How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

An article review is an academic assignment that invites you to study a piece of academic research closely. Then, you should present its summary and critically evaluate it using the knowledge you’ve gained in class and during your independent study. If you get such a task at college or university, you shouldn’t confuse it with a response paper, which is a distinct assignment with other purposes (we’ll talk about it in detail below).

In this article, prepared by Custom-Writing experts, you’ll find:

  • the intricacies of article review writing;
  • the difference between an article review and similar assignments;
  • a step-by-step algorithm for review composition;
  • a couple of samples to guide you throughout the writing process.

So, if you wish to study our article review example and discover helpful writing tips, keep reading.

❓ What Is an Article Review?

  • ✍️ Writing Steps

📑 Article Review Format

🔗 references.

An article review is an academic paper that summarizes and critically evaluates the information presented in your selected article.

This image shows what an article review is.

The first thing you should note when approaching the task of an article review is that not every article is suitable for this assignment. Let’s have a look at the variety of articles to understand what you can choose from.

Popular Vs. Scholarly Articles

In most cases, you’ll be required to review a scholarly, peer-reviewed article – one composed in compliance with rigorous academic standards. Yet, the Web is also full of popular articles that don’t present original scientific value and shouldn’t be selected for a review.

Not sure how to distinguish these two types? Here is a comparative table to help you out.

🗞️ Popular articles are:🎓 Scholarly articles are:
Written by a professional or non-professional author. Written by someone with academic credentials.
Meant for the general audience.Published for the peer academic community.
Featuring reader-friendly, simple language. Containing professional jargon and vocabulary.
Illustrated by simple and engaging visuals. Illustrated by tables and graphs.
Structured in a simple way.Structured according to a scholarly publication’s standards.
Checked by the magazine’s editorial staff only. Thoroughly reviewed by peer researchers.
Featuring no or scarce references.Featuring a full list of references.

Article Review vs. Response Paper

Now, let’s consider the difference between an article review and a response paper:

  • If you’re assigned to critique a scholarly article , you will need to compose an article review .
  • If your subject of analysis is a popular article , you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper .

The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of these two article types. Peer-reviewed, scholarly articles have clear-cut quality criteria, allowing you to conduct and present a structured assessment of the assigned material. Popular magazines have loose or non-existent quality criteria and don’t offer an opportunity for structured evaluation. So, they are only fit for a subjective response, in which you can summarize your reactions and emotions related to the reading material.

All in all, you can structure your response assignments as outlined in the tips below.

✔️ Both a reaction paper and an article review will start with a content summary.
✔️ For scholarly material, you will present a structured review after the summary.
✔️ For popular magazine content, you will write a response that sums up your emotions, thoughts, and reactions that the material aroused.

✍️ How to Write an Article Review: Step by Step

Here is a tried and tested algorithm for article review writing from our experts. We’ll consider only the critical review variety of this academic assignment. So, let’s get down to the stages you need to cover to get a stellar review.

Read the Article

As with any reviews, reports, and critiques, you must first familiarize yourself with the assigned material. It’s impossible to review something you haven’t read, so set some time for close, careful reading of the article to identify:

  • The author’s main points and message.
  • The arguments they use to prove their points.
  • The methodology they use to approach the subject.

In terms of research type, your article will usually belong to one of three types explained below.

This type of research is the most common and highly valued in the scholarly community. It uses primary data collected by the author specifically for this article and offers original findings and insights into the discussed research area.
This research type examines a particular event, phenomenon, or object closely by considering its environment, details, and context. It’s a close-up of the research object that can be achieved via different observation and data collection techniques.
These articles address new research procedures or methods for testing hypotheses in a specific area of research.

Summarize the Article

Now that you’ve read the text and have a general impression of the content, it’s time to summarize it for your readers. Look into the article’s text closely to determine:

  • The thesis statement, or general message of the author.
  • Research question, purpose, and context of research.
  • Supporting points for the author’s assumptions and claims.
  • Major findings and supporting evidence.

As you study the article thoroughly, make notes on the margins or write these elements out on a sheet of paper. You can also apply a different technique: read the text section by section and formulate its gist in one phrase or sentence. Once you’re done, you’ll have a summary skeleton in front of you.

Evaluate the Article

The next step of review is content evaluation. Keep in mind that various research types will require a different set of review questions. Here is a complete list of evaluation points you can include.

cover the article’s purpose comprehensively?
in data presentation?

Write the Text

After completing the critical review stage, it’s time to compose your article review.

The format of this assignment is standard – you will have an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The introduction should present your article and summarize its content. The body will contain a structured review according to all four dimensions covered in the previous section. The concluding part will typically recap all the main points you’ve identified during your assessment.

It is essential to note that an article review is, first of all, an academic assignment. Therefore, it should follow all rules and conventions of academic composition, such as:

  • No contractions . Don’t use short forms, such as “don’t,” “can’t,” “I’ll,” etc. in academic writing. You need to spell out all those words.
  • Formal language and style . Avoid conversational phrasing and words that you would naturally use in blog posts or informal communication. For example, don’t use words like “pretty,” “kind of,” and “like.”
  • Third-person narrative . Academic reviews should be written from the third-person point of view, avoiding statements like “I think,” “in my opinion,” and so on.
  • No conversational forms . You shouldn’t turn to your readers directly in the text by addressing them with the pronoun “you.” It’s vital to keep the narrative neutral and impersonal.
  • Proper abbreviation use . Consult the list of correct abbreviations, like “e.g.” or “i.e.,” for use in your academic writing. If you use informal abbreviations like “FYA” or “f.i.,” your professor will reduce the grade.
  • Complete sentences . Make sure your sentences contain the subject and the predicate; avoid shortened or sketch-form phrases suitable for a draft only.
  • No conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence . Remember the FANBOYS rule – don’t start a sentence with words like “and” or “but.” They often seem the right way to build a coherent narrative, but academic writing rules disfavor such usage.
  • No abbreviations or figures at the beginning of a sentence . Never start a sentence with a number — spell it out if you need to use it anyway. Besides, sentences should never begin with abbreviations like “e.g.”

Finally, a vital rule for an article review is properly formatting the citations. We’ll discuss the correct use of citation styles in the following section.

When composing an article review, keep these points in mind:

  • Start with a full reference to the reviewed article so the reader can locate it quickly.
  • Ensure correct formatting of in-text references.
  • Provide a complete list of used external sources on the last page of the review – your bibliographical entries.

You’ll need to understand the rules of your chosen citation style to meet all these requirements. Below, we’ll discuss the two most common referencing styles – APA and MLA.

Article Review in APA

When you need to compose an article review in the APA format , here is the general bibliographical entry format you should use for journal articles on your reference page:

  • Author’s last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year of Publication). Name of the article. Name of the Journal, volume (number), pp. #-#. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy

Horigian, V. E., Schmidt, R. D., & Feaster, D. J. (2021). Loneliness, mental health, and substance use among US young adults during COVID-19. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 53 (1), pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2020.1836435

Your in-text citations should follow the author-date format like this:

  • If you paraphrase the source and mention the author in the text: According to Horigian et al. (2021), young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic.
  • If you paraphrase the source and don’t mention the author in the text: Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al., 2021).
  • If you quote the source: As Horigian et al. (2021) point out, there were “elevated levels of loneliness, depression, anxiety, alcohol use, and drug use among young adults during COVID-19” (p. 6).

Note that your in-text citations should include “et al.,” as in the examples above, if your article has 3 or more authors. If you have one or two authors, your in-text citations would look like this:

  • One author: “According to Smith (2020), depression is…” or “Depression is … (Smith, 2020).”
  • Two authors: “According to Smith and Brown (2020), anxiety means…” or “Anxiety means (Smith & Brown, 2020).”

Finally, in case you have to review a book or a website article, here are the general formats for citing these source types on your APA reference list.

Author’s last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year). Publisher.
Author’s last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year). . Name of Website. URL.

Article Review in MLA

If your assignment requires MLA-format referencing, here’s the general format you should use for citing journal articles on your Works Cited page:

  • Author’s last name, First name. “Title of an Article.” Title of the Journal , vol. #, no. #, year, pp. #-#.

Horigian, Viviana E., et al. “Loneliness, Mental Health, and Substance Use Among US Young Adults During COVID-19.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , vol. 53, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-9.

In-text citations in the MLA format follow the author-page citation format and look like this:

  • According to Horigian et al., young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (6).
  • Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al. 6).

Like in APA, the abbreviation “et al.” is only needed in MLA if your article has 3 or more authors.

If you need to cite a book or a website page, here are the general MLA formats for these types of sources.

Author’s last name, First name. Publisher, Year.
Author’s last name, First name. “Webpage Title.” , Date, URL. Accessed Day Month Year.

✅ Article Review Template

Here is a handy, universal article review template to help you move on with any review assignment. We’ve tried to make it as generic as possible to guide you in the academic process.

Frequently, assignment instructions will ask you to include a full citation of your chosen text at the top of the first page of your article review.
In the introduction, you should summarize the background information and purpose of the research under review. In addition, consider explaining why you chose it for your assignment.
Next, summarize the article. If you review the original research, consider including the following points:
If you review a or a book, include the following in your summary: This section should be no more than a third of your total article review.
Then, you should critically evaluate the article. Consider answering these questions:
In the , share your reasoned opinion on the reviewed piece. Was it worth reading? Did you learn any lessons from it? Would you recommend it to someone else, and why?
In the end, add a separate page with bibliographic citations of your reviewed article and any other sources used in your paper.

📝 Article Review Examples

The theory is good, but practice is even better. Thus, we’ve created three brief examples to show you how to write an article review. You can study the full-text samples by following the links.

📃 Men, Women, & Money

This article review examines a famous piece, “Men, Women & Money – How the Sexes Differ with Their Finances,” published by Amy Livingston in 2020. The author of this article claims that men generally spend more money than women. She makes this conclusion from a close analysis of gender-specific expenditures across five main categories: food, clothing, cars, entertainment, and general spending patterns. Livingston also looks at men’s approach to saving to argue that counter to the common perception of women’s light-hearted attitude to money, men are those who spend more on average.

📃 When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism

This is a review of Jonathan Heidt’s 2016 article titled “When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism,” written as an advocacy of right-wing populism rising in many Western states. The author illustrates the case with the election of Donald Trump as the US President and the rise of right-wing rhetoric in many Western countries. These examples show how nationalist sentiment represents a reaction to global immigration and a failure of globalization.

📃 Sleep Deprivation

This is a review of the American Heart Association’s article titled “The Dangers of Sleep Deprivation.” It discusses how the national organization concerned with the American population’s cardiovascular health links the lack of high-quality sleep to far-reaching health consequences. The organization’s experts reveal how a consistent lack of sleep leads to Alzheimer’s disease development, obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc.

✏️ Article Review FAQ

A high-quality article review should summarize the assigned article’s content and offer data-backed reactions and evaluations of its quality in terms of the article’s purpose, methodology, and data used to argue the main points. It should be detailed, comprehensive, objective, and evidence-based.

The purpose of writing a review is to allow students to reflect on research quality and showcase their critical thinking and evaluation skills. Students should exhibit their mastery of close reading of research publications and their unbiased assessment.

The content of your article review will be the same in any format, with the only difference in the assignment’s formatting before submission. Ensure you have a separate title page made according to APA standards and cite sources using the parenthetical author-date referencing format.

You need to take a closer look at various dimensions of an assigned article to compose a valuable review. Study the author’s object of analysis, the purpose of their research, the chosen method, data, and findings. Evaluate all these dimensions critically to see whether the author has achieved the initial goals. Finally, offer improvement recommendations to add a critique aspect to your paper.

  • Scientific Article Review: Duke University
  • Book and Article Reviews: William & Mary, Writing Resources Center
  • Sample Format for Reviewing a Journal Article: Boonshoft School of Medicine
  • Research Paper Review – Structure and Format Guidelines: New Jersey Institute of Technology
  • Article Review: University of Waterloo
  • Writing Help: The Article Review: Central Michigan University Libraries
  • Share to Facebook
  • Share to Twitter
  • Share to LinkedIn
  • Share to email

How to Write a Short Essay: Format & Examples

Short essays answer a specific question on the subject. They usually are anywhere between 250 words and 750 words long. A paper with less than 250 words isn’t considered a finished text, so it doesn’t fall under the category of a short essay. Essays of such format are required for...

Compare and Contrast Essay Outline: Template and Example

High school and college students often face challenges when crafting a compare-and-contrast essay. A well-written paper of this kind needs to be structured appropriately to earn you good grades. Knowing how to organize your ideas allows you to present your ideas in a coherent and logical manner This article by...

How to Write a Formal Essay: Format, Rules, & Example

If you’re a student, you’ve heard about a formal essay: a factual, research-based paper written in 3rd person. Most students have to produce dozens of them during their educational career.  Writing a formal essay may not be the easiest task. But fear not: our custom-writing team is here to guide...

How to Write a Narrative Essay Outline: Template & Examples

Narrative essays are unlike anything you wrote throughout your academic career. Instead of writing a formal paper, you need to tell a story. Familiar elements such as evidence and arguments are replaced with exposition and character development. The importance of writing an outline for an essay like this is hard...

How to Write a Precis: Definition, Guide, & Examples

A précis is a brief synopsis of a written piece. It is used to summarize and analyze a text’s main points. If you need to write a précis for a research paper or the AP Lang exam, you’ve come to the right place. In this comprehensive guide by Custom-Writing.org, you’ll...

How to Write a Synthesis Essay: Examples, Topics, & Outline

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

How to Write a Catchy Hook: Examples & Techniques

Do you know how to make your essay stand out? One of the easiest ways is to start your introduction with a catchy hook. A hook is a phrase or a sentence that helps to grab the reader’s attention. After reading this article by Custom-Writing.org, you will be able to...

How to Write a Critical Analysis Essay: Examples & Guide

A critical analysis essay is an academic paper that requires a thorough examination of theoretical concepts and ideas. It includes a comparison of facts, differentiation between evidence and argument, and identification of biases. Crafting a good paper can be a daunting experience, but it will be much easier if you...

How to Write a Critical Thinking Essay: Examples & Outline

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information. People who use it in everyday life are open to different opinions. They rely on reason and logic when making conclusions about certain issues. A critical thinking essay shows how your thoughts change as you research your topic. This type...

How to Write a Process Analysis Essay: Examples & Outline

Process analysis is an explanation of how something works or happens. Want to know more? Read the following article prepared by our custom writing specialists and learn about: So, let’s start digging deeper into this topic! ♻️ What Is Process Analysis? A process analysis describes and explains the succession of...

How to Write a Visual Analysis Essay: Examples & Template

A visual analysis essay is an academic paper type that history and art students often deal with. It consists of a detailed description of an image or object. It can also include an interpretation or an argument that is supported by visual evidence. In this article, our custom writing experts...

How to Write a Reflection Paper: Example & Tips

Want to know how to write a reflection paper for college or school? To do that, you need to connect your personal experiences with theoretical knowledge. Usually, students are asked to reflect on a documentary, a text, or their experience. Sometimes one needs to write a paper about a lesson...

The Tech Edvocate

  • Advertisement
  • Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
  • Home Page Four
  • Home Page Three
  • Home Page Two
  • Icons [No Sidebar]
  • Left Sidbear Page
  • Lynch Educational Consulting
  • My Speaking Page
  • Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
  • Newsletter Unsubscription
  • Page Example
  • Privacy Policy
  • Protected Content
  • Request a Product Review
  • Shortcodes Examples
  • Terms and Conditions
  • The Edvocate
  • The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
  • Write For Us
  • Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
  • The Edvocate Podcast
  • Assistive Technology
  • Child Development Tech
  • Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
  • EdTech Futures
  • EdTech News
  • EdTech Policy & Reform
  • EdTech Startups & Businesses
  • Higher Education EdTech
  • Online Learning & eLearning
  • Parent & Family Tech
  • Personalized Learning
  • Product Reviews
  • Tech Edvocate Awards
  • School Ratings

Improving Language Proficiency and Scientific Literacy In Learners

How to teach spelling: everything you need to know, product review of ticktalk 5, product review of the grid duffle backpack, product review of naturopathica’s active body bundle, the benefits of differentiated instruction: everything you need to know, teaching children inferential thinking: everything you need to know, why choose sharepoint learning management system, good readers and reading strategies: everything you need to know, product review of the hear otc hearing aid, how to write an article review (with sample reviews)  .

template of article review

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

' src=

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

template of article review

3 Ways to Recover from a Nap

template of article review

How to Get Your Leg Extension: 11 Steps

template of article review

14 Ways to Dry Brush Your Skin

template of article review

How to Call Amazon: 11 Steps

template of article review

3 Ways to Make Eyeliner Look Soft

template of article review

How to Apply for a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) License in California

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

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 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 3,117,668 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.

Step 1 Understand what an article review is.

  • 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.

Step 2 Think about the organization of the review article.

  • 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.

Step 3 Preview the article.

  • 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.

Step 4 Read the article closely.

  • 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.

Step 5 Put the article into your words.

  • 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.

Step 6 Write an outline of your evaluation.

  • 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.

Step 1 Come up with...

  • 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

Step 3 Identify the article.

  • For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

Step 4 Write the introduction.

  • 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.

Step 5 Summarize the article.

  • 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.

Step 6 Write your critique.

  • 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.

Step 7 Conclude the article review.

  • 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.

Step 8 Proofread.

  • Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

template of article review

You Might Also Like

Write Articles

  • ↑ 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

Jake Adams

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

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

template of article review

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

F. K.

Nov 27, 2018

Am I Smart Quiz

Featured Articles

Improve Your Personality

Trending Articles

How to Plan and Launch a Fireworks Show

Watch Articles

Make Stamped Metal Jewelry

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

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

Home

Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

colonnade and university hall

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

student at laptop

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

campus in spring

Find your Fit

UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.

campus in spring

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

campus in spring

Give Like a Star

Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.

alumni at gala

Bragging Rights

UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.

lincoln statue fall

  • Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support Bookstore UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness COVID-19 United in Safety Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps UIS Mobile App Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom The Observer Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance

Request Info

Home

How to Review a Journal Article

rainbow over colonnade

  • Request Info Request info for....     Undergraduate/Graduate     Online     Study Away     Continuing & Professional Education     International Student Services     General Inquiries

For many kinds of assignments, like a  literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your  qualified opinion  and  evaluation  of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple  summary  of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes,  annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

  • How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
  • How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
  • How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
  • How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
  • How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

  • How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
  • Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
  • How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
  • What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
  • How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
  • How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?

Evaluating Methods

  • How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
  • How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
  • Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?

Evaluating Data

  • Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
  • Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
  • How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
  • What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.),  Digital games in language learning and teaching  (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an  annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.

template of article review

How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

template of article review

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.

types of article review

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 !

order review

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:

steps for article review

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.

Daniel Parker

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.

template of article review

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.

How to Write a Creative Essay

How to Write an Article Review: Practical Tips and Examples

image

Table of contents

  • 1 What Is an Article Review?
  • 2 Different Types of Article Review
  • 3.1 Critical review
  • 3.2 Literature review
  • 3.3 Mapping review/systematic map
  • 3.4 Meta-analysis
  • 3.5 Overview
  • 3.6 Qualitative Systematic Review/Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
  • 3.7 Rapid review
  • 3.8 Scoping review
  • 3.9 Systematic review
  • 3.10 Umbrella review
  • 4 Formatting
  • 5 How To Write An Article Review
  • 6 Article Review Outline
  • 7 10 Tips for Writing an Article Review
  • 8 An Article Review Example

What Is an Article Review?

Before you get started, learn what an article review is. It can be defined as a work that combines elements of summary and critical analysis. If you are writing an article review, you should take a close look at another author’s work. Many experts regularly practice evaluating the work of others. The purpose of this is to improve writing skills.

This kind of work belongs to professional pieces of writing because the process of crafting this paper requires reviewing, summarizing, and understanding the topic. Only experts are able to compose really good reviews containing a logical evaluation of a paper as well as a critique.

Your task is not to provide new information. You should process what you have in a certain publication.

Different Types of Article Review

In academic writing, the landscape of article reviews is diverse and nuanced, encompassing a variety of formats that cater to different research purposes and methodologies. Among these, three main types of article reviews stand out due to their distinct approaches and applications:

  • Narrative. The basic focus here is the author’s personal experience. Judgments are presented through the prism of experiences and subsequent realizations. Besides, the use of emotional recollections is acceptable.
  • Evidence. There is a significant difference from the narrative review. An in-depth study of the subject is assumed, and conclusions are built on arguments. The author may consider theories or concrete facts to support that.
  • Systematic. The structure of the piece explains the approach to writing. The answer to what’s a systematic review lies on the surface. The writer should pay special attention to the chronology and logic of the narrative.

Understanding 10 Common Types

Don`t rush looking at meta-analysis vs. systematic review. We recommend that you familiarize yourself with other formats and topics of texts. This will allow you to understand the types of essays better and select them based on your request. For this purpose, we`ll discuss the typology of reviews below.

Critical review

The critical review definition says that the author must be objective and have arguments for each thought. Sometimes, amateur authors believe that they should “criticize” something. However, it is important to understand the difference since objectivity and the absence of emotional judgments are prioritized. The structure of this type of review article is as follows:

  • Introduction;
  • Conclusion.

“Stuffing” of the text is based on such elements as methodology, argumentation, evidence, and theory base. The subject of study is stated at the beginning of the material. Then follows the transition to the main part (facts). The final word summarizes all the information voiced earlier.

It is a mistake to believe that critical reviews are devoid of evaluation. The author’s art lies in maneuvering between facts. Smooth transition from one argument to another and lays out the conclusions in the reader. That is why such texts are used in science. The critical reviews meaning is especially tangible in medical topics.

Literature review

Literature is the basis for this type of work ─ books, essays, and articles become a source of information. Thus, the author should rethink the voiced information. After that, it is possible to proceed to conclusions. The methodology aims to find interconnections, repetitions, and even “gaps” in the literature. One important item is the referencing of sources. Footnotes are possible in the work itself or the list of resources used.

These types of research reviews often explore myths since there are often inconsistencies in mythology. Sometimes, there is contrary information. In this case, the author has to gather all existing theories. The essence does not always lie in the confirmation of facts. There are other different types of reviews for this purpose. In literary reviews, the object of study may be characters or traditions. This is where the author’s space for discovery opens up. Inconsistencies in the data can tell important details about particular periods or cultures. At the same time, patterns reveal well-established facts. Make sure to outline your work before you write. This will help you with essay writing .

Mapping review/systematic map

A mapping review, also known as a systematic map, is a unique approach to surveying and organizing existing literature, providing a panoramic view of the research landscape. This paper systematically categorizes and maps out the available literature on a particular topic, emphasizing breadth over depth. Its primary goal is to present a comprehensive visual representation of the research distribution, offering insights into the overall scope of a subject.

