of evaluating sources and the foundations of media and information literacy are under threat and public trust in science is at risk of further erosion, with far-reaching consequences for society in dealing with information disorders. To address this multifaceted problem, we first need to understand why it exists and proliferates.
Finding 1: 139 GPT-fabricated, questionable papers were found and listed as regular results on the Google Scholar results page. Non-indexed journals dominate.
Most questionable papers we found were in non-indexed journals or were working papers, but we did also find some in established journals, publications, conferences, and repositories. We found a total of 139 papers with a suspected deceptive use of ChatGPT or similar LLM applications (see Table 1). Out of these, 19 were in indexed journals, 89 were in non-indexed journals, 19 were student papers found in university databases, and 12 were working papers (mostly in preprint databases). Table 1 divides these papers into categories. Health and environment papers made up around 34% (47) of the sample. Of these, 66% were present in non-indexed journals.
Indexed journals* | 5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 19 |
Non-indexed journals | 18 | 18 | 13 | 40 | 89 |
Student papers | 4 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 19 |
Working papers | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 12 |
Total | 32 | 27 | 20 | 60 | 139 |
Finding 2: GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are disseminated online, permeating the research infrastructure for scholarly communication, often in multiple copies. Applied topics with practical implications dominate.
The 20 papers concerning health-related issues are distributed across 20 unique domains, accounting for 46 URLs. The 27 papers dealing with environmental issues can be found across 26 unique domains, accounting for 56 URLs. Most of the identified papers exist in multiple copies and have already spread to several archives, repositories, and social media. It would be difficult, or impossible, to remove them from the scientific record.
As apparent from Table 2, GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are seeping into most parts of the online research infrastructure for scholarly communication. Platforms on which identified papers have appeared include ResearchGate, ORCiD, Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology (JPTCP), Easychair, Frontiers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (IEEE), and X/Twitter. Thus, even if they are retracted from their original source, it will prove very difficult to track, remove, or even just mark them up on other platforms. Moreover, unless regulated, Google Scholar will enable their continued and most likely unlabeled discoverability.
Environment | researchgate.net (13) | orcid.org (4) | easychair.org (3) | ijope.com* (3) | publikasiindonesia.id (3) |
Health | researchgate.net (15) | ieee.org (4) | twitter.com (3) | jptcp.com** (2) | frontiersin.org (2) |
A word rain visualization (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023), which combines word prominences through TF-IDF 5 Term frequency–inverse document frequency , a method for measuring the significance of a word in a document compared to its frequency across all documents in a collection. scores with semantic similarity of the full texts of our sample of GPT-generated articles that fall into the “Environment” and “Health” categories, reflects the two categories in question. However, as can be seen in Figure 1, it also reveals overlap and sub-areas. The y-axis shows word prominences through word positions and font sizes, while the x-axis indicates semantic similarity. In addition to a certain amount of overlap, this reveals sub-areas, which are best described as two distinct events within the word rain. The event on the left bundles terms related to the development and management of health and healthcare with “challenges,” “impact,” and “potential of artificial intelligence”emerging as semantically related terms. Terms related to research infrastructures, environmental, epistemic, and technological concepts are arranged further down in the same event (e.g., “system,” “climate,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” “learning,” “education,” “sustainable”). A second distinct event further to the right bundles terms associated with fish farming and aquatic medicinal plants, highlighting the presence of an aquaculture cluster. Here, the prominence of groups of terms such as “used,” “model,” “-based,” and “traditional” suggests the presence of applied research on these topics. The two events making up the word rain visualization, are linked by a less dominant but overlapping cluster of terms related to “energy” and “water.”
![review paper essay](https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/figure-1.png)
The bar chart of the terms in the paper subset (see Figure 2) complements the word rain visualization by depicting the most prominent terms in the full texts along the y-axis. Here, word prominences across health and environment papers are arranged descendingly, where values outside parentheses are TF-IDF values (relative frequencies) and values inside parentheses are raw term frequencies (absolute frequencies).
![review paper essay](https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/figure-2.png)
Finding 3: Google Scholar presents results from quality-controlled and non-controlled citation databases on the same interface, providing unfiltered access to GPT-fabricated questionable papers.