One of the strengths of systematic reviews is that they deeply focus on a research question with detailed analysis and synthesis, while mapping review prioritizes breadth. It identifies and categorizes a broad range of studies without necessarily providing in-depth critique or content synthesis. This approach allows for a broader understanding of the field, making it especially useful in the early stages of research. Mapping reviews excel in identifying gaps in the existing body of literature.

By systematically mapping the distribution of research, researchers can pinpoint areas where studies are scarce or nonexistent, helping to guide future research directions. This makes mapping reviews a valuable tool for researchers seeking to contribute meaningfully to a field by addressing unexplored or underexplored areas.

Meta-analysis

Meta-analysis is a powerful statistical technique. It systematically combines the results of multiple studies to derive comprehensive and nuanced insights. This method goes beyond the limitations of individual studies, offering a more robust understanding of a particular phenomenon by synthesizing data from diverse sources.

Meta-analysis employs a rigorous methodology. It involves the systematic collection and statistical integration of data from multiple studies. This methodological rigor ensures a standardized and unbiased approach to data synthesis. It is applied across various disciplines, from medicine and psychology to social sciences, providing a quantitative assessment of the overall effect of an intervention or the strength of an association.

In evidence-based fields, where informed decision-making relies on a thorough understanding of existing research, meta-analysis plays a pivotal role. It offers a quantitative overview of the collective evidence, helping researchers, policymakers, and practitioners make more informed decisions. By synthesizing results from diverse studies, meta-analysis contributes to the establishment of robust evidence-based practices, enhancing the reliability and credibility of findings in various fields. To present your research findings in the most readable way possible, learn how to write a summary of article .

If the key purpose of systematic review is to maximize the disclosure of facts, the opposite is true here. Imagine a video shot by a quadcopter from an altitude. The viewer sees a vast area of terrain without focusing on individual details. Overviews follow the same principle. The author gives a general picture of the events or objects described.

These types of reviews often seem simple. However, the role of the researcher becomes a very demanding one. The point is not just to list facts. Here, the search for information comes to the fore. After all, it is such reports that, in the future, will provide the basis for researching issues more narrowly. In essence, you yourself create a new source of information ─ students who worry that somebody may critique the author’s article love this type of material. However, there are no questions for the author; they just set the stage for discussions in different fields.

An example of this type of report would be a collection of research results from scientists. For example, statistics on the treatment of patients with certain diseases. In such a case, reference is made to scientific articles and doctrines. Based on this information, readers can speak about the effectiveness of certain treatment methods.

Qualitative Systematic Review/Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

One of the next types of review articles represents a meticulous effort to synthesize and analyze qualitative studies within a specific research domain.

The focus is synthesizing qualitative studies, employing a systematic and rigorous approach to extract meaningful insights. Its significance lies in its ability to provide a nuanced understanding of complex phenomena, offering a qualitative lens to complement quantitative analyses. Researchers can uncover patterns, themes, and contextual nuances that may elude traditional quantitative approaches by systematically reviewing and synthesizing qualitative data.

Often, you may meet discussion: is a systematic review quantitative or qualitative? The application of qualitative systematic reviews extends across diverse research domains, from healthcare and social sciences to education and psychology. For example, this approach can offer a comprehensive understanding of patient experiences and preferences in healthcare. In social sciences, it can illuminate cultural or societal dynamics. Its versatility makes it a valuable tool for researchers exploring, interpreting, and integrating qualitative findings to enrich their understanding of complex phenomena within their respective fields.

Rapid review

If you don’t know how to write an article review , try starting with this format. It is the complete opposite of everything we talked about above. The key advantage and feature is speed. Quick overviews are used when time is limited. The focus can go to individual details (key). Often, the focus is still on the principal points.

Often, these types of review papers are critically needed in politics. This method helps to communicate important information to the reader quickly. An example can be a comparison of the election programs of two politicians. The author can show the key differences. Or it can make an overview based on the theses of the opponents’ proposals on different topics.

Seeming simplicity becomes power. Such texts allow the reader to make a quick decision. The author’s task is to understand potential interests and needs. Then, highlight and present the most important data as concisely as possible. In addition to politics, such reports are often used in communications, advertising, and marketing. Experienced writers mention the one-minute principle. This means you can count on 60 seconds of the reader’s attention. If you managed to hook them ─ bravo, you have done the job!

Scoping review

If you read the official scoping review definition, you may find similarities with the systematic type of review. However, recall is a sequential and logical study in the second case. It’s like you stack things on a shelf by color, size, and texture.

This type of review can be more difficult to understand. The basic concept is to explore what is called the field of subjects. This means, on the one hand, exploring a particular topic through the existing data about it. The author tries to find gaps or patterns by drawing on sources of information.

Another good comparison between systematic and this type of review is imagining as if drawing a picture. In the first case, you will think through every nuance and detail, why it is there, and how it “moves the story.” In the second case, it is as if you are painting a picture with “broad strokes.” In doing so, you can explain your motives for choosing the primary color. For example: “I chose the emerald color because all the cultural publications say it’s a trend”. The same goes for texts.

Systematic review

Sometimes, you may encounter a battle: narrative review vs. systematic review. The point is not to compare but to understand the different types of papers. Once you understand their purpose, you can present your data better and choose a more readable format. The systematic approach can be called the most scientific. Such a review relies on the following steps:

  • Literature search;
  • Evaluating the information;
  • Data processing;
  • Careful analysis of the material.

It is the fourth point that is key. The writer should carefully process the information before using it. However, 80% of your work’s result depends on this stage’s seriousness.

A rigorous approach to data selection produces an array of factual data. That is why this method is so often used in science, education, and social fields. Where accuracy is important. At the same time, the popularity of this approach is growing in other directions.

Systematic reviews allow for using different data and methodologies,, but with one important caveat ─ if the author manages to keep the narrative structured and explain the reason for certain methods. It is not about rigor. The task of this type of review is to preserve the facts, which dictates consistency and rationality.

Umbrella review

An umbrella review is a distinctive approach that involves the review of existing reviews, providing a comprehensive synthesis of evidence on a specific topic. The methodology of an umbrella review entails systematically examining and summarizing findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

This method ensures a rigorous and consolidated analysis of the existing evidence. The application of an umbrella review is broad, spanning various fields such as medicine, public health, and social sciences. It is particularly useful when a substantial body of systematic reviews exists, allowing researchers to draw overarching conclusions from the collective findings.

It allows the summarization of existing reviews and provides a new perspective on individual subtopics of the main object of study. In the context of the umbrella method, the comparison “bird’s eye view” is often cited. A bird in flight can see the whole panorama and shift its gaze to specific objects simultaneously. What becomes relevant at a particular moment? The author will face the same task.

On the one hand, you must delve into the offshoots of the researched topic. On the other hand, focus on the topic or object of study as a whole. Such a concept allows you to open up new perspectives and thoughts.

more_shortcode

Different types of formatting styles are used for article review writing. It mainly depends on the guidelines that are provided by the instructor, sometimes, professors even provide an article review template that needs to be followed.

Here are some common types of formatting styles that you should be aware of when you start writing an article review:

  • APA (American Psychological Association) – An APA format article review is commonly used for social sciences. It has guidelines for formatting the title, abstract, body paragraphs, and references. For example, the title of an article in APA format is in sentence case, whereas the publication title is in title case.
  • MLA (Modern Language Association): This is a formatting style often used in humanities, such as language studies and literature. There are specific guidelines for the formatting of the title page, header, footer, and citation style.
  • Chicago Manual of Style: This is one of the most commonly used formatting styles. It is often used for subjects in humanities and social sciences, but also commonly found in a newspaper title. This includes guidelines for formatting the title page, end notes, footnotes, publication title, article citation, and bibliography.
  • Harvard Style: Harvard style is commonly used for social sciences and provides specific guidelines for formatting different sections of the pages, including publication title, summary page, website publisher, and more.

To ensure that your article review paper is properly formatted and meets the requirements, it is crucial to adhere to the specific guidelines for the formatting style you are using. This helps you write a good article review.

  • Free unlimited checks
  • All common file formats
  • Accurate results
  • Intuitive interface

How To Write An Article Review

There are several steps that must be followed when you are starting to review articles. You need to follow these to make sure that your thoughts are organized properly. In this way, you can present your ideas in a more concise and clear manner. Here are some tips on how to start an article review and how to cater to each writing stage.

  • Read the Article Closely: Even before you start to write an article review, it’s important to make sure that you have read the specific article thoroughly. Write down the central points and all the supporting ideas. It’s important also to note any questions or comments that you have about the content.
  • Identify the Thesis: Make sure that you understand the author’s main points, and identify the main thesis of the article. This will help you focus on your review and ensure that you are addressing all of the key points.
  • Formulate an Introduction: The piece should start with an introduction that has all the necessary background information, possibly in the first paragraph or in the first few paragraphs. This can include a brief summary of the important points or an explanation of the importance.
  • Summarize the Article : Summarize the main points when you review the article, and make sure that you include all supporting elements of the author’s thesis.
  • Start with Personal Critique : Now is the time to include a personal opinion on the research article or the journal article review. Start with evaluating all the strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed article. Discuss all of the flaws that you found in the author’s evidence and reasoning. Also, point out whether the conclusion provided by the author was well presented or not.
  • Add Personal Perspective: Offer your perspective on the original article, do you agree or disagree with the ideas that the article supports or not. Your critical review, in your own words, is an essential part of a good review. Make sure you address all unanswered questions in your review.
  • Conclude the Article Review : In this section of the writing process, you need to be very careful and wrap up the whole discussion in a coherent manner. This is should summarize all the main points and offer an overall assessment.

Make sure to stay impartial and provide proof to back up your assessment. By adhering to these guidelines, you can create a reflective and well-structured article review.

Article Review Outline

Here is a basic, detailed outline for an article review you should be aware of as a pre-writing process if you are wondering how to write an article review.

Introduction

  • Introduce the article that you are reviewing (author name, publication date, title, etc.) Now provide an overview of the article’s main topic

Summary section

  • Summarize the key points in the article as well as any arguments Identify the findings and conclusion

Critical Review

  • Assess and evaluate the positive aspects and the drawbacks
  • Discuss if the authors arguments were verified by the evidence of the article
  • Identify if the text provides substantial information for any future paper or further research
  • Assess any gaps in the arguments
  • Restate the thesis statement
  • Provide a summary for all sections
  • Write any recommendations and thoughts that you have on the article
  • Never forget to add and cite any references that you used in your article

10 Tips for Writing an Article Review

Have you ever written such an assignment? If not, study the helpful tips for composing a paper. If you follow the recommendations provided here, the process of writing a summary of the article won’t be so time-consuming, and you will be able to write an article in the most effective manner.

The guidelines below will help to make the process of preparing a paper much more productive. Let’s get started!

  • Check what kind of information your work should contain. After answering the key question “What is an article review?” you should learn how to structure it the right way. To succeed, you need to know what your work should be based on. An analysis with insightful observations is a must for your piece of writing.
  • Identify the central idea: In your first reading, focus on the overall impression. Gather ideas about what the writer wants to tell, and consider whether he or she managed to achieve it.
  • Look up unfamiliar terms. Don’t know what certain words and expressions mean? Highlight them, and don’t forget to check what they mean with a reliable source of information.
  • Highlight the most important ideas. If you are reading it a second time, use a highlighter to highlight the points that are most important to understanding the passage.
  • Write an outline. A well-written outline will make your life a lot easier. All your thoughts will be grouped. Detailed planning helps not to miss anything important. Think about the questions you should answer when writing.
  • Brainstorm headline ideas. When choosing a project, remember: it should reflect the main idea. Make it bold and concise.
  • Check an article review format example. You should check that you know how to cite an article properly. Note that citation rules are different in APA and MLA formats. Ask your teacher which one to prioritize.
  • Write a good introduction. Use only one short paragraph to state the central idea of ​​the work. Emphasize the author’s key concepts and arguments. Add the thesis at the end of the Introduction.
  • Write in a formal style. Use the third person, remembering that this assignment should be written in a formal academic writing style.
  • Wrap up, offer your critique, and close. Give your opinion on whether the author achieved his goals. Mention the shortcomings of the job, if any, and highlight its strengths.

If you have checked the tips and you still doubt whether you have all the necessary skills and time to prepare this kind of educational work, follow one more tip that guarantees 100% success- ask for professional assistance by asking the custom writing service PapersOwl to craft your paper instead of you. Just submit an order online and get the paper completed by experts.

more_shortcode

An Article Review Example

If you have a task to prepare an analysis of a certain piece of literature, have a look at the article review sample. There is an article review example for you to have a clear picture of what it must look like.

Journal Article on Ayn Rand’s Works Review Example

“The purpose of the article is to consider the features of the poetics of Ayn Rand’s novels “Atlas Shrugged,” “We the living,” and “The Fountainhead.” In the analysis of the novels, the structural-semantic and the method of comparative analysis were used.

With the help of these methods, genre features of the novels were revealed, and a single conflict and a cyclic hero were identified.

In-depth reading allows us to more fully reveal the worldview of the author reflected in the novels. It becomes easier to understand the essence of the author’s ideas about the connection between being and consciousness, embodied in cyclic ideas and images of plot twists and heroes. The author did a good job highlighting the strong points of the works and mentioning the reasons for the obvious success of Ayn Rand.“

You can also search for other relevant article review examples before you start.

In conclusion, article reviews play an important role in evaluating and analyzing different scholarly articles. Writing a review requires critical thinking skills and a deep understanding of the article’s content, style, and structure. It is crucial to identify the type of article review and follow the specific guidelines for formatting style provided by the instructor or professor.

The process of writing an article review requires several steps, such as reading the article attentively, identifying the thesis, and formulating an introduction. By following the tips and examples provided in this article, students can write a worthy review that demonstrates their ability to evaluate and critique another writer’s work.

Learning how to write an article review is a critical skill for students and professionals alike. Before diving into the nitty-gritty of reviewing an article, it’s important to understand what an article review is and the elements it should include. An article review is an assessment of a piece of writing that summarizes and evaluates a work. To complete a quality article review, the author should consider the text’s purpose and content, its organization, the author’s style, and how the article fits into a larger conversation. But if you don’t have the time to do all of this work, you can always purchase a literature review from Papers Owl .

Readers also enjoyed

Various Types of Article Reviews: From Narrative to Systematic

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

template of article review

University of Newcastle

How to write a journal article review: Create a template

  • What's in this Guide
  • What is a journal article?

Create a template

  • Choose your article to review
  • Read your article carefully
  • Do the writing
  • Remember to edit
  • Additional resources

It might be helpful to create a template for your assessment.

A template will help you to keep you focussed on the requirements of your task.

Here, you will allocate a percentage of your word count per section, to keep your arguments on point and in accordance with your task’s instructions.

For example, if you are asked to write a journal article review of 800 words, you could break it down like this:

1. Identification of journal 50 words
2. Summary of article 200 words
3. Critique 400 words
4. Conclusion 150 words

Pathways and Academic Learning Support

PALS logo

  • << Previous: What is a journal article?
  • Next: Choose your article to review >>
  • Last Updated: Apr 27, 2023 4:28 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.newcastle.edu.au/how-to-write-a-journal-article-review
  • Our Writers
  • How to Order
  • Assignment Writing Service
  • Report Writing Service
  • Buy Coursework
  • Dissertation Writing Service
  • Research Paper Writing Service
  • All Essay Services

User Icon

Article Review

Barbara P

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

Article Review

People also read

Learn How to Write an Editorial on Any Topic

Best Tips on How to Avoid Plagiarism

How to Write a Movie Review - Guide & Examples

A Complete Guide on How to Write a Summary for Students

Write Opinion Essay Like a Pro: A Detailed Guide

Evaluation Essay - Definition, Examples, and Writing Tips

How to Write a Thematic Statement - Tips & Examples

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

How to Write a Synopsis – A Simple Format & Guide

How to Write a Comparative Essay – A Complete Guide

Visual Analysis Essay - A Writing Guide with Format & Sample

List of Common Social Issues Around the World

Writing Character Analysis - Outline, Steps, and Examples

11 Common Types of Plagiarism Explained Through Examples

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

Detailed Guide on Appendix Writing: With Tips and Examples

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

You're not alone!

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

No worries! 

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

Let’s get started.

Arrow Down

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

What is an Article Review?

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

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

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

Order Essay

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Types of Article Reviews

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

Here are some common types of article reviews:

Journal Article Review

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

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

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

Example of Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

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

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

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

Here is a sample for you to get an idea.

Example of Research Article Review

Science Article Review

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

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

Take a look at the following example.

Example of Science Article Review

Critical Review

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

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

Critical Review Example

Article Review Format

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

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

: Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link} : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp. : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. Xx-xx.
: Last, First Middle Initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed. : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print. : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.

How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps

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

Step 1: Understand the Assignment

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

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

Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly

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

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

Step 3: Create a Summary

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

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

Step 4: Identify the Author's Thesis

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

This will serve as a foundation for your critique.

Step 5: Evaluate the Author's Evidence and Methodology

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

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

Step 6: Analyze the Author's Writing Style

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

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

Step 7: Consider the Article's Contribution

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

Step 8: Write the Introduction

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

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

Step 9: Develop the Body of the Review

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

Use clear paragraphs to structure your analysis logically.

Step 10: Conclude with a Summary and Evaluation

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

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

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

Article Review Outline

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

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

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

Article Review Format Template

Article Review Examples

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

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

Example of Article Review

Sample of article review assignment pdf

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

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

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

  • Start with a Clear Introduction

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

  • Concise Summary with Unanswered Questions

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

  • Illustrate with Examples

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

  • Organize Clearly with a Summary Section

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

  • Constructive Criticism

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

  • Smoothly Connect Your Ideas

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

  • Revise and Check for Clarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI Essay Bot

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Barbara P

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

Get Help

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

Keep reading

How to Write an Editorial

How to Write an Effective Article Review – Updated 2024 Guide

Article Review

Purpose of an Article Review

Importance of writing an effective review, read the article thoroughly, identify the main arguments, take notes on key points.

  • Evaluate the Author's Credibility
  • Assess the Article's Structure and Organization

Examine the Use of Evidence and Examples

Write a concise summary of the article.

  • Include the Article's Main Points

Avoid Personal Opinions in the Summary

Identify strengths and weaknesses.

  • Evaluate the Article's Logic and Reasoning
  • Discuss the Article's Impact and Relevance

Start with an Engaging Introduction

Provide a brief overview of the article.

  • Critique the Article's Strengths and Weaknesses

Offer Suggestions for Improvement

Conclude with a summary and recommendation, check for grammar and spelling errors, ensure clarity and coherence of writing, revise for proper formatting and citations, review the overall structure and flow, make final edits and revisions, submit the article review.

Writing an article review can be a challenging task, but it is an essential skill for academics, researchers, and anyone who needs to critically evaluate published work. An article review is a written piece that provides a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of a scholarly article, book, or other published material. It goes beyond a simple summary by offering a critical assessment of the work’s strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution to the field. In this blog post, we will explore the steps involved in writing an effective article review.

        I.            Introduction

The primary purpose of an article review is to provide a critical evaluation of a published work. It serves as a means of engaging with the ideas and arguments presented by the author(s) and assessing their validity, significance, and potential impact on the field. An article review allows the reviewer to analyze the work’s merits, identify its limitations, and offer constructive feedback or suggestions for further research or discussion.

Writing an effective article review is crucial for several reasons. First, it demonstrates the reviewer’s ability to critically analyze and synthesize complex information. This skill is highly valued in academic and professional settings, where critical thinking and analytical skills are essential . Second, article reviews contribute to the ongoing scholarly discourse by providing informed perspectives and critiques that can shape future research and discussions. Finally, well-written article reviews can help readers determine whether a particular work is worth reading or exploring further, making them valuable resources for researchers and scholars in the field.

     II.            Understanding the Article

Article Review

The first step in writing an article review is to read the article carefully and thoroughly. This may seem obvious, but it is crucial to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the work before attempting to critique it. During the initial reading, focus on grasping the main arguments, key points, and the overall structure of the article. Take note of any unfamiliar concepts, terminology, or references that may require further research or clarification.

As you read the article, pay close attention to the author’s central arguments or thesis statements. Identify the main claims, hypotheses, or research questions that the article attempts to address. Understanding the core arguments is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of the author’s reasoning and the validity of their conclusions.

While reading the article, it is helpful to take notes on the key points, supporting evidence, and any critical or thought-provoking ideas presented by the author(s). These notes will serve as a reference when you begin writing the review and will help you organize your thoughts and critique more effectively.

  III.            Analyzing the Article

Evaluate the author’s credibility.

When analyzing an article, it is essential to consider the author’s credibility and expertise in the field. Research the author’s background, qualifications, and previous publications to assess their authority on the subject matter. This information can provide valuable context and help you determine the weight and reliability of the arguments presented in the article.

Assess the Article’s Structure and Organization

Evaluate the overall structure and organization of the article. Is the information presented in a logical and coherent manner? Does the article follow a clear progression from introduction to conclusion? Assessing the structure can help you determine whether the author has effectively communicated their ideas and arguments.

Critically examine the evidence and examples used by the author(s) to support their arguments. Are the sources credible and up-to-date? Are the examples relevant and well-chosen? Evaluating the quality and appropriateness of the evidence can help you assess the strength and validity of the author’s claims.

  IV.            Summarizing the Article

Before delving into your critique, it is essential to provide a concise summary of the article . This summary should briefly outline the article’s main arguments, key points, and conclusions. The goal is to give the reader a clear understanding of the article’s content without adding any personal opinions or critiques at this stage.

Include the Article’s Main Points

In your summary, be sure to include the article’s main points and the evidence or examples used to support them. This will help the reader understand the context and the basis for the author’s arguments, which is crucial for your subsequent critique.

When summarizing the article, it is important to remain objective and avoid injecting personal opinions or critiques. The summary should be a neutral representation of the article’s content, leaving the analysis and evaluation for the critique section.

    V.            Critiquing the Article

Article Review

After providing a summary, it is time to analyze and critique the article. Begin by identifying the article’s strengths and weaknesses . Strengths may include well-reasoned arguments, thorough research, innovative ideas, or significant contributions to the field. Weaknesses could include flawed logic, lack of evidence, oversimplification of complex issues, or failure to address counterarguments.

Evaluate the Article’s Logic and Reasoning

Carefully evaluate the author’s logic and reasoning throughout the article. Are the arguments well-supported and logically consistent? Do the conclusions follow naturally from the evidence presented? Identify any logical fallacies, contradictions, or gaps in reasoning that may undermine the author’s arguments.