Google Scholar’s central position in the publicly accessible scholarly communication infrastructure, as well as its lack of standards, transparency, and accountability in terms of inclusion criteria, has potentially serious implications for public trust in science. This is likely to exacerbate the already-known potential to exploit Google Scholar for evidence hacking (Tripodi et al., 2023) and will have implications for any attempts to retract or remove fraudulent papers from their original publication venues. Any solution must consider the entirety of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication and the interplay of different actors, interests, and incentives.
We searched and scraped Google Scholar using the Python library Scholarly (Cholewiak et al., 2023) for papers that included specific phrases known to be common responses from ChatGPT and similar applications with the same underlying model (GPT3.5 or GPT4): “as of my last knowledge update” and/or “I don’t have access to real-time data” (see Appendix A). This facilitated the identification of papers that likely used generative AI to produce text, resulting in 227 retrieved papers. The papers’ bibliographic information was automatically added to a spreadsheet and downloaded into Zotero. 6 An open-source reference manager, https://zotero.org .
We employed multiple coding (Barbour, 2001) to classify the papers based on their content. First, we jointly assessed whether the paper was suspected of fraudulent use of ChatGPT (or similar) based on how the text was integrated into the papers and whether the paper was presented as original research output or the AI tool’s role was acknowledged. Second, in analyzing the content of the papers, we continued the multiple coding by classifying the fraudulent papers into four categories identified during an initial round of analysis—health, environment, computing, and others—and then determining which subjects were most affected by this issue (see Table 1). Out of the 227 retrieved papers, 88 papers were written with legitimate and/or declared use of GPTs (i.e., false positives, which were excluded from further analysis), and 139 papers were written with undeclared and/or fraudulent use (i.e., true positives, which were included in further analysis). The multiple coding was conducted jointly by all authors of the present article, who collaboratively coded and cross-checked each other’s interpretation of the data simultaneously in a shared spreadsheet file. This was done to single out coding discrepancies and settle coding disagreements, which in turn ensured methodological thoroughness and analytical consensus (see Barbour, 2001). Redoing the category coding later based on our established coding schedule, we achieved an intercoder reliability (Cohen’s kappa) of 0.806 after eradicating obvious differences.
The ranking algorithm of Google Scholar prioritizes highly cited and older publications (Martín-Martín et al., 2016). Therefore, the position of the articles on the search engine results pages was not particularly informative, considering the relatively small number of results in combination with the recency of the publications. Only the query “as of my last knowledge update” had more than two search engine result pages. On those, questionable articles with undeclared use of GPTs were evenly distributed across all result pages (min: 4, max: 9, mode: 8), with the proportion of undeclared use being slightly higher on average on later search result pages.
To understand how the papers making fraudulent use of generative AI were disseminated online, we programmatically searched for the paper titles (with exact string matching) in Google Search from our local IP address (see Appendix B) using the googlesearch – python library(Vikramaditya, 2020). We manually verified each search result to filter out false positives—results that were not related to the paper—and then compiled the most prominent URLs by field. This enabled the identification of other platforms through which the papers had been spread. We did not, however, investigate whether copies had spread into SciHub or other shadow libraries, or if they were referenced in Wikipedia.
We used descriptive statistics to count the prevalence of the number of GPT-fabricated papers across topics and venues and top domains by subject. The pandas software library for the Python programming language (The pandas development team, 2024) was used for this part of the analysis. Based on the multiple coding, paper occurrences were counted in relation to their categories, divided into indexed journals, non-indexed journals, student papers, and working papers. The schemes, subdomains, and subdirectories of the URL strings were filtered out while top-level domains and second-level domains were kept, which led to normalizing domain names. This, in turn, allowed the counting of domain frequencies in the environment and health categories. To distinguish word prominences and meanings in the environment and health-related GPT-fabricated questionable papers, a semantically-aware word cloud visualization was produced through the use of a word rain (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023) for full-text versions of the papers. Font size and y-axis positions indicate word prominences through TF-IDF scores for the environment and health papers (also visualized in a separate bar chart with raw term frequencies in parentheses), and words are positioned along the x-axis to reflect semantic similarity (Skeppstedt et al., 2024), with an English Word2vec skip gram model space (Fares et al., 2017). An English stop word list was used, along with a manually produced list including terms such as “https,” “volume,” or “years.”