Discuss the Article’s Impact and Relevance

Consider the article’s potential impact and relevance within the broader context of the field. How does it contribute to existing knowledge or challenge prevailing theories? Does it open up new avenues for research or discussion? Discussing the article’s impact and relevance can help readers understand its significance and importance.

  VI.            Writing the Article Review

Article Review

Begin your article review with an engaging introduction that captures the reader’s attention and provides context for the review. Briefly introduce the article, its author(s), and the main topic or research area. You can also include a concise thesis statement that summarizes your overall evaluation or critique of the article.

After the introduction, provide a brief overview or summary of the article. This should be a condensed version of the summary you wrote earlier, highlighting the article’s main arguments, key points, and conclusions. Keep this section concise and focused, as the main critique will follow.

Critique the Article’s Strengths and Weaknesses

In the critique section, present your analysis of the article’s strengths and weaknesses. Discuss the author’s use of evidence, the validity of their arguments, and the overall quality of their reasoning. Support your critique with specific examples and references from the article. Be sure to provide balanced criticism, acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects of the work.

In addition to critiquing the article , consider offering constructive suggestions for improvement. These suggestions could address areas where the author’s arguments were weak or where additional research or discussion is needed. Your suggestions should be specific and actionable, aimed at enhancing the quality and impact of the work.

Conclude your article review by summarizing your main points and providing an overall recommendation or final assessment of the article. This recommendation could be to read or not read the article, to use it as a reference in a specific context, or to consider it as a starting point for further research or discussion.

VII.            Editing and Proofreading

After you have completed your initial draft, it is essential to carefully proofread and edit your work. Check for any grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, or typos that may have been overlooked during the writing process. These small errors can detract from the overall quality and professionalism of your review.

In addition to checking for mechanical errors , ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and coherent. Review your sentences and paragraphs for clarity, and make sure that your ideas flow logically from one point to the next. Avoid ambiguous or confusing language that could make your critique difficult to understand.

Depending on the specific requirements or guidelines for your article review, you may need to revise your work to ensure proper formatting and citation styles. Check that you have correctly cited any references or quotes from the article you are reviewing, and that your formatting (e.g., headings, spacing, font) adheres to the specified guidelines.

VIII.            Finalizing the Review

Article Review

Before finalizing your article review , take a step back and review the overall structure and flow of your writing. Ensure that your introduction effectively sets the stage for your critique, and that your body paragraphs logically build upon one another, leading to a well-supported conclusion.

During this final review, consider whether your critique is balanced and objective, presenting both the strengths and weaknesses of the article in a fair and impartial manner. Also, check that you have provided sufficient evidence and examples to support your analysis and that your arguments are clearly articulated.

After reviewing the overall structure and flow, make any necessary final edits and revisions to your article review. This might involve reorganizing or reworking certain sections for better clarity, strengthening your arguments with additional evidence, or refining your writing style for greater impact.

Pay close attention to your choice of words and tone, ensuring that your critique remains respectful and professional, even when addressing the article’s shortcomings. Remember, the goal is to provide a constructive and well-reasoned analysis, not to disparage or attack the author’s work.

Once you are satisfied with your article review, it is time to submit it according to the appropriate guidelines or requirements . This might involve formatting your work in a specific style, adhering to word count or page limits, or following specific submission procedures.

If your article review is intended for publication, be sure to follow the guidelines provided by the journal or publication outlet. This may include submitting your work through an online portal, adhering to specific formatting requirements, or including additional materials such as an abstract or author biography.

Congratulations! By following these steps, you have successfully written a comprehensive and effective article review. Remember, the process of critically evaluating published work is an essential skill that not only demonstrates your ability to analyze and synthesize complex information but also contributes to the ongoing scholarly discourse within your field.

Writing an article review can be a challenging task, but it is a valuable exercise that sharpens your critical thinking, analytical, and communication skills. By carefully reading and understanding the article, assessing its strengths and weaknesses, and providing a well-reasoned critique, you contribute to the advancement of knowledge and foster a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

So, embrace the opportunity to write article reviews, and use each one as a platform to engage with the ideas and arguments presented by scholars and researchers. Your thoughtful and insightful critiques can shape future research, inspire new perspectives, and ultimately drive progress within your field of study.

  • RESEARCH PAPER FOR SALE
  • RESEARCH PAPER WRITER
  • RESEARCH PROPOSAL WRITING SERVICES
  • SCHOLARSHIP ESSAY HELP
  • SPEECH HELP
  • STATISTICS HOMEWORK HELP
  • TERM PAPER WRITING HELP
  • THESIS EDITING SERVICES
  • THESIS PROPOSAL WRITING SERVICE
  • TRIGONOMETRY HOMEWORK HELP
  • ADMISSION ESSAY WRITING HELP
  • BIOLOGY PAPER WRITING SERVICE
  • BOOK REPORT WRITING HELP
  • BUY BOOK REVIEW
  • BUY COURSEWORKS
  • BUY DISCUSSION POST
  • BUY TERM PAPER
  • CAPSTONE PROJECT WRITING SERVICE
  • COURSEWORK WRITING SERVICE
  • CRITIQUE MY ESSAY
  • CUSTOM RESEARCH PAPER
  • CUSTOMER CONDUCT
  • DISSERTATION EDITING SERVICE
  • DISSERTATION WRITERS
  • DO MY DISSERTATION FOR ME
  • DO MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
  • EDIT MY PAPER
  • English Research Paper Writing Service
  • ENGLISH RESEARCH PAPER WRITING SERVICE
  • ESSAY WRITING HELP
  • ESSAYS FOR SALE
  • GRADUATE PAPER WRITING SERVICE
  • LAW ASSIGNMENT WRITING HELP
  • MARKETING ASSIGNMENT WRITING HELP
  • NON-PLAGIARIZED ESSAYS
  • NURSING ASSIGNMENT HELP
  • PAY FOR COURSEWORK
  • PAY FOR ESSAYS
  • PAY FOR LITERATURE REVIEW
  • PAY FOR PAPERS
  • PAY FOR RESEARCH PAPERS
  • PERSONAL STATEMENT EDITING SERVICE
  • PERSONAL STATEMENT WRITER
  • PERSUASIVE ESSAY WRITING HELP
  • PERSUASIVE ESSAY WRITING SERVICES
  • PHD THESIS WRITING SERVICE
  • PROOFREAD MY PAPER
  • PSYCHOLOGY ESSAY WRITING SERVICES
  • THESIS STATEMENT HELP
  • WRITE MY ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR ME
  • WRITE MY CASE STUDY
  • WRITE MY DISCUSSION BOARD POST
  • WRITE MY LAB REPORT

template of article review

Journal Article Review in APA Style

Journal article reviews refer to the appraisal of potencies and limitations of an article’s opinion and subject matter. The article reviews offer the readers with an explanation, investigation and clarification to evaluate the importance of the article. A journal article review usually follows the APA style, which is in itself an exceptional mode of writing. Writing a journal article review in APA style requires a thorough reading of an article and then present our personal opinions on its subject matter.

In order to write a journal article review in APA style, one must necessarily conform to the detailed guidelines of APA style of writing. As such, a few tips for writing a journal article review in APA style have been provided in details below.

template of article review

Tips for Writing Journal Article Review in APA Style

Getting started.

Read the complete article. Most journal articles use highly complicated and difficult language and wording. Thus, it is suggested to read the article thoroughly several times to understand it perfectly. Select a statement that effectively conveys the main idea of your review. Present the ideas in a rational order, keeping in mind that all opinions must sustain the main idea.

Start with a header with citation

Journal article reviews start with a header, including citation of the sources being reviewed. This citation is mentioned at the top of the review, following the APA style (refer to the APA style manual for more information). We will need the author’s name for the article, title of the article, journal of the published article, volume and issue number, publication date, and page numbers for the article.

Write a summary

The introductory paragraph of the review should provide a brief summary of the article, strictly limiting it to one to three paragraphs depending on the article length. The summary should discuss only the most imperative details about the article, like the author’s intention in writing the article, how the study was conducted, how the article relates to other work on the same subject, the results and other relevant information from the article.

Body of the review

The succeeding paragraphs of the review should present your ideas and opinions on the article. Discuss the significance and suggestion of the results of the study. The body of the article review should be limited to one to two paragraphs, including your understanding of the article, quotations from the article demonstrating your main ideas, discussing the article’s limitations and how to overcome them.

Concluding the review

The concluding paragraphs of the review should provide your personal appraisal of the journal article. Discuss whether the article is well-written or not, whether any information is missing, or if further research is necessary on the subject. Also, write a paragraph on how the author could develop the study results, what the information means on a large scale, how further investigation can develop the subject matter, and how the knowledge of this field can be extended further.

Citation and Revision

In-text citation of direct quotes or paraphrases from the article can be done using the author’s name, year of publication and page numbers (refer to the APA-style manual for citation guidelines). After finishing the writing of journal article review in APA style, it would be advised to re-visit the review after a few days and then re-read it altogether. By doing this, you will be able to view the review with a new perspective and may detect mistakes that were previously left undetected.

The above mentioned tips will help and guide you for writing a journal article review in APA style. However, while writing a journal article review, remember that you are undertaking more than just a narrative review. Thus, the article review should not merely focus on discussing what the article is about, but should reveal your personal ideas and opinions on the article.

Related Posts

The importance of editing dissertations.

Writing a dissertation is the start of the final phase of graduation. For a student, it marks the transition from being a graduate to a research scholar. Writing a dissertation is a self-directed process, making it an interesting yet challenging task. It is the culmination of years of hard work and study. However, writing a […]

Preparing your figures for research papers

Often a research paper is embedded with loads of data and complex results and it might not be viable to include all them in the space-constrained paper. Hence, this calls for effective presentation of the information in the form of figures or diagrams. In fact, figures are the most powerful tools that leave a strong […]

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

A fundamental requisite of a publication in any reputed journal is the need to provide readers with unbiased and unambiguous research. Toward this objective, a published article should disclose whether the author or authors had any competing interest or conflict of interest while preparing the article. Consequently, the onus is on the journal to publish […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How to Write an Article Review: Examples and Tips

article review

In today's information-rich world, mastering the skill of discerning valuable insights from the overwhelming noise is a game-changer. Whether you're a student striving for success or a professional aiming to stay sharp, knowing how to critique an article is your key.

Our article review writing service explains the intricacies of writing an article review, categorizes different types and shares insights into impactful formatting. It's not just theory – we'll guide you step by step, from pre-writing to a tangible review article example, and refine your abilities with essential proofreading tips.

What Is an Article Review?

An article review is more than a mere summary; it is a thoughtful analysis and critique that goes beyond the surface of the title. It's an intellectual exercise that challenges you to engage deeply with the author's ideas, question their methodology, and evaluate the significance of their findings.

Consider it as a journey through the landscape of someone else's thoughts. It's not just about where the writer takes you; it's about the path they choose, the landmarks they highlight, and the potential detours they overlook. An effective examination is a conversation with the author, a dialogue where you appreciate their insights, challenge assumptions, and perhaps even find alternative routes through the intellectual terrain they've explored.

As you start to understand how to review the article, encourage thought by asking questions.

  • What assumptions underlie the author's arguments? 
  • Are there alternative perspectives that could enrich the discussion?
  • How does the author's methodology shape their conclusions, and are there potential biases to consider?
  • How does the title contribute to the clarity and coherence of the author's arguments?
  • In what ways does the title influence the reader's perception of the author's

At EssayHub, our book review writing service experts believe an article review is an opportunity not just to absorb information but to actively engage with it, to question, to ponder, and to contribute your own insights to the scholarly conversation.

Types of Review

When tackling article reviews, there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach; it's a task that allows for versatile strategies. Think of understanding the different types of reviews as having a multifaceted toolkit ready for use. In this part, we'll guide you through the varied types of a review article, each showing a unique viewpoint and serving a specific purpose. Whether you're analyzing a scholarly piece on your own or asking someone to 'write an article review for me,' you'll get valuable insights.

article review types

Journal Article Review

A journal article review involves critically evaluating and analyzing scholarly pieces published in an academic journal. It requires a thorough understanding of the author's research, methodology, results, and conclusions. The reviewer assesses the journal's contributions to the field, its theoretical framework, and the validity of the research methods employed. The goal is to provide a comprehensive summary and critique that highlights both the strengths and limitations of the piece.

Research Article Review

A research article review focuses on the evaluation of a scientific or academic research paper. This type of examination involves examining the research question, experimental design, data collection methods, statistical analysis, and the interpretation of findings. For example, it can be research on teen vaping statistics , which includes all of above. The reviewer assesses the reliability and validity of the research, considers the implications of the study, and offers insights into its potential impact on the broader academic community.

Science Article Review

A science article review encompasses a critical analysis of a piece in the field of science, covering disciplines such as physics, chemistry, biology, or any other scientific domain. This review type involves assessing the clarity of scientific concepts presented, the validity of experimental procedures, and the significance of the study's findings. According to our literature review writing service , reviewers may also consider the article's potential contributions to advancing scientific knowledge and its relevance to current scientific debates or issues.

template of article review

Article Review Format

Ensuring the proper formatting of an article examination is crucial, and it should consistently align with the citation style specified by your instructor. If you're uncertain, don't hesitate to ask us - write my article review for me, along with additional guidelines to effectively structure your piece.

Meanwhile, here are some questions to consider:

  • What citation style (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.) should you employ?
  • What is the recommended length for your article review?
  • Should your assignment encompass a summary, critique, or include personal opinions?
  • Is it necessary to highlight a theme or central idea from the articles?
  • Does your instructor expect background information to be incorporated?

APA Format Article Review

An APA review sticks to the rules of the American Psychological Association. When unsure how to write an article review in APA format, remember that it carefully cites the article, using a title page, intro, summary, critique, conclusion, and references. Citations follow the author-date format, focusing on being clear and objective. The review digs into the article's methods, results, and overall impact.

When you write an article review in APA, your in-text citation might read: (Anderson & Ramirez, 2019)

The corresponding entry in the reference list would be: Anderson, L., & Ramirez, C. (2019). Unveiling the Dynamics of Urban Green Spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 112-128.

MLA Format Article Review

For an MLA writing review, it follows the Modern Language Association's style. It's important to know how sources are cited in the text and in the Works Cited page. The structure usually has an intro, summary, critique, and conclusion. MLA citations often have the author's last name and page number in brackets in the text. This review might highlight the document's literary or humanities aspects, such as style, language, and cultural context.

In an MLA format publication, the citation within the text could look like: (Anderson and Ramirez 112)

The Works Cited entry for this publication: Anderson, Laura, and Carlos Ramirez. 'Exploring the Impact of Urban Green Spaces on Well-being.' Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 25, no. 3, 2019, pp. 112-128.

Review Article Outline

As you read your writing piece, organize your thoughts into sections in an outline. Note down key facts, contributions, and any contradictions. Identify strengths and weaknesses, and start mapping your outline.

If your professor doesn't want a summary or personal critique, skip those parts. Like other assignments, your examination needs an introduction, body, and conclusion. Consider dividing your outline accordingly, with subheadings in the body. If you need help starting, find a sample outline.

Your article assessment should have the following:

  • Pre-Title Page: Essential details like publication type, publication title, author names with affiliations, and corresponding author info.
  • Running Head (APA format): A concise title for consistent formatting.
  • Summary Page (optional but useful): Summarize the document in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology.
  • Title Page: Full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
  • Introduction: Engage your reader with an overview.
  • Body: Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
  • Works Cited/References: Properly cite all sources.
  • Optional Suggested Reading Page: If allowed, suggest further readings.
  • Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed): Include visuals when requested for clarity.

Writing an Article Review in 7 Steps

Use our essay writer service or move on to understanding how to write a review paper covering everything from creating the title to summarizing key points. This step-by-step guide breaks it down into seven simple steps, making the entire process more manageable.

how to write an article review

Step 1: Create the Title

The very first question you might have is how to start an article review. It's crucial to develop a title that not only captures the essence of the publication but also reflects your perspective. For instance, consider the title: ' Decoding Data: A Critical Exploration of Privacy Concerns in Online Health Platforms. ' This title not only introduces the main theme but also hints at the critical evaluation that will unfold in the writing. It sets the tone for your analysis and sparks interest from the outset.

Step 2: Reference the Article

In the second step, it's essential to ensure accurate citation by providing specific details. Take a look at this example:

  • Author: Rodriguez, M., & Chen, L.
  • Title: 'Privacy Matters: Analyzing the Impact of Health Apps on User Data'
  • Publication Date: 2023
  • Source: Journal of Digital Ethics, 8(2), 87-105.

By including these details, you not only acknowledge the authors and the publication but also provide your readers with the necessary information to locate and verify the article. This step lays the foundation for a credible and well-referenced examination.

Step 3: Article Identification

Identify key elements of the publication, such as the writer's main argument, methodology, and key findings. Pinpoint any theoretical frameworks or models used in the title.

For example: The writing by Garcia and Kim examines the correlation between social media usage and mental health outcomes among adolescents. The authors employ a longitudinal study approach, utilizing surveys and interviews to gather data.

Step 4: Make an Introduction

In your introduction, provide a brief overview of the title's subject and purpose. Capture the reader's attention and clearly state your thesis or main point related to the title. For instance, you might start your article review template like this.

In the digital age, the impact of social media on mental health has become a topic of increasing concern. Garcia and Kim's recent study delves into this issue, aiming to uncover the nuanced relationship between social media engagement and the psychological well-being of adolescents. This writing piece critically analyzes the methodology, findings, and implications of their research.

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Summarize the main points of your assessment, highlighting key arguments, evidence, and results. Offer a concise overview without adding personal opinions.

Example: Garcia and Kim's study reveals a significant positive association between increased social media use and heightened levels of anxiety and depression among the adolescent population. The longitudinal study tracked participants over a two-year period, employing both quantitative and qualitative measures to assess mental health outcomes.

Step 6: Provide Critique

Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the writing. Well, how to critique an article , you might wonder. Discuss aspects such as methodology, data interpretation, and potential biases.

Example: While the study offers valuable insights, the reliance on self-reported data may introduce response bias. Additionally, the research predominantly focuses on mainstream social media platforms, potentially overlooking the impact of emerging platforms. Despite these limitations, the study's comprehensive approach contributes to the ongoing discourse surrounding the intersection of social media and mental health.

Step 7: Conclude

In the conclusion, summarize your overall assessment of the article and restate your main points. Offer insights into the broader implications of the research and suggest areas for future exploration. 

For example: To conclude, Garcia and Kim's study sheds light on the complex relationship between social media use and adolescent mental health. Despite certain methodological limitations, the research underscores the need for continued investigation in this field. As we navigate the digital landscape, understanding these dynamics becomes crucial for devising effective interventions and support systems for the well-being of our youth.

Example of an Article Review

Why are we taking the time to discuss article review examples in this article? It might not be immediately apparent, but exploring a well-crafted article review sample is a vital step in the writing process for the following reasons:

  • Introduction to Key Works: Helps you to familiarize yourself with the important works of experts in your field.
  • Identification of Key Figures: You can recognize key figures contributing to a specific scientific field.
  • Understanding Field Advancements: Helps you define significant discoveries and advances made in your area of study.
  • Identification of Knowledge Gaps: You can uncover major gaps in existing knowledge, contributing to the formulation of fresh solutions.
  • Reference and Argumentation Resources: You discover solid references and arguments that can enhance your own writing.
  • Idea Generation: Helps you generate ideas for potential future research directions.
  • Becoming an Expert: Assists in gaining a deeper understanding of the subject area, moving towards expertise.
  • Writing Guidance: You acquire a clear idea of how to craft a well-structured review.

template of article review

Can Anyone Write an Article Review for Me?

Is writing a review article worth it, how to write an apa format article review, how do you write an article review from the beginning, what is the proper article review format.

Ryan Acton is an essay-writing expert with a Ph.D. in Sociology, specializing in sociological research and historical analysis. By partnering with EssayHub, he provides comprehensive support to students, helping them craft well-informed essays across a variety of topics.

template of article review

  • Plagiarism Report
  • Unlimited Revisions
  • 24/7 Support

article review

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

template of article review

Have you been assigned an article review paper, but you are unsure where to start, or what is a review article at all? There is no need to worry, as EssayService has put together a top guide for you! Find out all about an article review to master your assignment.

What is an Article Review?

In simple terms, an article review essay is like a summary and evaluation of another professional or expert's work. It may also be referred to as a literature review that includes an outline of the most recent research on the subject, or a critical review that focuses on a specific article with smaller scope. Article review can be used for many reasons; for example, a teacher or lecturer may wish to introduce their students to a new subject by reviewing a professional's piece. You can also learn about the most important works of specialists in your industry by looking at relevant article review examples.

Also, a newspaper article review example could be a journalist writing a critique about another competitor's published work.

In comparison, a book review article example could be critiqued by a fellow author or even a student in the chosen field.

Depending on the critique criteria and the work being reviewed, there could also be certain points asked for addition which should be checked and noted by the lecturer or supervisor. Otherwise, follow the article review guidelines from our write my essay service to complete the assignment in no time.

Key points when writing an article review:

Use the article review template from our paper writing service to get through the assignment as fast as possible so you will not waste any time.

review

How to Start an Article Review?

  • Firstly read the work being reviewed as much as possible and look up key phrases and words that are not understood.
  • Discuss the work with other professionals or colleagues to collect more opinions and get a more balanced impression.
  • Highlight important sections or sentences and refer this to your knowledge in the topic, do you agree or disagree and what does this contribute to the field?
  • Then re-write the key arguments and findings into your own words this will help gain better understanding into the paper. This can be just written as an outline also and will help decide which points are wanted to discuss later.

If you feel you do not have enough time to create a critique worthy of your time, then come to EssayService and order a custom Article review online.

You can order essay independent of type, for example:

  • nursing essay;
  • law essay writing;
  • history essays.

The best way to write an effective essay would be to draw up a plan or outline of what needs to be covered and use it for guidance throughout the critique.

template of article review

Article Review Formatting

There is no one-fits-all article format you can follow in your review. In fact, the formatting is dictated by the citation style specified by your professor in the task requirements. Thus, be sure to clarify the preferred style before you jump straight to writing to handle the given assignment right.

APA Format Article Review

Writing an APA style article review, you will most likely use articles from journals, websites, and newspapers. For each source, you will have to create properly formatted bibliographical entries.

Here is how to write an article review APA:

  • Journal: Author’s last name, First and middle initial. (Year of Publication). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
  • Website: Last name, initials. (Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
  • Newspaper: Last name, initials. (Date of Publication). Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

MLA Format Article Review

Tips for citing sources in an article review MLA format:

  • Journal: Last name, First name Middle initial. “Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year of Publication): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Accessed.
  • Website: Last, First M. “Title.” Website Title. Publisher, Date Published. Web. Date Accessed.
  • Newspaper: Last, First M. “Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date of Publication: Page(s). Print.