- Artificial Intelligence
- / Search engines
Cite this Essay
Haider, J., Söderström, K. R., Ekström, B., & Rödl, M. (2024). GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156
- / Appendix B
Bibliography
Antkare, I. (2020). Ike Antkare, his publications, and those of his disciples. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics (pp. 177–200). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0018
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ , 322 (7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
Bom, H.-S. H. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academic writing: A roundtable discussion. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging , 57 (4), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-023-00809-2
Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72 (12), 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495
Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751
Carrion, M. L. (2018). “You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science , 27 (3), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728024
Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala (2023). CDHUppsala/word-rain [Computer software]. https://github.com/CDHUppsala/word-rain
Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2023). Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School (HSK) Misinformation Review, 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-117
Cholewiak, S. A., Ipeirotis, P., Silva, V., & Kannawadi, A. (2023). SCHOLARLY: Simple access to Google Scholar authors and citation using Python (1.5.0) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764801
Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling , 11 (2), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6
Dadkhah, M., Oermann, M. H., Hegedüs, M., Raman, R., & Dávid, L. D. (2023). Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis , 10 (4), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090
DeGeurin, M. (2024, March 19). AI-generated nonsense is leaking into scientific journals. Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/technology/ai-generated-text-scientific-journals/
Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2020). Sources and amplifiers of climate change denial. In D.C. Holmes & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 49–61). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00013
Fares, M., Kutuzov, A., Oepen, S., & Velldal, E. (2017). Word vectors, reuse, and replicability: Towards a community repository of large-text resources. In J. Tiedemann & N. Tahmasebi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 271–276). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0237
Google Scholar Help. (n.d.). Inclusion guidelines for webmasters . https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html
Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., & Qiu, J. (2022). AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns , 3 (7), 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods , 11 (2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Haider, J., & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “Sting” in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 68 (2), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669
Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research , 13 (4), 1148–1154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164801/
Jones, N. (2024). How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature , 626 (8000), 697–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00372-6
Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology , 307 (2), e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171
Littell, J. H., Abel, K. M., Biggs, M. A., Blum, R. W., Foster, D. G., Haddad, L. B., Major, B., Munk-Olsen, T., Polis, C. B., Robinson, G. E., Rocca, C. H., Russo, N. F., Steinberg, J. R., Stewart, D. E., Stotland, N. L., Upadhyay, U. D., & Ditzhuijzen, J. van. (2024). Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes. BMJ , 384 , e076518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076518
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. Scientometrics , 107 , 1477–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1917-2
Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics , 126 (1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023). Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4 (5). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-127
Skeppstedt, M., Ahltorp, M., Kucher, K., & Lindström, M. (2024). From word clouds to Word Rain: Revisiting the classic word cloud to visualize climate change texts. Information Visualization , 23 (3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14738716241236188
Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Vetenskapsrådet.
Stokel-Walker, C. (2024, May 1.). AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/
Subbaraman, N. (2024, May 14). Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures: Wiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraud. The Wall Street Journal . https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc
The pandas development team. (2024). pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (v2.2.2) [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10957263
Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science , 379 (6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
Tripodi, F. B., Garcia, L. C., & Marwick, A. E. (2023). ‘Do your own research’: Affordance activation and disinformation spread. Information, Communication & Society , 27 (6), 1212–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2245869
Vikramaditya, N. (2020). Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch [Computer software]. https://github.com/Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch
This research has been supported by Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the research program Mistra Environmental Communication (Haider, Ekström, Rödl) and the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [2020.0004] (Söderström).
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
The research described in this article was carried out under Swedish legislation. According to the relevant EU and Swedish legislation (2003:460) on the ethical review of research involving humans (“Ethical Review Act”), the research reported on here is not subject to authorization by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (“etikprövningsmyndigheten”) (SRC, 2017).
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.
Data Availability
All data needed to replicate this study are available at the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WUVD8X
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the article manuscript as well as the editorial group of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review for their thoughtful feedback and input.
Different Aspects of Heterogeneity in the Crypto-Asset Market: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies
31 Pages Posted: 6 Sep 2024
Damian Zięba
University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences
Date Written: September 04, 2024
This study examines over 200 studies about the crypto-asset market where the words "heterogeneity" or "time-varying" appear in the title, keywords, or abstract. This way the search query captures the studies that explicitly identify a heterogeneous character of this market. The three main areas of heterogeneity identified are related to the asset-wise, time-varying, and time-frequency domain. The main topics where the heterogeneity is identified refer to the connectedness within the crypto-asset market, connectedness with the other asset classes, including a particular focus on the COVID-19 period, and sentiment analysis. Additionally, it is argued that the time-variant market behavior is related to the cyclical bubbles appearing after the Bitcoin halving period.