Article Review Outline

Planning out an outline for your paper will help writing and to put it together so therefore saving you time in the long run.

Some questions to help with the outline of a critique:

  • What does the article set out to do or prove?
  • Are the main ideas clear and defined?
  • How substantial is the evidence?
  • Where does the article fit in its specific field?
  • Does it provide new knowledge on the topic?
  • What are the central theories and assumptions?
  • Is the writer conclusive at getting their point across?

Here is a typical article review format to follow:

review structure

Use our article review template to get through the assignment as fast as possible so you will not waste any time.

Article Review Title

Firstly start with creating a title for your critique, this should be something to do with the focus of the work that is being reviewed. An approach could be to make it descriptive or also in a more creative way think of something that intrigues the reader. After the title, this is a good place to correctly cite the paper being critiqued and include the important details for example, the author, title of publication, any page references. The style in which the citation is written will depend on which is best for this type of work being reviewed.

Article Review Introduction

The introduction should be a brief glimpse into what the author was writing about and any other details the audience will find interesting. Maybe some background details on the piece that is not already known or something that contributes to the review itself. It is a good idea to start by introducing the work at the start of the paragraph and then include a ' hook '. Include the writer's thesis if there is one and put it at the end but include your own thesis towards the critique near the beginning of this section.

Article Review Body

When constructing the summary section, write down the important points and findings in the piece in your own words. Include how the claims are supported and backed up with evidence but use direct quotes as sparing as possible. Do not put in any information known to professionals in the field or topic, but detail any conclusions the work came to. Make sure the paper is not just copied word for word and is actually summarized by yourself; this will also help the review stage.

To make an accurate critique, break down the work and express opinions on whether it achieves its goals and how useful it is in explaining the topics for an article review. Decide if the paper contributes to its field and is important and credible to the given field. Back up all the claims with evidence from the summary or another source. If using another text, remember to cite it correctly in the bibliography section. Look at how strong the points are and do they contribute to the argument. Try to identify any biases the writer might have and use this to make a fair critique. This part is only for opinions of the piece's significance, not including whether you liked it. Furthermore, the different types of audiences that would benefit from the paper can be mentioned in this section.

Article Review Conclusion

In the conclusion section of the critique, there should only be one or two paragraphs in which a summary of key points and opinions in the piece are included. Also, summarize the paper's significance to its field and how accurate the work is. Depending on the type of critique or work evaluated, it is also possible to include comments on future research or the topic to be discussed further.

If other sources have been used, construct a bibliography section and correctly cite all works utilized in the critique. 

The APA format is very common in an article review and stands for American Psychology Association. This will include a 'references list' at the end of the critique and in-text citations, mentioning the author's last name, page number, and publication date.

There are also MLA and Chicago formats for citations with slight differences in a name, like using a 'works cited' page for MLA. More can be found in this guide on the subtle differences between the types of citation methods under the heading 'Creating a bibliography.'

Article Review Example

Article review writing tips.

If you are interested in best scholarships for high school seniors , the following tips will be handy while writing your essay or article:

  • Allow enough time to complete the research and writing of the critique. The number one problem with creating a critique is running out of time to make it the best it can be. This can be avoided by effective planning and keeping on time with the deadlines you set out.
  • Collect twice more research than you think is needed to write a review. This will help when coming to the writing stage as not all the information collected will be used in the final draft.
  • Write in a style that is compatible with the work being critiqued. This will be better for whoever requested the critique and also will make paper easier to construct.
  • A summary and evaluation must be written. Do not leave out either part as one complements the other and is vital to create a critique worth reading.
  • Be clear and explain well every statement made about the piece . Everything that is unknown to professionals in the field should be explained and all comments should be easy to follow for the reader.
  • Do not just describe the work, analyze and interpret it. The critique should be in depth and give the audience some detailed interpretations of the work in a professional way.
  • Give an assessment of the quality in the writing and of what standard it is. Evaluate every aspect in the paper so that the audience can see where it fits into the rest of the related works. Give opinions based on fact and do not leave any comments without reason as this will not count for anything.

How to Write an Article Review?

Writing a review article is not that hard if you know what steps to take. Below is a step-by-step guide on how to write a review example quickly and easily.

  • Before You Start

Before you start writing your review essay, there are a few pre-writing steps to take. The pre-writing process should consist of the following steps:

  • Pick the subject of your review (if it wasn’t specified by your professor);
  • Read the article fully multiple times;
  • Summarize the main ideas, points, and claims made in the article;
  • Define the positive (strong) aspects;
  • Identify the gaps or inconsistencies;
  • Find the questions that remained unanswered.

All these steps are needed to help you define the direction for your review article and find the main ideas you’d like to cover in it.

After you review articles and define the key ideas, gaps, and other details, map out your future paper by creating a detailed outline.

Here are the core elements that must be included:

  • Pre-title page;
  • Corresponding author details (optional);
  • Running head (only for the APA style);
  • Summary page (optional);
  • Title page;
  • Introduction;
  • References/Works Cited;
  • Suggested Reading page (optional);
  • Tables and Figure Legends (if required by the professor).

This step is vital to organize your thoughts and ensure a proper structure of your work. Thus, be sure not to skip this step.

When you have an outline, students can move on to the writing stage by formulating compelling titles for their article reviews. Titles should be declarative, interrogative, or descriptive to reflect the core focus of the paper.

  • Article Citation

After the title should follow a proper citation of the piece you are going to review. Write a citation according to the required style, and feel free to check out a well-written article review example to see how it should look like.

  • Article Identification

Start the first paragraph of your review with concise and clear article identification that specifies its title, author, name of the resource (e.g., journal, web, etc.), and the year of publication.

Following the identification, write a short introductory paragraph. It should be to the point and state a clear thesis for your review.

  • Summary and Critique

In the main body of your article review, you should first make a detailed but not too extensive summary of the article you reviewed, its main ideas, statements, and findings. In this part, you should also reflect on the conclusion made by the author of the original article.

After a general summary should follow an objective critique. In this part of your paper, you have to state and analyze the main strengths and weaknesses of the article. Also, you need to point out any gaps or unanswered questions that are still there. And clarify your stance on the author’s assertions.

Lastly, you need to craft a compelling conclusion that recaps the key points of your review and gives the final, logical evaluation of the piece that was reviewed.

After this, proofread your work and submit it.

No Time Left For Your Due Assignment

Now we hope you understand how to write a review of an article. However, we know that writing a great article review requires a lot of time to properly research the work. To save your precious time, visit EssayService, where our team of top essay writers will help you. The team can even provide you with the best article review topics! You can learn more at the college essay writing service page where we have free guides with all the essay writing tips and tricks!

Frequently asked questions

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

Gun Control Argumentative Essay

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

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.

Reviewing with Empathy

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

U.S. flag

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
  • ScientificWorldJournal
  • v.2024; 2024
  • PMC10807936

Logo of tswj

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Ayodeji amobonye.

1 Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

2 Writing Centre, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334 KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

Japareng Lalung

3 School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Santhosh Pillai

Associated data.

The data and materials that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable as both students and researchers rely on these articles as the starting point for their research. Interestingly, many postgraduate students are expected to write review articles for journal publications as a way of demonstrating their ability to contribute to new knowledge in their respective fields. However, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide them on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. The dearth of ample guidance or explicit training results in students having to learn all by themselves, usually by trial and error, which often leads to high rejection rates from publishing houses. Therefore, this article seeks to identify these challenges from a beginner's perspective and strives to plug the identified gaps and discrepancies. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a systematic guide for emerging scientists and to summarise the most important information on how to write and structure a publishable review article.

1. Introduction

Early scientists, spanning from the Ancient Egyptian civilization to the Scientific Revolution of the 16 th /17 th century, based their research on intuitions, personal observations, and personal insights. Thus, less time was spent on background reading as there was not much literature to refer to. This is well illustrated in the case of Sir Isaac Newton's apple tree and the theory of gravity, as well as Gregor Mendel's pea plants and the theory of inheritance. However, with the astronomical expansion in scientific knowledge and the emergence of the information age in the last century, new ideas are now being built on previously published works, thus the periodic need to appraise the huge amount of already published literature [ 1 ]. According to Birkle et al. [ 2 ], the Web of Science—an authoritative database of research publications and citations—covered more than 80 million scholarly materials. Hence, a critical review of prior and relevant literature is indispensable for any research endeavour as it provides the necessary framework needed for synthesising new knowledge and for highlighting new insights and perspectives [ 3 ].

Review papers are generally considered secondary research publications that sum up already existing works on a particular research topic or question and relate them to the current status of the topic. This makes review articles distinctly different from scientific research papers. While the primary aim of the latter is to develop new arguments by reporting original research, the former is focused on summarising and synthesising previous ideas, studies, and arguments, without adding new experimental contributions. Review articles basically describe the content and quality of knowledge that are currently available, with a special focus on the significance of the previous works. To this end, a review article cannot simply reiterate a subject matter, but it must contribute to the field of knowledge by synthesising available materials and offering a scholarly critique of theory [ 4 ]. Typically, these articles critically analyse both quantitative and qualitative studies by scrutinising experimental results, the discussion of the experimental data, and in some instances, previous review articles to propose new working theories. Thus, a review article is more than a mere exhaustive compilation of all that has been published on a topic; it must be a balanced, informative, perspective, and unbiased compendium of previous studies which may also include contrasting findings, inconsistencies, and conventional and current views on the subject [ 5 ].

Hence, the essence of a review article is measured by what is achieved, what is discovered, and how information is communicated to the reader [ 6 ]. According to Steward [ 7 ], a good literature review should be analytical, critical, comprehensive, selective, relevant, synthetic, and fully referenced. On the other hand, a review article is considered to be inadequate if it is lacking in focus or outcome, overgeneralised, opinionated, unbalanced, and uncritical [ 7 ]. Most review papers fail to meet these standards and thus can be viewed as mere summaries of previous works in a particular field of study. In one of the few studies that assessed the quality of review articles, none of the 50 papers that were analysed met the predefined criteria for a good review [ 8 ]. However, beginners must also realise that there is no bad writing in the true sense; there is only writing in evolution and under refinement. Literally, every piece of writing can be improved upon, right from the first draft until the final published manuscript. Hence, a paper can only be referred to as bad and unfixable when the author is not open to corrections or when the writer gives up on it.

According to Peat et al. [ 9 ], “everything is easy when you know how,” a maxim which applies to scientific writing in general and review writing in particular. In this regard, the authors emphasized that the writer should be open to learning and should also follow established rules instead of following a blind trial-and-error approach. In contrast to the popular belief that review articles should only be written by experienced scientists and researchers, recent trends have shown that many early-career scientists, especially postgraduate students, are currently expected to write review articles during the course of their studies. However, these scholars have little or no access to formal training on how to analyse and synthesise the research literature in their respective fields [ 10 ]. Consequently, students seeking guidance on how to write or improve their literature reviews are less likely to find published works on the subject, particularly in the science fields. Although various publications have dealt with the challenges of searching for literature, or writing literature reviews for dissertation/thesis purposes, there is little or no information on how to write a comprehensive review article for publication. In addition to the paucity of published information to guide the potential author, the lack of understanding of what constitutes a review paper compounds their challenges. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a guide for writing review papers for journal publishing. This work draws on the experience of the authors to assist early-career scientists/researchers in the “hard skill” of authoring review articles. Even though there is no single path to writing scientifically, or to writing reviews in particular, this paper attempts to simplify the process by looking at this subject from a beginner's perspective. Hence, this paper highlights the differences between the types of review articles in the sciences while also explaining the needs and purpose of writing review articles. Furthermore, it presents details on how to search for the literature as well as how to structure the manuscript to produce logical and coherent outputs. It is hoped that this work will ease prospective scientific writers into the challenging but rewarding art of writing review articles.

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

Analysing literature gives an overview of the “WHs”: WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [ 11 ]. For new or aspiring researchers in a particular field, it can be quite challenging to get a comprehensive overview of their respective fields, especially the historical trends and what has been studied previously. As such, the importance of review articles to knowledge appraisal and contribution cannot be overemphasised, which is reflected in the constant demand for such articles in the research community. However, it is also important for the author, especially the first-time author, to recognise the importance of his/her investing time and effort into writing a quality review article.

Generally, literature reviews are undertaken for many reasons, mainly for publication and for dissertation purposes. The major purpose of literature reviews is to provide direction and information for the improvement of scientific knowledge. They also form a significant component in the research process and in academic assessment [ 12 ]. There may be, however, a thin line between a dissertation literature review and a published review article, given that with some modifications, a literature review can be transformed into a legitimate and publishable scholarly document. According to Gülpınar and Güçlü [ 6 ], the basic motivation for writing a review article is to make a comprehensive synthesis of the most appropriate literature on a specific research inquiry or topic. Thus, conducting a literature review assists in demonstrating the author's knowledge about a particular field of study, which may include but not be limited to its history, theories, key variables, vocabulary, phenomena, and methodologies [ 10 ]. Furthermore, publishing reviews is beneficial as it permits the researchers to examine different questions and, as a result, enhances the depth and diversity of their scientific reasoning [ 1 ]. In addition, writing review articles allows researchers to share insights with the scientific community while identifying knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research. The review writing process can also be a useful tool in training early-career scientists in leadership, coordination, project management, and other important soft skills necessary for success in the research world [ 13 ]. Another important reason for authoring reviews is that such publications have been observed to be remarkably influential, extending the reach of an author in multiple folds of what can be achieved by primary research papers [ 1 ]. The trend in science is for authors to receive more citations from their review articles than from their original research articles. According to Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero [ 14 ], review articles are, on average, three times more frequently cited than original research articles; they also asserted that a 20% increase in review authorship could result in a 40–80% increase in citations of the author. As a result, writing reviews can significantly impact a researcher's citation output and serve as a valuable channel to reach a wider scientific audience. In addition, the references cited in a review article also provide the reader with an opportunity to dig deeper into the topic of interest. Thus, review articles can serve as a valuable repository for consultation, increasing the visibility of the authors and resulting in more citations.

3. Types of Review Articles

The first step in writing a good literature review is to decide on the particular type of review to be written; hence, it is important to distinguish and understand the various types of review articles. Although scientific review articles have been classified according to various schemes, however, they are broadly categorised into narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses [ 15 ]. It was observed that more authors—as well as publishers—were leaning towards systematic reviews and meta-analysis while downplaying narrative reviews; however, the three serve different aims and should all be considered equally important in science [ 1 ]. Bibliometric reviews and patent reviews, which are closely related to meta-analysis, have also gained significant attention recently. However, from another angle, a review could also be of two types. In the first class, authors could deal with a widely studied topic where there is already an accumulated body of knowledge that requires analysis and synthesis [ 3 ]. At the other end of the spectrum, the authors may have to address an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations; hence, their contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model [ 3 ].

3.1. Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviewers are mainly focused on providing clarification and critical analysis on a particular topic or body of literature through interpretative synthesis, creativity, and expert judgement. According to Green et al. [ 16 ], a narrative review can be in the form of editorials, commentaries, and narrative overviews. However, editorials and commentaries are usually expert opinions; hence, a beginner is more likely to write a narrative overview, which is more general and is also referred to as an unsystematic narrative review. Similarly, the literature review section of most dissertations and empirical papers is typically narrative in nature. Typically, narrative reviews combine results from studies that may have different methodologies to address different questions or to formulate a broad theoretical formulation [ 1 ]. They are largely integrative as strong focus is placed on the assimilation and synthesis of various aspects in the review, which may involve comparing and contrasting research findings or deriving structured implications [ 17 ]. In addition, they are also qualitative studies because they do not follow strict selection processes; hence, choosing publications is relatively more subjective and unsystematic [ 18 ]. However, despite their popularity, there are concerns about their inherent subjectivity. In many instances, when the supporting data for narrative reviews are examined more closely, the evaluations provided by the author(s) become quite questionable [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, if the goal of the author is to formulate a new theory that connects diverse strands of research, a narrative method is most appropriate.

3.2. Systematic Reviews

In contrast to narrative reviews, which are generally descriptive, systematic reviews employ a systematic approach to summarise evidence on research questions. Hence, systematic reviews make use of precise and rigorous criteria to identify, evaluate, and subsequently synthesise all relevant literature on a particular topic [ 12 , 20 ]. As a result, systematic reviews are more likely to inspire research ideas by identifying knowledge gaps or inconsistencies, thus helping the researcher to clearly define the research hypotheses or questions [ 21 ]. Furthermore, systematic reviews may serve as independent research projects in their own right, as they follow a defined methodology to search and combine reliable results to synthesise a new database that can be used for a variety of purposes [ 22 ]. Typically, the peculiarities of the individual reviewer, different search engines, and information databases used all ensure that no two searches will yield the same systematic results even if the searches are conducted simultaneously and under identical criteria [ 11 ]. Hence, attempts are made at standardising the exercise via specific methods that would limit bias and chance effects, prevent duplications, and provide more accurate results upon which conclusions and decisions can be made.

The most established of these methods is the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines which objectively defined statements, guidelines, reporting checklists, and flowcharts for undertaking systematic reviews as well as meta-analysis [ 23 ]. Though mainly designed for research in medical sciences, the PRISMA approach has gained wide acceptance in other fields of science and is based on eight fundamental propositions. These include the explicit definition of the review question, an unambiguous outline of the study protocol, an objective and exhaustive systematic review of reputable literature, and an unambiguous identification of included literature based on defined selection criteria [ 24 ]. Other considerations include an unbiased appraisal of the quality of the selected studies (literature), organic synthesis of the evidence of the study, preparation of the manuscript based on the reporting guidelines, and periodic update of the review as new data emerge [ 24 ]. Other methods such as PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols), MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) have since been developed for systematic reviews (and meta-analysis), with most of them being derived from PRISMA.

Consequently, systematic reviews—unlike narrative reviews—must contain a methodology section which in addition to all that was highlighted above must fully describe the precise criteria used in formulating the research question and setting the inclusion or exclusion criteria used in selecting/accessing the literature. Similarly, the criteria for evaluating the quality of the literature included in the review as well as for analysing, synthesising, and disseminating the findings must be fully described in the methodology section.

3.3. Meta-Analysis

Meta-analyses are considered as more specialised forms of systematic reviews. Generally, they combine the results of many studies that use similar or closely related methods to address the same question or share a common quantitative evaluation method [ 25 ]. However, meta-analyses are also a step higher than other systematic reviews as they are focused on numerical data and involve the use of statistics in evaluating different studies and synthesising new knowledge. The major advantage of this type of review is the increased statistical power leading to more reliable results for inferring modest associations and a more comprehensive understanding of the true impact of a research study [ 26 ]. Unlike in traditional systematic reviews, research topics covered in meta-analyses must be mature enough to allow the inclusion of sufficient homogeneous empirical research in terms of subjects, interventions, and outcomes [ 27 , 28 ].

Being an advanced form of systematic review, meta-analyses must also have a distinct methodology section; hence, the standard procedures involved in the traditional systematic review (especially PRISMA) also apply in meta-analyses [ 23 ]. In addition to the common steps in formulating systematic reviews, meta-analyses are required to describe how nested and missing data are handled, the effect observed in each study, the confidence interval associated with each synthesised effect, and any potential for bias presented within the sample(s) [ 17 ]. According to Paul and Barari [ 28 ], a meta-analysis must also detail the final sample, the meta-analytic model, and the overall analysis, moderator analysis, and software employed. While the overall analysis involves the statistical characterization of the relationships between variables in the meta-analytic framework and their significance, the moderator analysis defines the different variables that may affect variations in the original studies [ 28 , 29 ]. It must also be noted that the accuracy and reliability of meta-analyses have both been significantly enhanced by the incorporation of statistical approaches such as Bayesian analysis [ 30 ], network analysis [ 31 ], and more recently, machine learning [ 32 ].

3.4. Bibliometric Review

A bibliometric review, commonly referred to as bibliometric analysis, is a systematic evaluation of published works within a specific field or discipline [ 33 ]. This bibliometric methodology involves the use of quantitative methods to analyse bibliometric data such as the characteristics and numbers of publications, units of citations, authorship, co-authorship, and journal impact factors [ 34 ]. Academics use bibliometric analysis with different objectives in mind, which includes uncovering emerging trends in article and journal performance, elaborating collaboration patterns and research constituents, evaluating the impact and influence of particular authors, publications, or research groups, and highlighting the intellectual framework of a certain field [ 35 ]. It is also used to inform policy and decision-making. Similarly to meta-analysis, bibliometric reviews rely upon quantitative techniques, thus avoiding the interpretation bias that could arise from the qualitative techniques of other types of reviews [ 36 ]. However, while bibliometric analysis synthesises the bibliometric and intellectual structure of a field by examining the social and structural linkages between various research parts, meta-analysis focuses on summarising empirical evidence by probing the direction and strength of effects and relationships among variables, especially in open research questions [ 37 , 38 ]. However, similarly to systematic review and meta-analysis, a bibliometric review also requires a well-detailed methodology section. The amount of data to be analysed in bibliometric analysis is quite massive, running to hundreds and tens of thousands in some cases. Although the data are objective in nature (e.g., number of citations and publications and occurrences of keywords and topics), the interpretation is usually carried out through both objective (e.g., performance analysis) and subjective (e.g., thematic analysis) evaluations [ 35 ]. However, the invention and availability of bibliometric software such as BibExcel, Gephi, Leximancer, and VOSviewer and scientific databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus have made this type of analysis more feasible.

3.5. Patent Review

Patent reviews provide a comprehensive analysis and critique of a specific patent or a group of related patents, thus presenting a concise understanding of the technology or innovation that is covered by the patent [ 39 ]. This type of article is useful for researchers as it also enhances their understanding of the legal, technical, and commercial aspects of an intellectual property/innovation; in addition, it is also important for stakeholders outside the research community including IP (intellectual property) specialists, legal professionals, and technology-transfer officers [ 40 ]. Typically, patent reviews encompass the scope, background, claims, legal implications, technical specifications, and potential commercial applications of the patent(s). The article may also include a discussion of the patent's strengths and weaknesses, as well as its potential impact on the industry or field in which it operates. Most times, reviews are time specified, they may be regionalised, and the data are usually retrieved via patent searches on databases such as that of the European Patent Office ( https://www.epo.org/searching.html ), United States Patent and Trademark Office ( https://patft.uspto.gov/ ), the World Intellectual Property Organization's PATENTSCOPE ( https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf ), Google Patent ( https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts ), and China National Intellectual Property Administration ( https://pss-system.cponline.cnipa.gov.cn/conventionalSearch ). According to Cerimi et al. [ 41 ], the retrieved data and analysed may include the patent number, patent status, filing date, application date, grant dates, inventor, assignee, and pending applications. While data analysis is usually carried out by general data software such as Microsoft Excel, an intelligence software solely dedicated to patent research and analysis, Orbit Intelligence has been found to be more efficient [ 39 ]. It is also mandatory to include a methodology section in a patent review, and this should be explicit, thorough, and precise to allow a clear understanding of how the analysis was carried out and how the conclusions were arrived at.

4. Searching Literature

One of the most challenging tasks in writing a review article on a subject is the search for relevant literature to populate the manuscript as the author is required to garner information from an endless number of sources. This is even more challenging as research outputs have been increasing astronomically, especially in the last decade, with thousands of new articles published annually in various fields. It is therefore imperative that the author must not only be aware of the overall trajectory in a field of investigation but must also be cognizant of recent studies so as not to publish outdated research or review articles. Basically, the search for the literature involves a coherent conceptual structuring of the topic itself and a thorough collation of evidence under the common themes which might reflect the histories, conflicts, standoffs, revolutions, and/or evolutions in the field [ 7 ]. To start the search process, the author must carefully identify and select broad keywords relevant to the subject; subsequently, the keywords should be developed to refine the search into specific subheadings that would facilitate the structure of the review.

Two main tactics have been identified for searching the literature, namely, systematic and snowballing [ 42 ]. The systematic approach involves searching literature with specific keywords (for example, cancer, antioxidant, and nanoparticles), which leads to an almost unmanageable and overwhelming list of possible sources [ 43 ]. The snowballing approach, however, involves the identification of a particular publication, followed by the compilation of a bibliography of articles based on the reference list of the identified publication [ 44 ]. Many times, it might be necessary to combine both approaches, but irrespective, the author must keep an accurate track and record of papers cited in the search. A simple and efficient strategy for populating the bibliography of review articles is to go through the abstract (and sometimes the conclusion) of a paper; if the abstract is related to the topic of discourse, the author might go ahead and read the entire article; otherwise, he/she is advised to move on [ 45 ]. Winchester and Salji [ 5 ] noted that to learn the background of the subject/topic to be reviewed, starting literature searches with academic textbooks or published review articles is imperative, especially for beginners. Furthermore, it would also assist in compiling the list of keywords, identifying areas of further exploration, and providing a glimpse of the current state of the research. However, past reviews ideally are not to serve as the foundation of a new review as they are written from someone else's viewpoint, which might have been tainted with some bias. Fortunately, the accessibility and search for the literature have been made relatively easier than they were a few decades ago as the current information age has placed an enormous volume of knowledge right at our fingertips [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, when gathering the literature from the Internet, authors should exercise utmost caution as much of the information may not be verified or peer-reviewed and thus may be unregulated and unreliable. For instance, Wikipedia, despite being a large repository of information with more than 6.7 million articles in the English language alone, is considered unreliable for scientific literature reviews, due to its openness to public editing [ 47 ]. However, in addition to peer-reviewed journal publications—which are most ideal—reviews can also be drawn from a wide range of other sources such as technical documents, in-house reports, conference abstracts, and conference proceedings. Similarly, “Google Scholar”—as against “Google” and other general search engines—is more appropriate as its searches are restricted to only academic articles produced by scholarly societies or/and publishers [ 48 ]. Furthermore, the various electronic databases, such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, many of which focus on specific fields of research, are also ideal options [ 49 ]. Advancement in computer indexing has remarkably expanded the ease and ability to search large databases for every potentially relevant article. In addition to searching by topic, literature search can be modified by time; however, there must be a balance between old papers and recent ones. The general consensus in science is that publications less than five years old are considered recent.

It is important, especially in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, that the specific method of running the computer searches be properly documented as there is the need to include this in the method (methodology) section of such papers. Typically, the method details the keywords, databases explored, search terms used, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied in the selection of data and any other specific decision/criteria. All of these will ensure the reproducibility and thoroughness of the search and the selection procedure. However, Randolph [ 10 ] noted that Internet searches might not give the exhaustive list of articles needed for a review article; hence, it is advised that authors search through the reference lists of articles that were obtained initially from the Internet search. After determining the relevant articles from the list, the author should read through the references of these articles and repeat the cycle until saturation is reached [ 10 ]. After populating the articles needed for the literature review, the next step is to analyse them individually and in their whole entirety. A systematic approach to this is to identify the key information within the papers, examine them in depth, and synthesise original perspectives by integrating the information and making inferences based on the findings. In this regard, it is imperative to link one source to the other in a logical manner, for instance, taking note of studies with similar methodologies, papers that agree, or results that are contradictory [ 42 ].

5. Structuring the Review Article

The title and abstract are the main selling points of a review article, as most readers will only peruse these two elements and usually go on to read the full paper if they are drawn in by either or both of the two. Tullu [ 50 ] recommends that the title of a scientific paper “should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and not be misleading.” In addition to providing “just enough details” to entice the reader, words in the titles are also used by electronic databases, journal websites, and search engines to index and retrieve a particular paper during a search [ 51 ]. Titles are of different types and must be chosen according to the topic under review. They are generally classified as descriptive, declarative, or interrogative and can also be grouped into compound, nominal, or full-sentence titles [ 50 ]. The subject of these categorisations has been extensively discussed in many articles; however, the reader must also be aware of the compound titles, which usually contain a main title and a subtitle. Typically, subtitles provide additional context—to the main title—and they may specify the geographic scope of the research, research methodology, or sample size [ 52 ].

Just like primary research articles, there are many debates about the optimum length of a review article's title. However, the general consensus is to keep the title as brief as possible while not being too general. A title length between 10 and 15 words is recommended, since longer titles can be more challenging to comprehend. Paiva et al. [ 53 ] observed that articles which contain 95 characters or less get more views and citations. However, emphasis must be placed on conciseness as the audience will be more satisfied if they can understand what exactly the review has contributed to the field, rather than just a hint about the general topic area. Authors should also endeavour to stick to the journal's specific requirements, especially regarding the length of the title and what they should or should not contain [ 9 ]. Thus, avoidance of filler words such as “a review on/of,” “an observation of,” or “a study of” is a very simple way to limit title length. In addition, abbreviations or acronyms should be avoided in the title, except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as AIDS, DNA, HIV, and RNA. In summary, to write an effective title, the authors should consider the following points. What is the paper about? What was the methodology used? What were the highlights and major conclusions? Subsequently, the author should list all the keywords from these answers, construct a sentence from these keywords, and finally delete all redundant words from the sentence title. It is also possible to gain some ideas by scanning indices and article titles in major journals in the field. It is important to emphasise that a title is not chosen and set in stone, and the title is most likely to be continually revised and adjusted until the end of the writing process.

5.2. Abstract

The abstract, also referred to as the synopsis, is a summary of the full research paper; it is typically independent and can stand alone. For most readers, a publication does not exist beyond the abstract, partly because abstracts are often the only section of a paper that is made available to the readers at no cost, whereas the full paper may attract a payment or subscription [ 54 ]. Thus, the abstract is supposed to set the tone for the few readers who wish to read the rest of the paper. It has also been noted that the abstract gives the first impression of a research work to journal editors, conference scientific committees, or referees, who might outright reject the paper if the abstract is poorly written or inadequate [ 50 ]. Hence, it is imperative that the abstract succinctly represents the entire paper and projects it positively. Just like the title, abstracts have to be balanced, comprehensive, concise, functional, independent, precise, scholarly, and unbiased and not be misleading [ 55 ]. Basically, the abstract should be formulated using keywords from all the sections of the main manuscript. Thus, it is pertinent that the abstract conveys the focus, key message, rationale, and novelty of the paper without any compromise or exaggeration. Furthermore, the abstract must be consistent with the rest of the paper; as basic as this instruction might sound, it is not to be taken for granted. For example, a study by Vrijhoef and Steuten [ 56 ] revealed that 18–68% of 264 abstracts from some scientific journals contained information that was inconsistent with the main body of the publications.

Abstracts can either be structured or unstructured; in addition, they can further be classified as either descriptive or informative. Unstructured abstracts, which are used by many scientific journals, are free flowing with no predefined subheadings, while structured abstracts have specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed. Structured abstracts have been noted to be more informative and are usually divided into subsections which include the study background/introduction, objectives, methodology design, results, and conclusions [ 57 ]. No matter the style chosen, the author must carefully conform to the instructions provided by the potential journal of submission, which may include but are not limited to the format, font size/style, word limit, and subheadings [ 58 ]. The word limit for abstracts in most scientific journals is typically between 150 and 300 words. It is also a general rule that abstracts do not contain any references whatsoever.

Typically, an abstract should be written in the active voice, and there is no such thing as a perfect abstract as it could always be improved on. It is advised that the author first makes an initial draft which would contain all the essential parts of the paper, which could then be polished subsequently. The draft should begin with a brief background which would lead to the research questions. It might also include a general overview of the methodology used (if applicable) and importantly, the major results/observations/highlights of the review paper. The abstract should end with one or few sentences about any implications, perspectives, or future research that may be developed from the review exercise. Finally, the authors should eliminate redundant words and edit the abstract to the correct word count permitted by the journal [ 59 ]. It is always beneficial to read previous abstracts published in the intended journal, related topics/subjects from other journals, and other reputable sources. Furthermore, the author should endeavour to get feedback on the abstract especially from peers and co-authors. As the abstract is the face of the whole paper, it is best that it is the last section to be finalised, as by this time, the author would have developed a clearer understanding of the findings and conclusions of the entire paper.

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

Since the mid-2000s, an increasing number of journals now require authors to provide a graphical abstract (GA) in addition to the traditional written abstract, to increase the accessibility of scientific publications to readers [ 60 ]. A study showed that publications with GA performed better than those without it, when the abstract views, total citations, and downloads were compared [ 61 ]. However, the GA should provide “a single, concise pictorial, and visual summary of the main findings of an article” [ 62 ]. Although they are meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole paper, it has been noted that they are not so easily comprehensible without having read through the traditionally written abstract [ 63 ]. It is important to note that, like traditional abstracts, many reputable journals require GAs to adhere to certain specifications such as colour, dimension, quality, file size, and file format (usually JPEG/JPG, PDF, PNG, or TIFF). In addition, it is imperative to use engaging and accurate figures, all of which must be synthesised in order to accurately reflect the key message of the paper. Currently, there are various online or downloadable graphical tools that can be used for creating GAs, such as Microsoft Paint or PowerPoint, Mindthegraph, ChemDraw, CorelDraw, and BioRender.

5.4. Keywords

As a standard practice, journals require authors to select 4–8 keywords (or phrases), which are typically listed below the abstract. A good set of keywords will enable indexers and search engines to find relevant papers more easily and can be considered as a very concise abstract [ 64 ]. According to Dewan and Gupta [ 51 ], the selection of appropriate keywords will significantly enhance the retrieval, accession, and consequently, the citation of the review paper. Ideally, keywords can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, the abstract, and the main text, but they should ideally not be the exact words in the main title. Choosing the most appropriate keywords for a review article involves listing down the key terms and phrases in the article, including abbreviations. Subsequently, a quick review of the glossary/vocabulary/term list or indexing standard in the specific discipline will assist in selecting the best and most precise keywords that match those used in the databases from the list drawn. In addition, the keywords should not be broad or general terms (e.g., DNA, biology, and enzymes) but must be specific to the field or subfield of study as well as to the particular paper [ 65 ].

5.5. Introduction

The introduction of an article is the first major section of the manuscript, and it presents basic information to the reader without compelling them to study past publications. In addition, the introduction directs the reader to the main arguments and points developed in the main body of the article while clarifying the current state of knowledge in that particular area of research [ 12 ]. The introduction part of a review article is usually sectionalised into background information, a description of the main topic and finally a statement of the main purpose of the review [ 66 ]. Authors may begin the introduction with brief general statements—which provide background knowledge on the subject matter—that lead to more specific ones [ 67 ]. It is at this point that the reader's attention must be caught as the background knowledge must highlight the importance and justification for the subject being discussed, while also identifying the major problem to be addressed [ 68 ]. In addition, the background should be broad enough to attract even nonspecialists in the field to maximise the impact and widen the reach of the article. All of these should be done in the light of current literature; however, old references may also be used for historical purposes. A very important aspect of the introduction is clearly stating and establishing the research problem(s) and how a review of the particular topic contributes to those problem(s). Thus, the research gap which the paper intends to fill, the limitations of previous works and past reviews, if available, and the new knowledge to be contributed must all be highlighted. Inadequate information and the inability to clarify the problem will keep readers (who have the desire to obtain new information) from reading beyond the introduction [ 69 ]. It is also pertinent that the author establishes the purpose of reviewing the literature and defines the scope as well as the major synthesised point of view. Furthermore, a brief insight into the criteria used to select, evaluate, and analyse the literature, as well as the outline or sequence of the review, should be provided in the introduction. Subsequently, the specific objectives of the review article must be presented. The last part of the “introduction” section should focus on the solution, the way forward, the recommendations, and the further areas of research as deduced from the whole review process. According to DeMaria [ 70 ], clearly expressed or recommended solutions to an explicitly revealed problem are very important for the wholesomeness of the “introduction” section. It is believed that following these steps will give readers the opportunity to track the problems and the corresponding solution from their own perspective in the light of current literature. As against some suggestions that the introduction should be written only in present tenses, it is also believed that it could be done with other tenses in addition to the present tense. In this regard, general facts should be written in the present tense, specific research/work should be in the past tense, while the concluding statement should be in the past perfect or simple past. Furthermore, many of the abbreviations to be used in the rest of the manuscript and their explanations should be defined in this section.

5.6. Methodology

Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [ 71 ], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary. Hence, the methodological section of a review paper (which can also be referred to as the review protocol) details how the relevant literature was selected and how it was analysed as well as summarised. The selection details may include, but are not limited to, the database consulted and the specific search terms used together with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. As earlier highlighted in Section 3 , a description of the methodology is required for all types of reviews except for narrative reviews. This is partly because unlike narrative reviews, all other review articles follow systematic approaches which must ensure significant reproducibility [ 72 ]. Therefore, where necessary, the methods of data extraction from the literature and data synthesis must also be highlighted as well. In some cases, it is important to show how data were combined by highlighting the statistical methods used, measures of effect, and tests performed, as well as demonstrating heterogeneity and publication bias [ 73 ].

The methodology should also detail the major databases consulted during the literature search, e.g., Dimensions, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. For meta-analysis, it is imperative to highlight the software and/or package used, which could include Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, OpenMEE, Review Manager (RevMan), Stata, SAS, and R Studio. It is also necessary to state the mathematical methods used for the analysis; examples of these include the Bayesian analysis, the Mantel–Haenszel method, and the inverse variance method. The methodology should also state the number of authors that carried out the initial review stage of the study, as it has been recommended that at least two reviews should be done blindly and in parallel, especially when it comes to the acquisition and synthesis of data [ 74 ]. Finally, the quality and validity assessment of the publication used in the review must be stated and well clarified [ 73 ].

5.7. Main Body of the Review

Ideally, the main body of a publishable review should answer these questions: What is new (contribution)? Why so (logic)? So what (impact)? How well it is done (thoroughness)? The flow of the main body of a review article must be well organised to adequately maintain the attention of the readers as well as guide them through the section. It is recommended that the author should consider drawing a conceptual scheme of the main body first, using methods such as mind-mapping. This will help create a logical flow of thought and presentation, while also linking the various sections of the manuscript together. According to Moreira [ 75 ], “reports do not simply yield their findings, rather reviewers make them yield,” and thus, it is the author's responsibility to transform “resistant” texts into “docile” texts. Hence, after the search for the literature, the essential themes and key concepts of the review paper must be identified and synthesised together. This synthesis primarily involves creating hypotheses about the relationships between the concepts with the aim of increasing the understanding of the topic being reviewed. The important information from the various sources should not only be summarised, but the significance of studies must be related back to the initial question(s) posed by the review article. Furthermore, MacLure [ 76 ] stated that data are not just to be plainly “extracted intact” and “used exactly as extracted,” but must be modified, reconfigured, transformed, transposed, converted, tabulated, graphed, or manipulated to enable synthesis, combination, and comparison. Therefore, different pieces of information must be extracted from the reports in which they were previously deposited and then refined into the body of the new article [ 75 ]. To this end, adequate comparison and combination might require that “qualitative data be quantified” or/and “quantitative data may be qualitized” [ 77 ]. In order to accomplish all of these goals, the author may have to transform, paraphrase, generalize, specify, and reorder the text [ 78 ]. For comprehensiveness, the body paragraphs should be arranged in a similar order as it was initially stated in the abstract or/and introduction. Thus, the main body could be divided into thematic areas, each of which could be independently comprehensive and treated as a mini review. Similarly, the sections can also be arranged chronologically depending on the focus of the review. Furthermore, the abstractions should proceed from a wider general view of the literature being reviewed and then be narrowed down to the specifics. In the process, deep insights should also be provided between the topic of the review and the wider subject area, e.g., fungal enzymes and enzymes in general. The abstractions must also be discussed in more detail by presenting more specific information from the identified sources (with proper citations of course!). For example, it is important to identify and highlight contrary findings and rival interpretations as well as to point out areas of agreement or debate among different bodies of literature. Often, there are previous reviews on the same topic/concept; however, this does not prevent a new author from writing one on the same topic, especially if the previous reviews were written many years ago. However, it is important that the body of the new manuscript be written from a new angle that was not adequately covered in the past reviews and should also incorporate new studies that have accumulated since the last review(s). In addition, the new review might also highlight the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of the past studies. But the authors must not be excessively critical of the past reviews as this is regarded by many authors as a sign of poor professionalism [ 3 , 79 ]. Daft [ 79 ] emphasized that it is more important for a reviewer to state how their research builds on previous work instead of outright claiming that previous works are incompetent and inadequate. However, if a series of related papers on one topic have a common error or research flaw that needs rectification, the reviewer must point this out with the aim of moving the field forward [ 3 ]. Like every other scientific paper, the main body of a review article also needs to be consistent in style, for example, in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense. It is also important to note that tables and figures can serve as a powerful tool for highlighting key points in the body of the review, and they are now considered core elements of reviews. For more guidance and insights into what should make up the contents of a good review article, readers are also advised to get familiarised with the Boote and Beile [ 80 ] literature review scoring rubric as well as the review article checklist of Short [ 81 ].

5.8. Tables and Figures

An ideal review article should be logically structured and efficiently utilise illustrations, in the form of tables and figures, to convey the key findings and relationships in the study. According to Tay [ 13 ], illustrations often take a secondary role in review papers when compared to primary research papers which are focused on illustrations. However, illustrations are very important in review articles as they can serve as succinct means of communicating major findings and insights. Franzblau and Chung [ 82 ] pointed out that illustrations serve three major purposes in a scientific article: they simplify complex data and relationships for better understanding, they minimise reading time by summarising and bringing to focus on the key findings (or trends), and last, they help to reduce the overall word count. Hence, inserting and constructing illustrations in a review article is as meticulous as it is important. However, important decisions should be made on whether the charts, figures, or tables to be potentially inserted in the manuscript are indeed needed and how best to design them [ 83 ]. Illustrations should enhance the text while providing necessary information; thus, the information described in illustrations should not contradict that in the main text and should also not be a repetition of texts [ 84 ]. Furthermore, illustrations must be autonomous, meaning they ought to be intelligible without having to read the text portion of the manuscript; thus, the reader does not have to flip back and forth between the illustration and the main text in order to understand it [ 85 ]. It should be noted that tables or figures that directly reiterate the main text or contain extraneous information will only make a mess of the manuscript and discourage readers [ 86 ].

Kotz and Cals [ 87 ] recommend that the layout of tables and figures should be carefully designed in a clear manner with suitable layouts, which will allow them to be referred to logically and chronologically in the text. In addition, illustrations should only contain simple text, as lengthy details would contradict their initial objective, which was to provide simple examples or an overview. Furthermore, the use of abbreviations in illustrations, especially tables, should be avoided if possible. If not, the abbreviations should be defined explicitly in the footnotes or legends of the illustration [ 88 ]. Similarly, numerical values in tables and graphs should also be correctly approximated [ 84 ]. It is recommended that the number of tables and figures in the manuscript should not exceed the target journal's specification. According to Saver [ 89 ], they ideally should not account for more than one-third of the manuscript. Finally, the author(s) must seek permission and give credits for using an already published illustration when necessary. However, none of these are needed if the graphic is originally created by the author, but if it is a reproduced or an adapted illustration, the author must obtain permission from the copyright owner and include the necessary credit. One of the very important tools for designing illustrations is Creative Commons, a platform that provides a wide range of creative works which are available to the public for use and modification.

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

It has been observed that many reviews end abruptly with a short conclusion; however, a lot more can be included in this section in addition to what has been said in the major sections of the paper. Basically, the conclusion section of a review article should provide a summary of key findings from the main body of the manuscript. In this section, the author needs to revisit the critical points of the paper as well as highlight the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the inferences drawn in the article review. A good conclusion should highlight the relationship between the major points and the author's hypothesis as well as the relationship between the hypothesis and the broader discussion to demonstrate the significance of the review article in a larger context. In addition to giving a concise summary of the important findings that describe current knowledge, the conclusion must also offer a rationale for conducting future research [ 12 ]. Knowledge gaps should be identified, and themes should be logically developed in order to construct conceptual frameworks as well as present a way forward for future research in the field of study [ 11 ].

Furthermore, the author may have to justify the propositions made earlier in the manuscript, demonstrate how the paper extends past research works, and also suggest ways that the expounded theories can be empirically examined [ 3 ]. Unlike experimental studies which can only draw either a positive conclusion or ambiguous failure to reject the null hypothesis, four possible conclusions can be drawn from review articles [ 1 ]. First, the theory/hypothesis propounded may be correct after being proven from current evidence; second, the hypothesis may not be explicitly proven but is most probably the best guess. The third conclusion is that the currently available evidence does not permit a confident conclusion or a best guess, while the last conclusion is that the theory or hypothesis is false [ 1 ]. It is important not to present new information in the conclusion section which has link whatsoever with the rest of the manuscript. According to Harris et al. [ 90 ], the conclusions should, in essence, answer the question: if a reader were to remember one thing about the review, what would it be?