Keywords: cryptocurrency, crypto-asset, heterogeneity, time-varying properties, SLR
JEL Classification: G15, G19
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Damian Zięba (Contact Author)
University of warsaw, faculty of economic sciences ( email ).
ul. Dluga 44/50 Warsaw, Mazowieckie 00-241 Poland
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Paper statistics, related ejournals, cryptocurrency research ejournal.
Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic
Emerging Markets Economics: Environmental & Social Aspects eJournal
Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic
Alternative & Distressed Asset Investing eJournal
Investing ejournal.
The Sunday Papers
Sundays are for more cat. She’s reached the “follow me into the bathroom when I go downstairs at night for a wee” stage, but still won’t come upstairs - which means I have to leave her alone for long periods while I work, which makes me feel bad. Before I unsuccessfully arrange yet more treats on the stairs, let’s read this week’s best writing about games (and game related things!)
“The eagerness to grave dance on unpopular games has become a bad habit” writes Tyler Wilde for PC Gamer .
That jubilation over Concord's low turnout—it apparently cracked the top 50 best sellers on the PS Store over the weekend—derives to some degree from an I-told-you-so sense of justice: the idea that out-of-touch, creatively bankrupt executives are cynically chasing trends, and that the rest of us would've had the common sense to avoid releasing a Concord, a Marvel's Avengers, a Suicide Squad, a Gotham Knights, or that perplexing Gollum game. But it's not actually that easy to know why one game succeeds and another doesn't. The devs at Firewalk Studios, many of whom are ex-Bungie, have made a game in the genre they have experience in and released it without the free-to-play monetization we so often complain about, which isn't a cynical or underhanded thing to do. But concurrency numbers have, in some situations, acquired a moral quality: If you release an unpopular game, everyone is suddenly morally justified to shame and embarrass you, whether it's because all big budget games are bad, or live service games are bad, or you did too much woke—pick one.
Madeline Blondeau wrote about “How The Sega Genesis Made Weird Work” for Paste . You have an Altered Beast header, I click.
Of course, Sega wasn’t the only restaurant with red sauce. Third-party developers would push the boundaries of acceptable carnage through the early ‘90s. Namco, for example, was able to resuscitate its grim 1988 brawler, Splatterhouse, into a pair of ambitious and frequently disgusting titles. While the initial follow-up, Splatterhouse 2, was a polished re-do of the first game, the third entry pushed the boundaries of both its genre and its platform. This was not only due to the content, which is arguably the most extreme in the series, but also in its non-linear progression and four branching endings. These endings were exceedingly dark and featured the player’s death, spousal loss, and infanticide—far from a triumphant victory. While not the cited reason for controversy that would go to define the Genesis, gruesome titles like the Splatterhouse games nevertheless had a home on the platform and moved the needle in terms of what was possible to depict in electronic entertainment.
Valued RPS reader #4478 highlighted this IGN piece in the comments last week. “A Prominent Accessibility Advocate Worked With Studios and Inspired Change. But She Never Actually Existed,” writes Grant Stoner.
Banks’ death marked a significant loss for the video game accessibility community. She regularly interacted with developers from studios like Ubisoft and The Coalition, pushing for better options and designs. She helped to revolutionize games journalism through the creation of Can I Play That, a site dedicated to the coverage of accessibility and the disabled perspective. An award was even named after her posthumously, to be given to disabled individuals in games that uplift their communities and educate others on the importance of accessibility. However, in the years since Banks’ alleged death, mounting evidence and accounts from those close to her work suggest that she was not the person she claimed to be. In fact, some are convinced that Banks may never have existed at all.
Here’s a largely useless but commendable haunted banana prank . I haven’t read this study on lucid dreaming and virtual avatars but it looks interesting because it has some interesting words in the title. Here’s a unscientific but fun video about the cultural perception of Goblins . Here’s an older Rhystic Studies video about Magic’s Chaos Orb video I missed when it came out - great anecdote near the start. Music this week is Lights From The Gate by Mountain Realm, preferably while playing one of Grey Gnome Games ’s nifty dungeons-in-a-tin. Have a great weekend!