5.10. References

As it has been noted in different parts of this paper, authors must give the required credit to any work or source(s) of information that was included in the review article. This must include the in-text citations in the main body of the paper and the corresponding entries in the reference list. Ideally, this full bibliographical list is the last part of the review article, and it should contain all the books, book chapters, journal articles, reports, and other media, which were utilised in the manuscript. It has been noted that most journals and publishers have their own specific referencing styles which are all derived from the more popular styles such as the American Psychological Association (APA), Chicago, Harvard, Modern Language Association (MLA), and Vancouver styles. However, all these styles may be categorised into either the parenthetical or numerical referencing style. Although a few journals do not have strict referencing rules, it is the responsibility of the author to reference according to the style and instructions of the journal. Omissions and errors must be avoided at all costs, and this can be easily achieved by going over the references many times for due diligence [ 11 ]. According to Cronin et al. [ 12 ], a separate file for references can be created, and any work used in the manuscript can be added to this list immediately after being cited in the text [ 12 ]. In recent times, the emergence of various referencing management software applications such as Endnote, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero has even made referencing easier. The majority of these software applications require little technical expertise, and many of them are free to use, while others may require a subscription. It is imperative, however, that even after using these software packages, the author must manually curate the references during the final draft, in order to avoid any errors, since these programs are not impervious to errors, particularly formatting errors.

6. Concluding Remarks

Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. Thus, the reviewer must develop the ability to think critically, spot patterns in a large volume of information, and must be invested in writing without tiring. The prospective author must also be inspired and dedicated to the successful completion of the article while also ensuring that the review article is not just a mere list or summary of previous research. It is also important that the review process must be focused on the literature and not on the authors; thus, overt criticism of existing research and personal aspersions must be avoided at all costs. All ideas, sentences, words, and illustrations should be constructed in a way to avoid plagiarism; basically, this can be achieved by paraphrasing, summarising, and giving the necessary acknowledgments. Currently, there are many tools to track and detect plagiarism in manuscripts, ensuring that they fall within a reasonable similarity index (which is typically 15% or lower for most journals). Although the more popular of these tools, such as Turnitin and iThenticate, are subscription-based, there are many freely available web-based options as well. An ideal review article is supposed to motivate the research topic and describe its key concepts while delineating the boundaries of research. In this regard, experience-based information on how to methodologically develop acceptable and impactful review articles has been detailed in this paper. Furthermore, for a beginner, this guide has detailed “the why” and “the how” of authoring a good scientific review article. However, the information in this paper may as a whole or in parts be also applicable to other fields of research and to other writing endeavours such as writing literature review in theses, dissertations, and primary research articles. Finally, the intending authors must put all the basic rules of scientific writing and writing in general into cognizance. A comprehensive study of the articles cited within this paper and other related articles focused on scientific writing will further enhance the ability of the motivated beginner to deliver a good review article.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa under grant number UID 138097. The authors would like to thank the Durban University of Technology for funding the postdoctoral fellowship of the first author, Dr. Ayodeji Amobonye.

Data Availability

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

U.S. flag

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
  • My Bibliography
  • Collections
  • Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

  • Create a new collection
  • Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in NLM Catalog
  • Add to Search

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

  • 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
  • PMID: 35792782
  • DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

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 good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

  • How to write an original article. Mateu Arrom L, Huguet J, Errando C, Breda A, Palou J. Mateu Arrom L, et al. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018 Nov;42(9):545-550. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.011. Epub 2018 May 18. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018. PMID: 29779648 Review. English, Spanish.
  • Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. Picardi N. Picardi N. Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3. Ann Ital Chir. 2016. PMID: 28474609
  • [Writing a scientific review, advice and recommendations]. Turale S. Turale S. Soins. 2013 Dec;(781):39-43. Soins. 2013. PMID: 24558688 French.
  • How to write a research paper. Alexandrov AV. Alexandrov AV. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(2):135-8. doi: 10.1159/000079266. Epub 2004 Jun 23. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004. PMID: 15218279 Review.
  • How to write a review article. Williamson RC. Williamson RC. Hosp Med. 2001 Dec;62(12):780-2. doi: 10.12968/hosp.2001.62.12.2389. Hosp Med. 2001. PMID: 11810740 Review.
  • A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data. Connolly A, Kirwan M, Matthews A. Connolly A, et al. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024 May 10;36(2):mzae037. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae037. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024. PMID: 38662407 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Ado-tratuzumab emtansine beyond breast cancer: therapeutic role of targeting other HER2-positive cancers. Zheng Y, Zou J, Sun C, Peng F, Peng C. Zheng Y, et al. Front Mol Biosci. 2023 May 11;10:1165781. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1165781. eCollection 2023. Front Mol Biosci. 2023. PMID: 37251081 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Connecting authors with readers: what makes a good review for the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. Kim HK. Kim HK. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023 Mar;29(1):1-4. doi: 10.4069/kjwhn.2023.02.23. Epub 2023 Mar 31. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023. PMID: 37037445 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • Ketcham C, Crawford J. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest. 2007;87:1174-85. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.3700688
  • Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35:49-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
  • Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
  • Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers. Reumatologia. 2020;58(6):345-9. https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2020.101999
  • Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Maksaev AA, Kitas GD. Article-level metrics. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(11):e74.

Publication types

  • Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

  • Ovid Technologies, Inc.

full text provider logo

  • Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Project Types We Cover

  • Admissions Essay
  • PowerPoint Presentation
  • Research Paper
  • Book Reviews
  • Personal Statement
  • Ph.D Dissertation
  • Proofreading

Academic Fields & Subjects

  • Programming
  • Computer Science
  • Other projects we help with
  • Our Experts
  • Plagiarism Checker
  • Writing Tips

How To Write An Article Review Template - Best Ideas

By: Angelina Grin

How To Write An Article Review Template - Best Ideas

An article review is a versatile tool that makes it much easier to deliver important news to your audience. As well this is the idea to acquaint with novelties in the literary world.

Article Review - What is It?

Journal article review, research article review, science article review, start with a header with citation, write a summary, body of the review, concluding the review, citation and revision, strong title for the review paper, cite the article just after the title, write an introduction before the opinions, form a thesis, main body: analyses, opinions, views, don’t forget about the reference section.

To understand for what purpose and for what audience the text writes, mentally put yourself in the reader's shoes. Then it becomes clear that the reader wants to receive systematized and maximally detailed information about a relevant scientific article or journal.

The purpose of the article review is to unobtrusively and clearly and concisely present all vital information, using comparative analysis, statistical data, and other information. In a word, everything that gives information for thought and pushes to make a decision.

The written article review consists of giving a general assessment of its semantic load, meaningfulness, and information content. Thanks to the report, you can learn about the creator's professionalism and evaluate his manner of presenting information and writing.

To you write a writing analysis, it is necessary to discard all subjective judgments about the document. It would help if you were guided only by specific criteria.

In the beginning, the document read to evaluate it based on the degree of correspondence of the writing. It also looks at the logic of the presented material, semantic load, relevant information, and the degree of disclosure of the set theme.

The language of the writing and stylistic features are essential in the analysis. The work should be a single whole within the meaning. The headings of writing attract attention, and the essence of the text itself does not correspond to the theme at all. In this regard, the critique deals with this issue in detail.

Each of the problems posed should describe in stages. Accordingly, at the end of the work, you need to draw brief conclusions on each mini-topic.

Types of Article Reviews

Types of Article reviews:

  • Bibliographic critique - the thing of the review is the formal characteristics of the primary sources of information. For example, authors, aspects of the types of writing, the volume of stuffs, the presence of non-textual elements, the language of stuffs for example, for a scientific writing.
  • Abstract critiques is the evaluation and analysis of information.
  • Analytical critiques - the subject of the exploration is the essence of writing, but in contrast to abstract reports, a comprehensive analysis of the information given, for example, for a journal.
  • Monographic critiques are mostly the same analytical critiques, but in addition to analyzing information, they provide a forecast of the development of the knowledge industry, for example, for research.

All data provided in the journal text must be accurate and reliable. A creative analysis of a document, which everyone will pay attention to, will come out if you analyze its artistic, linguistic qualities. You will have to focus on the means of expressiveness used in the document, such as comparisons, metaphors, epithets, and more.

The journals that have just been published and entered the library are of interest to many readers. In public libraries, critiques of new magazines are predominantly universal in essence and informational in purpose.

These critiques were carried out promptly and systematically. The report includes a relatively large number of printed texts, and the primary attention in the story paid to the novelty of the information in the magazines.

The main document requires careful reading. It is necessary to focus on how scientific theory presents itself. As a rule, at the beginning of the material, the creator gives a couple of logical expressions about facts. Then he discusses them, putting forward further arguments, starting from the results of his experiments, research, and observations.

In doing so, keep in touch with the original scientific publication. And also indicate the information that the author of the article carries to the readers. All data provided in the paper must be accurate and reliable.

The analysis of this aspect is based on the objectivity of the collection of information for documents. If the truth of the data revealed as a result of the research is proven, this can become the basis for the conclusions' scientific validity. The goal of the editor is to clarify how the creator of the document registered the events.

An article review of a scientific document is an objective assessment of a written document according to several parameters — its base on the practical significance of the research conducted by the creator. Studying works on different themes is an opportunity to improve the editor's knowledge base in several areas.

The main difficulty lies in working with papers of scientists with little experience. When analyzing the specified part of the document, the editor compiles the stuff in the mode of answers to the following questions:

  • Does the information presented provide new knowledge to the reader?
  • Where is it more rational to apply research results? What will change then?

In the conclusion of the work done, the objectivity of the creator's findings with the information presented in the scientific document determines. Subjective judgment is a significant barrier to producing high-quality analyzes.

Tips on Formatting

For a clear understanding of the document's essence, it is repeatedly re-read, and formatting is done. Then pay attention to the logic of constructing structural elements, information essence, completeness of the theme.

Analysis of the document begins with a brief description of the source data. The first point is the correspondence of the name to the essence of the document.

The next step is to work out the level of the information essence of the document. The presence in the document of the necessary scientific facts confirming the paper carried out by the creator increases the quality of the document, the level of its information essence.

The creator's observance of the logic of the interconnection of structural elements simplifies the analysis of the presented document. Jumping from theme to theme, the absence of a step-by-step presentation of the problem under study are gross mistakes.

Using the APA Format

Documents are intended for magazines, newspapers, websites. The APA format uses the "author-date" quotation method. This means that the creator's name and the year of the source's paper should appear in the document, and full information about the source should appear in the list of references used.

If you use the APA format in your article review, you need to make bibliographic records according to the following principle:

  • Web: Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month Date of card). Title. Retrieved from {link}
  • Journal: Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Card Year). Card Title. Periodical name, Volume, pp.-pp.
  • Newspaper: Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month Date of Card). Publication name. Magazine, Title, pp. Xx-xx.

An article review should begin with a name, including citations from the source in question. Place the link at the top of the work. If an intention is mentioned from another text, then this is not a direct quotation of the stuff. Or if there is a link to an entire book, article. Or other assignments, only the creator and the year of the work should be indicated in the document, without page numbers.

Short quotations format according to the following principle: creator's name for the document, the name of the document, journal of the published document, volume and issue number, articles date, and page numbers for the document. If there is no creator, indicate the name and the year.

Quotes more extended than 40 words format as a separate block without quotation marks. Information about the creator, year of the card, the page should be formatted in the same way as in short quotes.

Ability to accurately summarize an article is a skill that you will probably need to develop at some point during your university or college studies. This is an essential part of the learning process and a way to show the professor that you understand the materials. How to write a summary of an article , and what is it for?

The first item should consist of a summary of the stuff. Depending on the size of the item, the essence should be limited to a few items. In these not long paragraphs, you should only discuss the most important details.

These include the intention of the creator, then what the document creates for. How the research carried out, how it affects the audience, and what results in the exploration brought. The abstract is one of the abbreviated forms of scientific document submission.

In other words, this is a miniature document. Unlike abstract, which answers the question "What to write a document," a resume in a concentrated form presents the reader with an accurate statement of the results. A well-written resume allows the reader to familiarize himself with the study quickly.

The creator's goal is not to turn the article reviews into a short bibliography but to objectively consider the degree of problem. You must provide a reasonable assessment of the published work of other researchers, drawing logical conclusions from the research done.

You should not give critical remarks, secondary facts, and information missing in the document, as well as repeat the name of the document and use references to sources and abbreviations. The estimated length is two to three paragraphs.

This is the most demanding creative stage, requiring knowledge of the theme, erudition, mastery of literary speech, and the ability to persuade and influence the audience. It is necessary to use a particular influence on readers - suggestion, persuasion.

The final part of the article reviews contains a summary of what has been said and whether to read the document to other people. The main goal of the evaluation is to interest the reader, push him to read magazines on this theme, or draw attention to new arrivals.

This form of the work does not fully disclose the essence of the article, but only introduces intrigue, raises many questions. The most difficult of the total, which the document critique method requires, is to conclude with the so-called "reading attitude": "when you read, try to answer the question ...".

In the end, write an overview of the main parameters, summarizing all the positive aspects described in the document. That is, make a bias on how it is useful to your information or promoted product? What knowledge will the user gain? And don't forget that completion is no more than 10% of the article review.

Quotations are often included in written texts. You understand that in this way you can give solidity to your work. The incorrect quotation may at least irritate the first reader of your work - the teacher. Perhaps, you should not test his nervous system for strength, but it is better to familiarize yourself with the approaches to the design of quotes in the ARA style.

It would help if you understood: in the document of the work itself, you write a minimum of information about the source and indicate the complete data in the list. After the statement that you quote in the document, the creator and the year of the card write in brackets. This is the most common method, although it can vary.

It happens that the creator of the magazine is not listed. Then only its name and year can be used. If a quote contains more than four dozen words, it takes out in a separate block; quotes are not put.

Using MLA Format

The MLA style is the most widely used format for documenting and citing sources in the humanities. In the MLA format, the link to the quotation's creator in the document itself is brief and precise so that the reader can easily find him in the bibliography.

The source of information indicates in parentheses in the "author-page" format. This means that only the creator's name and the page number from which the quotation take should give in the document. Full information on the source must be provided on the page "Used literature."

  • Web: Last, First Middle Initial. "Publication name." Website name. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
  • Newspaper: Last, First M. "Publication name." Newspaper name[City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page (s). Print.
  • Journal: Last, First M. "Publication name." Journal name Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page (s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year it is Accessed.

Article Review Template Ideas by Experts

It is best to analyze the material by printing it or in a document editor. So it is convenient to take notes in the margins and highlight individual sections of the document. Before starting a work, make sure that the page numbering in the original and the copy matches are necessary to refer to the text when analyzing it correctly.

After an introductory reading, you need to analyze the document in more detail to highlight the main theses, the main arguments on which the creator insists. During the analysis, you will have to return to them to assess how convincingly he proves his idea.

We have prepared a template for visual viewing. It includes everything from the headline to the link. Although the name and subheadings change depending on the type of document, the necessary information and structure do not change. If you are looking for a business plan template , we recommend browsing our intentions for inspiration.

The heading should leave a mark in memory. 80% of search users will limit themselves to just viewing your name. For the name, you can separate several words that have no negative and positive connotations.

Positive words: excellent, opportunity, result, active development. Negative words: no need, don't know, complicated, never, hard to imagine. A 6-word title is considered optimal.

Users quickly scan not only document content, but also heading lists. The gaze can cover the first three and last three words - the great place for a catchy phrase and main intention.

The name of the document must correspond to its essence. It is hardly necessary to explain in more detail the need for this. Nevertheless, when the document is ready, be sure to check if the name correctly reflects the material's essence.

Under the heading, quote one of the sentences in the document that you want to share your impressions about. This way, people will see the original version and then read your story. All readers will appreciate such a smart solution. Don't forget to look at the citation method, and it should display one format.

For example, for a book report format , you can use either the APA or MLA style. Also, keep this formatting manner in the rest of the academic paper. If you quote from the work of another creator, then the quote must be put in quotation marks and after it put a link to the source.

You can form a quote in another way, indicating the creators' names, the year of the work, and page numbers in brackets after the quote. However, do not forget to include the full reference to the work in the bibliography at the end of the work.

For example, to cite a case study, you can use Chicago, Harvard, and Oxford. What is a case study , and how to analyze it? The case study provides an opportunity to explore the problem more in-depth and find a solution. The main document should be as objective and meaningful as possible.

Direct immersion in judgments and impressions can confuse the reader. You must act gradually. Writers think that it is enough to rephrase the original magazine document, which will be enough, but this is not so.

The introduction will justify the relevance and significance of the topic, the formulation of the thing of the article review, its purpose, and objectives. In the first sentence, it is necessary to reflect the information situation that has developed in the industry and society as a whole around a particular thing of article review.

Compositionally, the first sentence of the critique consists of two structural components: the beginning and the description of the study's subject. The third part of the presentation is the end-transition to the analytical part of the critique. These parts should outline the most critical, challenging, and promising questions and particular topics.

The introduction gradually moves to the central part, so the gradual transmission of thought is an essential component. At the end of the introduction paragraph, write a strong thesis.

Now you need to know what is the essence of the position of the article review. At the same time, the article review is a combination of the most exciting part of the document and a lack.

Please stick to the uniqueness of the words; it should not be like a hundred other theses. But at the same time, it must be understandable for others and readable.

Remember that the abstract is an abbreviated presentation of the report; try to formulate it briefly. A position is the main or one of the primary thoughts of the creator.

The thesis is a summary of the main points of any project or written work. It is in demand when it is necessary to formulate the main provisions of your work for the public as compactly as possible to highlight the paper's results and prospects.

Next, most often are the main characteristics of magazines. From this, the central part consists. Imagine your audience in your mind, try to explain the essence of the issue to them in simple language.

We pay attention to both the advantages of the proposed document and disadvantages. But at the same time, we give a reasoned assessment: according to critiques, characteristics.

Naturally, the most competent and complete information will be collected if you have studied the magazine. Of course, in this case, we will talk about a somewhat subjective personal opinion. At the same time, it is essential to be able to express this opinion tactfully and authoritatively.

The reader should not get the impression that you are forcing him to do something or discouraging him. Any reader based on your article review should add his opinion and make a decision.

The writing critique of your document should end with a proper reference section. This section is needed if, in addition to your thoughts, other people's expressions were present. This means that you used quotes from authoritative people to prove and support your ideas.

Use one citation style for all documents. APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and Oxford are the primary manners of quotation. The general list of used literature and sources must include at least five names. The list consists of only those works that directly utilize the writing.

They cite a reference or a starting point for the author's concept indicated in the first sentence. You can not add to the list read, but not used in the magazine's work, the names of which are copied from library catalogs or taken from the bibliography in other magazines.

Need help? Our custom article review writing service will help you with your assignments!

User ratings:

User ratings is 4.7 stars.

4.7 /5 ( 130 Votes)

template of article review

Creative Writer and Blog Editor

Despite my relatively young age, I am a professional writer with more than 14 years of experience. I studied journalism at the university, worked for media and digital agencies, and organized several events for ed-tech companies. Yet for the last 6 years, I've worked mainly in marketing. Here, at Studybay, my objective is to make sure all our texts are clear, informative, and engaging.

Add Your Comment

We are very interested to know your opinion

I hold a PhD degree but have not been doing any academic research. Now, I want to start publishing in academic journals and I have really found your blog very helpful. Thank you

Dr Evelyn Iguisi

Thank you very much. It's a good idea to transfer methods in a review paper.

template of article review

Upgrade your writing skills!

Try our AI essay writer from Studybay today!

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to search
  • Skip to select language
  • Sign up for free
  • Português (do Brasil)

Web Components

Baseline widely available.

This feature is well established and works across many devices and browser versions. It’s been available across browsers since January 2020 .

  • See full compatibility
  • Report feedback

Web Components is a suite of different technologies allowing you to create reusable custom elements — with their functionality encapsulated away from the rest of your code — and utilize them in your web apps.

Concepts and usage

As developers, we all know that reusing code as much as possible is a good idea. This has traditionally not been so easy for custom markup structures — think of the complex HTML (and associated style and script) you've sometimes had to write to render custom UI controls, and how using them multiple times can turn your page into a mess if you are not careful.

Web Components aims to solve such problems — it consists of three main technologies, which can be used together to create versatile custom elements with encapsulated functionality that can be reused wherever you like without fear of code collisions.

A set of JavaScript APIs that allow you to define custom elements and their behavior, which can then be used as desired in your user interface.

A set of JavaScript APIs for attaching an encapsulated "shadow" DOM tree to an element — which is rendered separately from the main document DOM — and controlling associated functionality. In this way, you can keep an element's features private, so they can be scripted and styled without the fear of collision with other parts of the document.

The <template> and <slot> elements enable you to write markup templates that are not displayed in the rendered page. These can then be reused multiple times as the basis of a custom element's structure.

The basic approach for implementing a web component generally looks something like this:

  • Create a class in which you specify your web component functionality, using the class syntax.
  • Register your new custom element using the CustomElementRegistry.define() method, passing it the element name to be defined, the class or function in which its functionality is specified, and optionally, what element it inherits from.
  • If required, attach a shadow DOM to the custom element using Element.attachShadow() method. Add child elements, event listeners, etc., to the shadow DOM using regular DOM methods.
  • If required, define an HTML template using <template> and <slot> . Again use regular DOM methods to clone the template and attach it to your shadow DOM.
  • Use your custom element wherever you like on your page, just like you would any regular HTML element.

A guide showing how to use the features of custom elements to create simple web components, as well as looking into lifecycle callbacks and some other more advanced features.

A guide that looks at shadow DOM fundamentals, showing how to attach a shadow DOM to an element, add to the shadow DOM tree, style it, and more.

A guide showing how to define a reusable HTML structure using <template> and <slot> elements, and then use that structure inside your web components.

Custom elements

Contains functionality related to custom elements, most notably the CustomElementRegistry.define() method used to register new custom elements so they can then be used in your document.

Returns a reference to the CustomElementRegistry object.

Special callback functions defined inside the custom element's class definition, which affect its behavior:

Invoked when the custom element is first connected to the document's DOM.

Invoked when the custom element is disconnected from the document's DOM.

Invoked when the custom element is moved to a new document.

Invoked when one of the custom element's attributes is added, removed, or changed.

The following extensions are defined:

Allows you to specify that a standard HTML element should behave like a registered custom built-in element.

Allows you to create an instance of a standard HTML element that behaves like a given registered custom built-in element.

Pseudo-classes relating specifically to custom elements:

Matches any element that is defined, including built in elements and custom elements defined with CustomElementRegistry.define() .

Selects the shadow host of the shadow DOM containing the CSS it is used inside.

Selects the shadow host of the shadow DOM containing the CSS it is used inside (so you can select a custom element from inside its shadow DOM) — but only if the selector given as the function's parameter matches the shadow host.

Selects the shadow host of the shadow DOM containing the CSS it is used inside (so you can select a custom element from inside its shadow DOM) — but only if the selector given as the function's parameter matches the shadow host's ancestor(s) in the place it sits inside the DOM hierarchy.

Matches custom elements that are in a specified custom state. More precisely, it matches anonymous custom elements where the specified state is present in the element's CustomStateSet .

Pseudo-elements relating specifically to custom elements:

Represents any element within a shadow tree that has a matching part attribute.

Represents the root node of a shadow DOM subtree.

Extensions to the Element interface related to shadow DOM:

  • The Element.attachShadow() method attaches a shadow DOM tree to the specified element.
  • The Element.shadowRoot property returns the shadow root attached to the specified element, or null if there is no shadow root attached.

Additions to the Node interface relevant to shadow DOM:

  • The Node.getRootNode() method returns the context object's root, which optionally includes the shadow root if it is available.
  • The Node.isConnected property returns a boolean indicating whether or not the Node is connected (directly or indirectly) to the context object, e.g. the Document object in the case of the normal DOM, or the ShadowRoot in the case of a shadow DOM.

Extensions to the Event interface related to shadow DOM:

Returns true if the event will propagate across the shadow DOM boundary into the standard DOM, otherwise false .

Returns the event's path (objects on which listeners will be invoked). This does not include nodes in shadow trees if the shadow root was created with ShadowRoot.mode closed.

HTML templates

Contains an HTML fragment that is not rendered when a containing document is initially loaded, but can be displayed at runtime using JavaScript, mainly used as the basis of custom element structures. The associated DOM interface is HTMLTemplateElement .

A placeholder inside a web component that you can fill with your own markup, which lets you create separate DOM trees and present them together. The associated DOM interface is HTMLSlotElement .

Assigns a slot in a shadow DOM shadow tree to an element.

A read-only attribute which returns a reference to the <slot> in which this element is inserted.

A read-only attribute which returns a reference to the <slot> in which this text node is inserted.

Extensions to the Element interface related to slots:

Returns the name of the shadow DOM slot attached to the element.

Pseudo-elements relating specifically to slots:

Matches any content that is inserted into a slot.

Fired on an HTMLSlotElement instance ( <slot> element) when the node(s) contained in that slot change.

We are building up a number of examples in our web-components-examples GitHub repo. More will be added as time goes on.

Specifications

Specification

Browser compatibility

Html.elements.template.

BCD tables only load in the browser with JavaScript enabled. Enable JavaScript to view data.

api.ShadowRoot

60 Effective PowerPoint Presentation Tips & Tricks (Giant List)

Here's a PowerPoint presentation tips and tricks guide that takes you through how to make a good PowerPoint presentation.

PowerPoint Presentation Tips

The best PowerPoint presentations shouldn’t be remembered. Instead, they should fall into the background to support you and the message you’re trying to get across.

Unlike good PowerPoint presentations , bad PowerPoint presentations are a distraction. You may remember them, but not in a good way.

You’ve seen them before. They might have millions of lines of text. Or a disjointed flow to the slides. Even worse, some slides feature ugly photos and poor design that detract from the message you’re trying to get across. That can even hurt your credibility as a professional or speaker.

Office Workers Doing Presentation

This article will take you from finding your initial topic to learning how to make a great PowerPoint presentation. Our guide covers everything in between so that you learn how to present a PowerPoint like a pro.

These Microsoft PowerPoint presentation tips and guidelines are organized into sections. So cut straight to the advice you need and come back when you’re ready for the next steps.

Guide to Making Great Presentations (Free eBook Download)

Making Great Business Presentations eBook promo

Also, download our Free eBook: The Complete Guide to Making Great Presentations . It’s the deepest resource for learning effective presentation skills for a PPT.

This eBook covers the complete presentation process. It takes the PowerPoint tips and tricks you learn in this article further. Learn how to write your presentation, design it like a pro, and prepare it to present powerfully. It’s another great source for presentation design tips.

Master PowerPoint (Free Course): 15 Essential Tips

This article is full of helpful tips so you can build a powerful presentation. You can also find more PowerPoint tips in this video lesson:

To learn even more about how to make a PowerPoint look good, review the huge list of tips below.

What Makes a PowerPoint Presentation Effective?

Knowing how to use PowerPoint and work within it quickly is helpful. But more important is making a good presentation that hits all your goals. A great PowerPoint presentation is:

  • Prepared to Win . Research, plan, and prepare your presentation professionally. It helps you deliver an effective message to your target audience.
  • Designed Correctly . Your visual points should stand out without overwhelming your audience. A good PowerPoint visual shouldn’t complicate your message.
  • Practiced to Perfection . Rehearse your timing and delivery so that your points land as practiced with a live audience.
  • Delivered With Poise . Present with a relaxed inner calm and confident outward projection. Give your audience warmth, excitement, and energy.
  • Free From Mistakes . Avoid typos, cheesy clip art, and mistakes like reading directly from your slides.

Consider this your all-inclusive guide to how to make a good presentation. We’ll look at preparing your presentation and explore how to design it in PowerPoint. Plus, we’ll cover how to practice and nail your delivery successfully come presentation time.

We’ll also address what not to do in these tips for PowerPoint presentations—so you can sidestep any big mistakes. Now let’s dig into these tips for effective PowerPoint presentations.

Killer Presentation Preparation Tips to Get Started Right

Before even opening PowerPoint, start by addressing these things. These Microsoft PowerPoint tips and tricks will ensure that you’re prepared for your presentation:

1. Know Your Stuff

Your presentation isn’t about your slides alone. It’s about the message you want to get across. Before filling in stats, facts and figures, think about the narrative that’ll be discussed, why, and in what order.

2. Write It Out

Start in a Word or Google doc, and storyboard or script the entire presentation. This will give you an idea of how the information presented will flow and how viewers will see it in sequence. Learn the complete writing process .

3. Highlight What’s Most Important

A presentation covers the most crucial pieces only. Whatever you’ve been working on that led to this—a paper, a work project, a new product design—doesn’t need to be shared in its entirety. Pick key points and put the rest in an “Appendix” to refer to during the Q&A session at the end.

4. Know Your Audience

How you talk to a room full of medical professionals should be different from the way you address a room full of young entrepreneurs. Everything, in fact, is different: your topic selection, the language you use, the examples you give to illustrate points. The little bits of humor you include should be tailored specifically with your target audience in mind.

Understand your audience’s needs to create a successful PowerPoint presentation. Customize your content to meet their specific requirements.

5. Rehearse! (Yes, Already)

It’s never too early to get used to the rhythm of your presentation and take note of points you want to emphasize. While saying it out loud, you’ll start to develop a “feel” for the material. You’ll notice that some things work well, while others don’t and might need to be worked around.

6. Rewrite After You Rehearse

As you’re rehearsing your presentation, you’re bound to stumble over sections that don’t quite flow naturally. Instead of reworking your delivery, it might be time to consider the content and rewrite the areas that served as stumbling blocks.

“Editing is hard. ‘It’s good enough,’ is a phrase wannabes use. Leaders take editing seriously.” – Anthony Trendl

The most important part of creating a great presentation is the writing stage. The second most important stage is rewriting.

7. Share With a Friend

If the stakes are high for your presentation, it’s never too early to get feedback from those that you trust. Here’s an article that helps you collaborate as a team on a PowerPoint presentation. Get PowerPoint design tips from those that you trust when you collaborate.

Simple Tips to Design Your PowerPoint Presentation Better

Second only to you (the information you bring and how you present it) is your PowerPoint slides. If not designed well, a PowerPoint can be disengaging or distracting (regardless of the content quality). Here are some presentation design tips to make sure this doesn’t happen to you:

8. Keep Your Slides Simple

This is one of the most important PowerPoint presentation tips to follow when designing your slides. Keep in mind that less is more (effective.) A cluttered slide is distracting. It causes confusion for an audience: Which part of the slide should I focus on? Should I read the slide or pay attention to the presenter?

A simple, visually appealing slide will engage your audience, keeping them on track with your main points. Here’s an example of a simple slide that serves its purpose perfectly:

Nook - Minimal Powerpoint Template

Minimalist slide templates like Nook can help you resist the urge to clutter your slides.

9. Limit Words on Your Slides

Piggybacking on the last point, less is more effective. If possible, avoid bullets altogether. Otherwise cut them to just a few simple words. The audience should be listening, not reading.

10. Use High-Quality Photos and Graphics

One of the most important tips for quality PowerPoint presentations is to use high-quality photos and graphics.

Earlier in this tutorial, you saw Envato Elements, an all-you-can-download service with PPT tips inside of templates. Those pre-built designs are a beginner’s best friend. They’re even better when paired with Elements’ unlimited library of stock photos .

People are more likely to take you seriously if your presentation is visually appealing. Users view attractive design as more usable. Similarly, they’ll view a more attractive PowerPoint as more effective.

11. Use Accurate and Relevant Charts and Graphs

Charts and graphs can also be distracting if they’re not used right. Make sure your information design is simple and clean so that the audience doesn’t spend the entire time trying to decipher what your X axis says. Learn more about PPT data presentation .

12. Use High-Quality, Fresh Templates

Have you seen the old PowerPoint template that looks like worn paper and uses ink splashes? Yeah, so has your audience. Templates can be distracting if they’re too basic or if the design feels dated. You need one with great design options.

Costs are always a concern. But when you use Envato Elements, you’ve got everything you need to create a great PowerPoint presentation . That’s thanks to the incredible all-you-can-download subscription package.

The best PowerPoint tips and tricks can hardly compare to the value of using a template while building your presentation.

On Envato Elements, there are thousands of PowerPoint design templates that are ready to use. Instead of designing a presentation from scratch, start with a template! Just add your specifics to the placeholders.

Galaxi Powerpoint Template

Templates like Galaxi are impressively designed and waiting for your slide specifics.

The best PowerPoint design tips save you time. And there’s no tip more powerful than this one: use a pre-built template . It helps you master how to present a PowerPoint without spending all your time in the app.

13. Choose Appropriate Fonts

Fonts are an important part of engaging your audience. Fonts and typography choices have a subconscious effect on viewers. They can characterize your company’s presentation and brand either positively or negatively. Make sure that you’re choosing fonts that are professional and modern.

14. Choose Color Well

Like font choice, colors cause specific subconscious reactions from viewers. Choosing an outdated color combination for your presentation will render it ineffective.

Below is an example of the Popsicle PowerPoint template , which has a modern presentation color choice:

Popsicle - Colorful Powerpoint Template

The Popsicle PowerPoint template highlights how harmonized color palettes can create beautiful slides.

15. Clean + Simple Formatting Makes All the Difference!

We’ve got a full tutorial on how to make a good presentation slide . Give it a read through and review the accompanying video. Just remember, less is more. The focus is you and your message , not your slides.

16. Make Sure All Objects Are Aligned

A simple way to create a well-designed presentation is to make sure all items on a slide are intentionally aligned. To do this, hold down Shift and select all the objects you want to include. Then choose Arrange in the options bar and apply Alignment Type .

17. Limit Punctuation

This isn’t the place for exclamation points. Emphasize your points (while speaking). Don’t enlist punctuation to do this for you. (Leave these at home!!!)

18. Avoid Over-Formatting Your Points

This PowerPoint presentation tip is simple. There’s no need to have every word of every bullet point capitalized, or to have all your bullet points in title case. If possible, drop bullets altogether. Again, the simpler, the better!

Limit your text formatting, including reducing the use of bullets, underline, and other effects. Compare the before example on the left to the revised version on the right.

over-formatted vs simple text

19. Combine Information With Graphics in PowerPoint

One of the most powerful presentation skills for PPT is using infographics. With the right type of visuals, slides come to life and reduce the text in favor of graphics.

Infographics help combine information with graphics. It’s easier to explain complex ideas when you use visual formats that are intuitive.

Practice Presentation Tips: Rehearse, Rehearse, Rehearse!

Delivery is probably more important than the actual content. Here’s how to become more aware of your own unique ticks, and how to present like a polished pro:

20. I’ll Say It Again, Rehearse!

Just do it. Again and again. Experiment with pauses, gestures, and body language. Practice around one hour for every minute of your speech.

21. Practice With a Timer

Consistency is key to an effective PowerPoint presentation. The timing should be similar (ideally the same) each time you rehearse. This one will especially pay off when it’s time to present in front of your audience.

22. Slow It Down

Many of the best speakers today intentionally speak slowly. You’ll have the chance to emphasize, appear more thoughtful, and make your information easier to digest.

23. Pause More Often

Like the prior tip, pausing more often allows your main points to be emphasized and gives time for information to sink in. You need to let key points breathe a little before rushing into the next section.

24. Record Yourself

Use your phone’s voice recorder. Assess and critique yourself. Consider:

  • Are your pauses too short or too long?
  • Are you speaking slowly enough? Too slow?
  • When you’re nervous, does your voice get high like the mice in Cinderella?

record yourself presenting

It’s always weird to hear your own voice recorded; don’t stress it. Use this as a time to adjust.

25. Choose Three Focal Points in the Room

If you stare at the same spot (or even creepier, the same person) the entire time, your presentation will be ineffective (and awkward.) People will be distracted by you, wondering what you’re staring at.

Try this: pick three points in the room (typically: left, center, right). Take time to direct your delivery toward each physical focal point in the room. Also, focus on the center when making your primary points.

26. Vary Your Sentence Length

This makes you sound more interesting, and it’s easier for your audience to follow. Think short and punchy. Or go long and complex for dramatic effect.

27. Modulate!

Don’t speak in monotone for your whole presentation. Be conscious of raising and lowering your voice tone. Otherwise, people will tune you out, and you’ll come across like the teacher in Charlie Brown.

28. Practice in Front of a Mirror

What you look like is as important as how you sound. Pretend you’re having a normal conversation, and allow your hands to move with your speech to emphasize your points. Just don’t get carried away! (I’m thinking Brene Brown or President Obama , not your Aunt Jamie after a few gin and tonics.)

29. Use “Present Mode” When Rehearsing

When you finally are ready to hit the Present button in PowerPoint, make sure you use the Present Mode option. This allows you (and only you) to view extra notes about each slide—just in case you forget something!

30. Practice With New Audiences

If possible, try doing a few real live test runs as a webinar or even at a local Toastmasters organization to get some feedback from a live audience.

31. Engage the Audience by Asking Questions

There’s no reason that a presentation should be one-sided. Why not invert the format and ask your audience a question?

To learn how to create a slide that kicks off a Q&A, use this article . These PowerPoint design tips help you create an engaging and exciting discussion.

Helpful Tips to Step Up and Deliver Come Presentation Time

When the actual day arrives, there are only a few last PowerPoint presentation tips and guidelines to keep in mind:

32. Take a Deep Breath

Deep breathing is proven to relieve stress. It’s simple, and it’ll help you remain calm and in the moment, even up to the last minute before starting.

33. Lighten Up Your Mood

Tell yourself a joke or watch a funny video clip. Do this before the presentation, of course. Research concludes that happy people are more productive. More productive is more focused and able to perform better.

34. Remind Yourself to Take It Slow

When we’re stressed or nervous (or both), we tend to speak faster. Consciously, take yet another deep breath and remind yourself to take it slow!

35. Read the Room

Every presentation room has a temperature. It’s your job as a speaker to gauge it and tailor your presentation to it.

Here’s a great example. Layoffs are coming at a company, and you’re asked to speak to an audience. Even if the audience isn’t personally affected by the actions, you’ve got to consider the morale of the workforce.

read the room

Skilled speakers have a knack for reading the energy of the room and adjusting their presentation on the fly.

The last thing that group will want to hear is how strong the economy is and why the company is the best place to work. That doesn’t mean that you’ve got to align to their uncertainty, but don’t go too far against the grain while presenting.

Robert Kennedy III is a master of bringing energy and aligning a speech to the audience. Here’s his advice for adjusting:

“It can be hard to wake up a “dead” crowd but go for it. Most of all, don’t take their energy personally. Focus on serving them with every bit of your fiber then leave empty.”

36. Fake It ‘Til You Make It!

Go forward with confidence. If you act confident, you’ll start to feel more confident. Move slowly with grace, speak clearly, smile, wear something nice. You’ll appear confident to all attendees (no matter how you feel internally).

PowerPoint Presentation Tips and Tricks to Help Avoid Mistakes (What Not to Do)

Most importantly, focus on what you can do to make your presentation better. There are a few important things not to do that we’ve got to address. Here are a handful of PowerPoint presentation tips and tricks to help you avoid missteps.

37. Stop With the Sound Effects

Sound effects are distracting and outdated. In most cases, avoid them. Add audio or music to your presentation to inject interest or highlight an important point, but it’s something to take extra care with. If you insert audio, then make sure your use really connects with your audience and has a fresh approach. Otherwise, it’s best to leave it out.

38. Don’t Use Flashy Slide Transitions

Again, this is distracting and outdated. Use transitions and subtle animations in your PowerPoint presentation. But you need to take care and do it right .

39. Beware of Clip Art

This PowerPoint presentation tip shouldn’t even have to be said. But please, please don’t use clip art. Use professional graphics instead.

40. Don’t Be Afraid to Be Afraid

The fear of public speaking is a real one. Many beginners think that if they’re feeling nervous that a presentation won’t go well or succeed. That might lead them to cancel the presentation.

Here’s a tip from expert Sandra Zimmer, who leads The Self-Expression Center on conquering your fears before you take the stage:

“Get out of your head and into your body. I do this through a grounding exercise that really works to calm nerves and bring you present in the moment.”

If you think that public speaking fears aren’t normal, you might never give your award-winning presentation. So don’t be afraid to be afraid, and acknowledge it’s part of the process!

41. Don’t Read Directly During Your PowerPoint Presentation

If you spend your entire presentation looking at the screen or your note cards, you’re sure to lose your audience’s attention. They’ll disengage from what you’re saying, and your presentation will fall flat.

Reading from your paper or screen also makes it look like you’re not prepared. Many people do it, but no one should. As a general rule, only present something you know well and have, at least mostly, memorized the main points of.

42. Don’t Miss Out on PowerPoint Customizations

Many new PowerPoint users often make significant mistakes when using Envato Elements designs.

The best way to see how to make a good presentation PPT is to start with designs from others. That means using a template, but that doesn’t mean you can’t customize them!

Haluiva : Pitch Deck Keynote Template

Don’t forget that PowerPoint templates are infinitely customizable. Think of them as guides with built-in presentation design tips.

To see more presentation tips that show you what not to do, make sure to check out our guide .

Work in PowerPoint More Effectively (Tips & Tricks to Level Up Your PPT Skills)

These PowerPoint tips will help you get the most out of the application to level up your next presentation. Let’s dive in.

43. Use the Visual Guides

When you’re designing your next PowerPoint presentation, it helps to create a sense of visual rhythm. Slides that have objects aligned and centered are more likely to resonate with an audience.

44. Use a Few Animations (Tastefully)

Animations in effective PowerPoint presentations are a slippery slope. We’ve all sat through presentations where there were so many objects in motion that it was easy to lose focus on the key ideas in the presentation.

But that’s why animations get an unfairly bad reputation. Use animations to create motion and hold an audience’s attention. Use them sparingly and on key elements on your slide, and you’ll capture that attention properly.

45. Stage Key Content With Animations

You just learned that animations should avoid being distracting. But there’s an important principle to using animations properly. It’s called staging content.

Staging content means that the content appears step by step. There’s nothing worse than overwhelming an audience with all your content at once. But when you stage content, bring it on step by step.

Take it from presentation pro Suzannah Baum :

“If you’re sharing a slide with lots of different points on it, using the animation to reveal those points one at a time is a way to keep the presenter’s content flowing smoothly.”

For more animation presentation tips and tricks, follow our guide .

46. Add a Video to Your PowerPoint

When you’re sharing a big idea in your presentation, it helps to share your perspective from a few different angles. Adding a video to supplement your content can do just that. Luckily, it’s easy to add and embed a YouTube video in your next PowerPoint presentation.

47. Add Charts & Graphs

Charts and graphs can help you tell stories with data. It’s easy for an audience to zone out when you throw a big data table or set of statistics at them.

instead, convert those to charts and graphs. Try out our tutorial to learn how to edit those graphs.

48. Build Your Own Infographics With SmartArt

Earlier in this tutorial, we gave you one of my favorite PowerPoint design tips: use infographic templates.

Here’s another. One of my favorite PowerPoint features is SmartArt, which allows you to build infographics right inside the app.

You don’t have to use another graphic design app like Photoshop or Illustrator to add visuals. Instead, try out SmartArt to help you build graphics that are easy to update.

49. Use Presenter View

Remember that when you use the PowerPoint, you’ re the presentation. The slides are just there to reinforce what you’ve got to say and support your speaking points.

That’s why I always recommend using Presenter view. More often than not, you’re going to have several displays. Presenter view shows your content on your screen, while your presentation is displayed on another screen.

50. Track Your PowerPoint Changes

One of my favorite PowerPoint design tips is to collaborate. Those who know you best will suggest compelling changes that are sure to help you succeed.

As you start collaborating on your presentation, it helps to keep track of proposed and included PowerPoint changes. Use this article to track changes made by others.

10 More Advanced PowerPoint Tips & Tricks

Really need to wow an audience with a good PowerPoint presentation? Give these tips a try to make an unforgettable impression:

51. Engage With an Interactive Quiz

A good PowerPoint presentation gets your audience involved. One of the best PowerPoint tricks is to do that with a quiz. By engaging audiences, a quiz makes your slides memorable.

MIDTEST - Education Quiz Powerpoint Presentation

By adding trivia, you’ll see how to present a PowerPoint in a way that people will love. Channel your inner game-show host today. MIDTEST is a  good PowerPoint presentation  with quiz slides.

52. Illustrate With Custom Image Masks

One of the top PowerPoint tips is to illustrate your slides. But you can go beyond simple, rectangular images on each slide.

BURTE - Powerpoint Template

The Burte template is full of  PowerPoint tricks , including custom image masks. Image masks shape photos into unique works of art. And thanks to premium templates, you can style photos just like this. Masks overlay your photos onto geometric shapes, instantly elevating your style.

53. Print Handouts With Extra Notes

Wonder how to give a good presentation PPT that audiences will remember? Give them a piece of it to take home.

PowerPoint makes it easy to print handouts with room for notes on the page. This way, audiences can keep copies of your slides, along with their own notes. This is the perfect way to ensure everyone engages with and retains your content.

54. Make Bulk Edits With Master Slides

When you think about how to present a PowerPoint, consider your branding. That means keeping your logo front and center in the eyes of an audience. But if you’re working with a lengthy slide deck, this could seem daunting.

That’s where master slides come in. They’re common in premium layouts, and they’re a leading example of presentation skills for PPT. Master slides let you make bulk edits fast.

55. Shrink File Sizes for Sharing

Many of the top presentation tips involve making your slides more accessible. Often, that involves sharing them with audiences online.

You’ll often find that email clients and cloud services limit the size of files that you share. This can be a problem with large PPT slide decks. But there are a few quick steps you can take to reduce PPT file size. Cut graphics, scale down photos, and more.

56. Map Processes With Flowcharts

As you consider how to do a good PowerPoint presentation, think of ease of understanding. After all, you’re trying to explain something to your audience.