Read this next
- Warhammer modder's new strategy RPG Whispers Of The Eyeless is Darkest Dungeon, but you're running the dungeon
- Toddler horror sim Baby Blues Nightmares lets you doodle your own horror game NPC graffiti
- Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2's first patches to fix crashes and controller issues with ultrawide on the way
![](http://rss3.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
these papers. More detailed review-writing instructions that walk a prospective author through each component of the paper (title, abstract, introduction, etc.) can be found in Mayer (2009). Steps for Writing a Review Paper. Before You Begin to Search or Write . 1. Clearly define the topic. Typically, a review writer works in the related field ...
How to write a superb literature review
Just like research papers, the most common and convenient practice is to write review papers in "introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRaD)" format accompanied by title, abstract, key words, and references. The title makes the first introductory and is the most important sentence of the review paper.
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.
Scientific review articles provide a focused and comprehensive review of the available evidence about a subject, explain the current state of knowledge, and identify gaps that could be topics for potential future research. ... One article on the topic of scientific reviews suggests that at least 15 to 20 relevant research papers published ...
Synthesize Information: Go beyond summarizing sources to draw new insights and perspectives. Write Clearly and Concisely: Ensure that your essay is well-structured, with clear transitions and a logical flow of ideas. Review and Refine: Revise your essay for clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy.
Learn how to write a review of literature - The Writing Center
Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up-to-date with developments in a particular area of research.
A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis.
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 ...
To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work-deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole. Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain ...
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 and ...
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.
Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...
Published on: March 22, 2024. This guide aims to demystify the review paper format, presenting practical tips to help you accelerate the writing process. From understanding the structure to synthesising literature effectively, we'll explore how to create a compelling review article swiftly, ensuring your work is both impactful and timely.
Ev en better you might. consider doing an argument map (see Chapter 9, Critical thinking). Step 5: Put the article aside and think about what you have read. Good critical review. writing requires ...
Home; 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
What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
Journal Article Review. Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.
Scribbr is committed to protecting academic integrity. Our plagiarism checker, AI Detector, Citation Generator, proofreading services, paraphrasing tool, grammar checker, summarizer, and free Knowledge Base content are designed to help students produce quality academic papers. We make every effort to prevent our software from being used for ...
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.
Here are some key elements to consider when writing a review essay: 1. Introduction: Provide an overview of the topic and the importance of the review. 2. Summary of the Work: Summarize the main points, arguments, and key findings of the work being reviewed. 3. Analysis and Evaluation:
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.
You'll have access to 100 past bar exam essays for review and self-grading. ... and how to frame a better essay answer. Submitting essays as they are assigned during bar review, over time, will allow you to incorporate feedback into your next practice essay. You'll move along an upward trajectory of continuous improvement and bar exam ...
This essay provides a review of two important recent books on economic growth: How the World Became Rich by Mark Koyama and Jared Rubin and Slouching Towards Utopia, by J. Bradford DeLong. Each book is noteworthy for its erudition and breadth. I explore strengths and weaknesses of these books and ...
Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research.
Download This Paper. Open PDF in Browser. Add Paper to My Library. Share: Permalink. ... Different Aspects of Heterogeneity in the Crypto-Asset Market: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies. 31 Pages Posted: 6 Sep 2024. See all articles by Damian Zięba Damian Zięba. University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences. Date Written ...
The Sunday Papers is our weekly roundup of great writing about (mostly) videogames from across the web.. Sundays are for more cat. She's reached the "follow me into the bathroom when I go downstairs at night for a wee" stage, but still won't come upstairs - which means I have to leave her alone for long periods while I work, which makes me feel bad.
CBSE Sample Papers 2025 - The Central Board of Secondary Education has released the sample question papers for Class 10th and 12th on the official website - cbseacademic.nic.in. Along with the sample question papers, CBSE has also released the marking scheme for each subject indicating the allocation of marks for each chapter. Students can download the CBSE sample papers and marking scheme ...
A review of the front page stories from the daily and weekly newspapers in Wales. ... Wales' papers: 128mph crash driver, and farmer's death 'massive loss' Daily Post. South Wales Argus.