Infographics Multipurpose Powerpoint

The  Flowcharts in Infographics  template seamlessly illustrates ideas and processes. A flowchart maps out a process in a visual way. Instead of resorting to endless narration, try a quick illustration like this. It saves you time and effort, and your audience is sure to thank you.

57. Use Brand-Specific Colors

Using presentation skills for PPT helps form an association between your message and branding. There’s no better way to do that than with your brand colors.

PowerPoint makes it easy to change color themes, adding your brand colors and logo to each slide. This is one of the top PowerPoint tricks for marketing presentations.

58. Build Social Media Posts in PPT

A good PowerPoint presentation doesn’t have to be shared through a projector. Use the app and templates to build amazing illustrations to use anywhere.

Soffee - Social Media CoffeeShop Presentations

A template like Soffee helps you learn how to present a PowerPoint easily with a pre-built design.

Try using PowerPoint to create social media posts. It helps you engage with your audience, with no need to design custom layouts from scratch.

59. Be Industry-Specific

One of the top presentation tips in 2024 is to be industry-specific. That means avoiding generic layouts and choosing something more customized.

This offers two key advantages. First, you save time by having layouts built for you. Second, you gain design inspiration for your specific topic. Themed templates are truly the best of both worlds.

Medical and Health Powerpoint Template

The Medical and Health template is a good PowerPoint presentation with a set theme.

60. Design for Online (Virtual) Sharing

Last but not least in our list of PowerPoint tips comes virtual presenting. More and more often, slides will be shared with online audiences around the globe.

Why not design your slides for that very purpose? And then learn how to share flawlessly with a global team? It’s one of the top presentation tips for 2024. Embrace it today.

More Great PowerPoint Tutorial Resources

We’ve built a resource for Microsoft PowerPoint that you’re sure to want to try. It includes countless PowerPoint tips and tricks. It’s called How to Use PowerPoint (Ultimate Tutorial Guide) and has all the PowerPoint design tips you need.

Discover More Top PowerPoint Template Designs From Envato Elements for 2024

You’ve just seen our favorite powerful PowerPoint presentation tips and guidelines to help you improve your speaking. We’ve also mentioned Envato Elements, an incredible all-you-can-download source for top PowerPoint designs .

Here are five of the best PowerPoint templates that you can use to create your best presentation yet:

1. Galaxi PowerPoint Template

Blast off to success with the help of this PowerPoint template! Think of the pre-built slide designs as pro PowerPoint design tips. They’re built by professional graphic designers. All the popular and modern slide styles that are perfect for your next presentation. Use Galaxi’s five styles and 30 designs to create a great presentation.

2. Masmax PowerPoint Template

Masmax Powerpoint Template

We selected templates for this article that match the PowerPoint tips and tricks provided. Masmax fits the bill perfectly across its 234 unique slide designs. These slide designs are sure to align with the latest in design expectations.

3. STYLE Multipurpose PowerPoint Template V50

STYLE - Multipurpose PowerPoint Template V50

Style is subjective, but we can all agree that this template is stunning! The light and airy slide designs are built with fashion-focused designs in mind. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not perfect for most presentations. When learning to present a PowerPoint, remember that templates can be customized to suit your purpose.

4. Peachme Creative PowerPoint Template

Peachme Creative Powerpoint Template

Peachme has image-focused slides with splashy designs. The slides are colorful and perfect for a modern presentation. Don’t worry about remembering all the PowerPoint design tips because they’re included in the pre-built slides. Use Peachme’s designs for your presentation today.

5. Buizi Office Building Rent PowerPoint Template

Buizi - Office Building Rent Powerpoint Template

Buizi markets itself as a real estate focused template. It’s ideal for that purpose because of the minimal, image-focused slide designs. But that also makes it a perfect choice for presentations in many fields.

We’ve just scratched the surface of PowerPoint design tips with these five options. Here are many more, bundled inside of the best roundups on Envato Tuts+:

How to Build a Good PowerPoint Presentation Quickly (In 2024)

You’ve already seen effective presentation skills PPT techniques. But you may be wondering exactly how to do a good PowerPoint presentation. It only takes a few clicks. Let’s learn how in just five steps.

For this mini-tutorial, we’ll use the Enjoy PowerPoint Template from Envato Elements. You’ll see that it’s a beautiful template that helps you learn how to present a PowerPoint by giving you every object and layout you need.

template of article review

Let’s get started:

1. Choose Your Slides

As you can see, a template like Enjoy has dozens of unique slides inside. The key to how to give a good presentation PPT is to choose only the slides that you need.

select slides

One of the best PowerPoint tricks is to start by selecting slides you wish to use from your template.

In PowerPoint, scroll through the sidebar on the left to view different slide layouts. Right-click and choose Delete to remove unwanted designs. Plus, you can click and drag slide thumbnails to reorder them in the deck.

2. Add Text

Consider how to do a good PowerPoint presentation without investing a ton of time. That’s where premium templates come in.

add text

One of our top presentation tips when working with a PPT is to lean on the pre-built text boxes for your content.

To add custom text, simply click and select the contents of any text box on your slide. Then, type in your own words. Repeat as needed throughout your slide deck.

3. Customize Fonts

With text selected, it’s easy to customize fonts on each slide. Find the Font section on PowerPoint’s Home tab. From there, you’ve got a variety of dropdown options.

customize fonts

Another of our top tips for presentation tricks is to use a custom font setting in your template.

Click to change the font, font size, and more. You can also use the buttons on the left to add bolds, italics, and more.

Need more custom font styles? As an Envato Elements subscriber, you’ve got instant access to thousands of custom fonts . Use them in your presentation with ease.

4. Insert Images

Slides like this one contain an image placeholder. That’s another advantage found only with premium templates. These make adding images a breeze.

insert images

Add images to your PPTX template for more visually interesting slides.

To get started, find an image file stored on your computer. Then, drag and drop it over the placeholder. PowerPoint will import it, sized and scaled for a perfect fit.

5. Change Colors

One of the top effective presentation skills is changing shape colors. This helps you control the look and feel of each slide.

change colors

With a shape selected, find the Shape Format tab on PowerPoint’s ribbon. Then, click on the Shape Fill dropdown. You’ll see a color chooser menu appear. Click on any thumbnail to apply it to the shape or browse through the Gradient and Texture options.

Start Putting These PowerPoint Presentation Tips & Tricks Into Use Today!

Learning to write, design, and present a PowerPoint presentation is an invaluable skill, no matter where you use it. If you’re a good communicator of important messages, you’ll never go hungry.

Luckily, improving PowerPoint presentations isn’t as hard as it seems. Follow these tips for PowerPoint presentations to design and deliver with greater confidence.

Remember: Less is more (effective) . Use PowerPoint presentation templates for better design and more effective visual impact. And you can customize a PPT template quickly , with the right workflow.

Related Articles

Sustainable ad

template of article review

How to access Microsoft Clipchamp with your work or school account

The Clipchamp video editor is available for  Microsoft 365 commercial customers  since it was launched in October 2023 and for education customers with the rollout starting in July 2024.

To help you get started, we collected a list of common questions about it, how to use it with your work or school account, where to access it, which Microsoft 365 plans it's included in, how it's integrated with other Microsoft products, and more.

We'll update this FAQ over time as the product evolves and new releases get published.

If you’re a Microsoft 365 administrator, see:  How to manage Clipchamp access for users in your organization .

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between using clipchamp with a work or school account versus using clipchamp with a personal account, how can i tell which version i'm in, when can i access clipchamp with my work or school account, where can users with work or school accounts access clipchamp.

How can I edit a video?

Can I move projects created in Clipchamp for personal accounts into the work version?

Does the Clipchamp desktop application support work and school accounts?

Are the features the same across Clipchamp's work and personal versions?

What is the best way to stay updated on the availability of features, can i change the language that clipchamp is displayed in, will multiple people be able to edit the same video at the same time, what types of integration exist with microsoft stream, will it be possible to import or export transcripts, chapters or other metadata from clipchamp projects with stream, will admins be able to turn off availability of clipchamp, how are clipchamp projects stored, will it be possible to edit teams meeting recordings in clipchamp, when i edit a video in onedrive, is the original video file replaced or updated immediately.

The personal version of Clipchamp  can be used standalone with personal accounts via the Clipchamp app for Windows 10 or Windows 11. It can also get used in the Edge or Chrome browser at  https://app.clipchamp.com  and has a free and a paid account tier. Some of the premium features in this version of Clipchamp are also available as part of Microsoft 365 personal and family subscriptions.

In contrast, the standard plan of  Clipchamp's work version is an included service in the following Microsoft 365 business and education licenses:

Microsoft 365 E3

Microsoft 365 Education A3

Microsoft 365 E5

Microsoft 365 Education A5

Microsoft 365 Business Standard

Microsoft 365 Education A3 Student Use Benefit

Microsoft 365 Business Premium

Microsoft 365 Education A5 Student Use Benefit

Microsoft 365 E3 Extra Features

Microsoft 365 A3 Extra Features

Microsoft 365 E5 Extra Features

Microsoft 365 A5 Extra Features

By default, Clipchamp for work is enabled for users who have one of these Microsoft 365 licenses assigned to them by their organization.

New Clipchamp for work  subscription plans

Since the beginning of December 2023, in addition to Clipchamp Standard being part of the above-mentioned Microsoft 365 licenses, the new Clipchamp Premium plan is available as a Microsoft 365 Enterprise or Business add-on. Customers on one of the license plans listed above can purchase Clipchamp Premium to access additional features.

Clipchamp Standard and Clipchamp Premium are also available as  standalone subscriptions for work users who are not on one of the Microsoft 365 license plans mentioned above. For more information, see this announcement .

Additional notes on availability

Clipchamp will not be added as a service to Office 365 SKUs. Subscribers of an Office 365 SKU can however purchase Clipchamp as a standalone license.

The Microsoft 365 E3/E5 (and A3/A5) Extra Features licenses are available for subscribers of the Microsoft 365 E3/E5 (and A3/A5) Original SKUs . For more details, see this tech community blog post .

For information about Clipchamp releases including the possible availability in additional Microsoft 365 SKUs, please follow the Microsoft 365 roadmap .

The work version of Clipchamp has a Microsoft 365 landing page that shows a list of all your video editing projects. It's available at  https://www.microsoft365.com/launch/clipchamp/ in Edge or Chrome and when you launch the Clipchamp desktop app for Windows, then log in with a work or school Microsoft account.

This version of Clipchamp is only available to you if you have a work or school Microsoft account that is managed by your organization/employer/educational institution.

If you're in the work version in the browser, the web address is that of your organization's SharePoint or OneDrive, such as https://contoso.sharepoint.com.

In contrast, the personal version  of Clipchamp does not have a Microsoft 365 landing page at this stage. On your Microsoft 365 homepage where all apps that are available to you are getting shown, selecting Clipchamp will lead you out of microsoft365.com to Clipchamp's personal version at https://app.clipchamp.com.

You can access the personal version with a personal or family Microsoft account, an email (via the magic link login method) or an email/password combination. In the Clipchamp desktop app for Windows, use a personal Microsoft account to log into the personal version.

Lastly, at this stage there are some features available in the personal version that are not available in the work version yet. See: Feature comparison between Clipchamp's work and personal versions .

Whether Clipchamp is already visible in your account depends on it being enabled in the Microsoft 365 organization that you are part of, and it also depends on the Microsoft 365 business or education license that your organization is subscribed to.

If you don't see Clipchamp in your Microsoft 365 apps yet, speak to your administrator about the availability of Clipchamp in your organization.

There are several entry points to launch Clipchamp. Some are available now; others will get added over time.

Microsoft 365 App Launcher,

Clipchamp start page in Microsoft 365 for the web,

Microsoft 365 Create page ,

On the web within OneDrive and SharePoint by clicking New ,

In Microsoft Stream,

In the Clipchamp desktop app for Windows (from version 3.x).

Clipchamp entry in the Microsoft 365 App Launcher.

Launch Clipchamp via its entry in the Microsoft 365 app launcher menu

Clipchamp start page in Microsoft 365 for the web. You can select one of your existing editing projects or open a new one by clicking  Blank video .

Launch Clipchamp via its start page in Microsoft 365

Clipchamp on the Microsoft 365 Create page .

Launch Clipchamp via the Microsoft 365 Create page

In OneDrive and SharePoint, the option Clipchamp video  is available in the Add New menu. 

It will launch the Clipchamp editor in a new browser tab and save the corresponding Clipchamp project in OneDrive / SharePoint.

Select Clipchamp video from the dropdown to start a new editing project

In OneDrive and SharePoint on the web, you can also start a Clipchamp project from an existing video file in My files by selecting it, then selecting  Open > Edit in Clipchamp .

In Microsoft Stream, you can start a Clipchamp editing project from a Stream video, if you have the required access permissions for the video.

Edit a video in Clipchamp by right-clicking on the file in OneDrive and SharePoint

How can I edit a video with Clipchamp?

To get started, see:  How to edit a video .

Edit a video in Clipchamp for work accounts

Images, videos, audio and more can be loaded in the My Media section.

Drag media to the timeline and extend or trim clips to adjust the desired duration and preview the video by selecting Play . You can also record your screen or webcam and add text to your video.

When you're finished editing, select Export  to save a new video file of your project. This .mp4 video can be downloaded to your computer or saved back to OneDrive or SharePoint for sharing with others.

No, this is not possible at this stage.

Does the Clipchamp desktop application support work and school accounts?

Up to version 2.9.x, Clipchamp's desktop application for Windows 10 and Windows 11 only supports Microsoft personal or family accounts.

From app version 3.x, work and school accounts are also supported. This new version of the desktop app is now generally available.

With both account types getting supported in the same Windows app, there is some logic applied to direct users into their "correct" version of Clipchamp. For more information, see: Work account support in the Clipchamp app for Windows .

Not all features found in Clipchamp for personal accounts are yet launched for those accessing Clipchamp with a work or school account. For the current set of features in each version and plan, see:  Feature comparison between Clipchamp's work and personal versions .

The release of additional features gets announced in the Microsoft 365 Admin Message center that your administrator has access to, and on the Microsoft 365 Roadmap .

Clipchamp is available in the languages that OneDrive and SharePoint support and you can change the language of the app if this is enabled in your organization by your administrator. Selecting a preferred language is possible via your  SharePoint personal profile page . 

When you access Clipchamp through its desktop app for Windows, the language of the UI is controlled by the language you set for Windows.

It will not be possible initially for multiple people to edit the same video at the same time, however projects can be shared via OneDrive or SharePoint, duplicated or edited at separate times.

Videos exported from Clipchamp for work are automatically uploaded to Stream (on SharePoint) . After exporting a finished video, users will be able to create a sharing link or continue to Stream for a variety of other actions, including setting chapters.

You can also open a Stream video in Clipchamp to edit it there, if you have the required access rights for the video file.

Microsoft 365 admins can manage the availability of Clipchamp for individual users, groups of users, or their entire organization.

Clipchamp projects are stored as files in OneDrive and SharePoint document libraries. For more information, see:  How Clipchamp stores and processes media files in editing projects .

Yes. Navigate to the recording, then select "Open > Edit in Clipchamp". This works if you have the necessary access rights for the recording.

No. When you export the edited video, the default behavior is to save a new video unless you specifically replace the original video.

Facebook

Need more help?

Want more options.

Explore subscription benefits, browse training courses, learn how to secure your device, and more.

template of article review

Microsoft 365 subscription benefits

template of article review

Microsoft 365 training

template of article review

Microsoft security

template of article review

Accessibility center

Communities help you ask and answer questions, give feedback, and hear from experts with rich knowledge.

template of article review

Ask the Microsoft Community

template of article review

Microsoft Tech Community

template of article review

Windows Insiders

Microsoft 365 Insiders

Was this information helpful?

Thank you for your feedback.

  • - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

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

Home

Search form

  • Advanced search
  • Search responses
  • Search blogs
  • News & Views
  • US Supreme Court will...

US Supreme Court will review constitutionality of state bans on paediatric transgender care

  • Related content
  • Peer review

The United States’ highest court has agreed to the Biden administration’s request that it review the constitutionality of Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming medical care for people aged under 18. The court’s decision, which will follow hearings set for October, is likely to determine the future of similar laws in 23 other states, most of which are currently facing challenges in lower courts.

Tennessee’s law, which bans treatments such as puberty blockers in minors, is one of a raft of laws passed by conservative state legislatures in recent years targeting gay and transgender Americans, 1 including laws regulating access to bathrooms and bans on flying pride flags from public buildings.

As the state laws are based on templates drawn up by national conservative legal organisations they tend to share similar text, and a successful Supreme Court challenge to Tennessee’s law would effectively invalidate all state bans on paediatric gender …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

  • Need to activate
  • Log in via institution
  • Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £33 / $40 / €36 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

template of article review

IMAGES

  1. Article Review Template in Word, Google Docs

    template of article review

  2. How to write a journal article review. 8 Key Steps for Writing a

    template of article review

  3. Article Review Template

    template of article review

  4. Analytical Essay: Article review sample paper

    template of article review

  5. 50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab

    template of article review

  6. 🌷 How to write an academic journal article review. How To Write A

    template of article review

COMMENTS

  1. How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

    Article Review vs. Response Paper . Now, let's consider the difference between an article review and a response paper: If you're assigned to critique a scholarly article, you will need to compose an article review.; If your subject of analysis is a popular article, you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper.; The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of ...

  2. How to Write an Article Review (with Sample Reviews)

    2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification. 3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review's introduction, briefly ...

  3. How to Write an Article Review (With Samples)

    3. Identify the article. 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. How to write a journal article review: What's in this Guide

    This guide contains key resources for writing a journal article review. Click the links below or the guide tabs above to find the following information. find out what a journal article is; learn how to use a template to get you started; explore strategies on how to choose the article for review; learn how to read a journal article effectively ...

  5. How to Review a Journal Article

    For many kinds of assignments, like a literature review, you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article.This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your qualified opinion and evaluation of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research.That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple summary of the article and evaluate it on a deeper ...

  6. How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

    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.

  7. How to Write an Article Review [Practical Tips + Examples]

    Here is a basic, detailed outline for an article review you should be aware of as a pre-writing process if you are wondering how to write an article review. Introduction. Introduce the article that you are reviewing (author name, publication date, title, etc.) Now provide an overview of the article's main topic.

  8. PDF Format for reviewing an article

    Write the literature review in the past tense; the research has already been completed. The article cannot "do", "find", or "say" anything. The authors are the people who conducted the study. The above format is a guideline. It may be necessary to change the verbs or to expand an idea. Sample format, Page 2 of 2.

  9. PDF sci article review

    Actions to Take. 1. Skim the article without taking notes: Read the abstract. The abstract will tell you the major findings of the article and why they matter. Read first for the "big picture.". Note any terms or techniques you need to define. Jot down any questions or parts you don't understand.

  10. Create a template

    A template will help you to keep you focussed on the requirements of your task. Here, you will allocate a percentage of your word count per section, to keep your arguments on point and in accordance with your task's instructions. For example, if you are asked to write a journal article review of 800 words, you could break it down like this:

  11. How to Write an Article Review: Types, Format, & Examples

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

  12. How to Write an Effective Article Review

    Read the Article Thoroughly. The first step in writing an article review is to read the article carefully and thoroughly. This may seem obvious, but it is crucial to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the work before attempting to critique it. During the initial reading, focus on grasping the main arguments, key points, and the overall ...

  13. Journal Article Review in APA Style

    Journal article reviews start with a header, including citation of the sources being reviewed. This citation is mentioned at the top of the review, following the APA style (refer to the APA style manual for more information). We will need the author's name for the article, title of the article, journal of the published article, volume and ...

  14. How to Write an Article Review: Quick & Handy Guide

    Step 4: Make an Introduction. In your introduction, provide a brief overview of the title's subject and purpose. Capture the reader's attention and clearly state your thesis or main point related to the title. For instance, you might start your article review template like this.

  15. How to write a good scientific review article

    Most review articles are between 4000 and 6000 words in length and as a rule of thumb, 80-90% of the text should be within the main section/devoted to the core topic—make sure that your outline reflects this. ... An online graphic design tool with templates for users to create infographics, illustrations and posters. Free to use but has a ...

  16. PDF Review Article Template

    Review Article Template We offer this template to assist all authors of Review Articles (both systematic and narrative) being ... Review articles naturally demand a deep knowledge of prior research in your study sphere. This section should be comprehensively referenced, as stated above, preferably with literature published within the last 10 ...

  17. How to write a review article?

    The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question (s) to be dealt with.

  18. How to Write an Article Review: Tips, Outline, Format

    Use our article review template to get through the assignment as fast as possible so you will not waste any time. Article Review Title. Firstly start with creating a title for your critique, this should be something to do with the focus of the work that is being reviewed. An approach could be to make it descriptive or also in a more creative ...

  19. Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript

    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 ...

  20. Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for

    Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. Thus, the reviewer must develop the ability to think critically, spot patterns in a large volume of ...

  21. How to write a good scientific review article

    A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the ...

  22. How to Сreate an Article Review Template Without Errors

    Article Review Template Ideas by Experts. It is best to analyze the material by printing it or in a document editor. So it is convenient to take notes in the margins and highlight individual sections of the document. Before starting a work, make sure that the page numbering in the original and the copy matches are necessary to refer to the text ...

  23. DOCX Elsevier

    This template is for a review article. If you want to review methodological information and discuss its prior art, please complete our review article template. The format of a review article is very different from a traditional article. To help you write yours, we have created this template. W. e will only consider . review . articles submitted ...

  24. Web Components

    HTML templates. The <template> and <slot> elements enable you to write markup templates that are not displayed in the rendered page. These can then be reused multiple times as the basis of a custom element's structure. The basic approach for implementing a web component generally looks something like this:

  25. 60 Effective PowerPoint Presentation Tips & Tricks

    Give it a read through and review the accompanying video. Just remember, less is more. The focus is you and your message, not your slides. 16. Make Sure All Objects Are Aligned. ... We selected templates for this article that match the PowerPoint tips and tricks provided. Masmax fits the bill perfectly across its 234 unique slide designs.

  26. How to access Microsoft Clipchamp with your work or school account

    By default, Clipchamp for work is enabled for users who have one of these Microsoft 365 licenses assigned to them by their organization. New Clipchamp for work subscription plans. Since the beginning of December 2023, in addition to Clipchamp Standard being part of the above-mentioned Microsoft 365 licenses, the new Clipchamp Premium plan is available as a Microsoft 365 Enterprise or Business ...

  27. US Supreme Court will review constitutionality of state bans on

    The United States' highest court has agreed to the Biden administration's request that it review the constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on gender affirming medical care for people aged under 18. The court's decision, which will follow hearings set for October, is likely to determine the future of similar laws in 23 other states, most of which are currently facing challenges in lower ...