Specifies the number of studies evaluated orselected
Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]
Steps of a systematic review
Formulation of researchable questions | Select answerable questions |
Disclosure of studies | Databases, and key words |
Evaluation of its quality | Quality criteria during selection of studies |
Synthesis | Methods interpretation, and synthesis of outcomes |
It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).
In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.
Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.
While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.
One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.
As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.
A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]
Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question
I | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies |
II | Randomized controlled study | Crross-sectional study in consecutive patients | Initial cohort study | Prospective cohort study |
III | One of the following: Non-randomized experimental study (ie. controlled pre-, and post-test intervention study) Comparative studies with concurrent control groups (observational study) (ie. cohort study, case-control study) | One of the following: Cross-sectional study in non-consecutive case series; diagnostic case-control study | One of the following: Untreated control group patients in a randomized controlled study, integrated cohort study | One of the following: Retrospective cohort study, case-control study (Note: these are most prevalently used types of etiological studies; for other alternatives, and interventional studies see Level III |
IV | Case series | Case series | Case series or cohort studies with patients at different stages of their disease states |
Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.
In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.
The Savvy Scientist
Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond
Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.
My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!
This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .
When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.
If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.
Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!
When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.
Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .
Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.
The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.
If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.
You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:
Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!
As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!
Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:
Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.
If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.
It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!
You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:
Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.
Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.
Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.
Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!
By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.
So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.
It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.
It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!
There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.
Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:
By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:
Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!
For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:
In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.
The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:
Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here
This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!
One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…
Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!
Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020
Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here
This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.
I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂
Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.
Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:
“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript. Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”
Once you’re ready to submit:
You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!
Best of luck!
I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:
Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper
Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.
8th August 2024 8th August 2024
2nd June 2024 2nd June 2024
25th April 2024 4th August 2024
Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!
No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .
How To Write A Summary For Research Paper
Published on: Aug 13, 2024
Last updated on: Aug 13, 2024
People also read
As a student, you’ll often need to summarize research papers.
Whether you’re studying for exams, writing assignments, or participating in class discussions, knowing how to create a clear summary is essential. Summarizing helps you understand and communicate the main points of a research paper in a simpler way.
In this guide, we’ll show you how to write an effective summary for a research paper. You’ll learn how to pick out the most important information and present it clearly.
By following these steps, you’ll be able to create summaries that help you and others quickly grasp the key insights of any research paper.
Let’s start writing!
A research paper summary is a comprehensive overview that captures the core aspects of the study. It includes the research purpose, methodology, main findings, and conclusions.
The goal is to provide a brief yet comprehensive snapshot of the paper’s key points, allowing readers to quickly grasp the study’s significance and relevance.
The ideal length of a research paper summary is typically one paragraph or about 10-15% of the original paper’s length. This ensures that the summary is brief yet comprehensive enough to convey the key points.
For most research papers, a summary should be around 150-250 words, depending on the complexity and length of the original document.
Writing a summary for a research paper involves several key steps to ensure you capture the essence of the study clearly and concisely.
Here’s a simple guide on how to write a summary paragraph for a research paper:
Before you can summarize a research paper, you need to understand it completely. Start by reading the entire paper carefully, paying close attention to the following sections:
Take notes on these key points as you read to help you remember them later.
Once you’ve read the paper, highlight the most important information. This typically includes:
Make sure to focus on the most important details rather than getting caught up in minor specifics.
Organize your notes into a brief outline. This will help you structure your summary logically. A typical outline might look like this:
Using your outline, write a draft of the summary. Keep these tips in mind:
After writing your summary, take the time to review it. Check for clarity and accuracy:
Creating an accurate and effective summary of a research paper requires attention to detail. Here are some common mistakes to avoid:
By avoiding these mistakes, you can craft a clear, accurate, and effective summary that captures the essence of the research paper.
All in all, a well-crafted summary not only reflects a thorough understanding of the research but also helps readers quickly grasp the significance of the study.
By following these guidelines, you can create summaries that are both informative and precise, contributing to clearer and more impactful academic writing.
For an effortless and accurate summarization process, use our advanced summarizer tool. It ensures precise, high-quality summaries, helping you save time and enhance your academic efficiency.
Additionally, if you’re looking for an AI that will write a paper for you , explore MyEssayWriter.ai.
How to write an executive summary for a research paper.
An executive summary provides a concise overview of the research paper. Summarize the research question, key findings, methods, and conclusions in a concise overview. Focus on the main points and significance.
To write a summary of a research article, first read the article thoroughly. Identify and condense the article’s purpose, methods, results, and conclusions into a few sentences, keeping it clear and to the point.
A synopsis is a summary that outlines the main points of a research paper. Outline the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions briefly. Include the purpose and significance of the study.
To write an outline for a term paper, start by defining the main topic and thesis statement. Then organize key sections (introduction, body, conclusion) with bullet points for each section’s main ideas.
To summarize a scientific paper, briefly state the research objective, methods, key findings, and conclusions. Focus on presenting the main points clearly and concisely.
Caleb S. (Mass Literature and Linguistics, Masters)
Caleb S. is an accomplished author with over five years of experience and a Master's degree from Oxford University. He excels in various writing forms, including articles, press releases, blog posts, and whitepapers. As a valued author at MyEssayWriter.ai, Caleb assists students and professionals by providing practical tips on research, citation, sentence structure, and style enhancement.
On This Page On This Page
Get Access to Advanced Features with our Affordable Plans
Complimentary Trial
OFFER ENDS Today
Access to all Tools
No Credit Card needed
Quota: 1500 Words (6 pages)
Offer ends in: 03hr 19m 8s
For Monthly Usage
$ 9.99 /month
Up to 2500 words/month
Access to all features
AI Essay Writer
AI Essay Outliner
Go Big Monthly!
$ 14.99 /month
Up to 100,000 words/month
Access to all existing tools
50% off on custom essay orders
500 credits for plagiarism check
Top Annual Savings!
Advanced (4 Months FREE )
$ 99.99 /year
OFFER ENDS Soon
Unlimited essays
12 Months for the price of 8
Access to all upcoming tools
Get started for free
Please enter a valid Name
Please enter a valid email address
Please enter a valid Phone Number
Please enter atleast five characters
Please enter a valid Password
Show Password
Already have an account? Sign In here.
Please enter your email address
Forgot Password?
Don’t have an account? Sign Up
Verify Your Account
Enter the verification codes to confirm your identity.
Code sent to [email protected]
Send again in seconds
Code sent to +1 302 385 6690
Claim Free Essay
Your first custom essay order on our website is FREE!
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest. 4. Write the introduction.
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.
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. 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 ...
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.
To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work-deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole. Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain ...
Step 4: Summarize the Article. In this part of how to write an article review process, you'll need to quickly go over the main points and arguments from the article. Make it short but must cover the most important elements and the evidence that backs them up. Leave your opinions and analysis out of it for now.
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.
For an article review, your task is to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. You are being asked to make judgments, positive or negative, about the content of the article. The criteria you follow to do this will vary based upon your particular academic discipline and the parameters of your ...
Read each section of a text carefully and write down two things: 1) the main point or idea, and 2) its function in the text. In other words, write down what each section says and what it does. This will help you to see how the author develops their argument and uses evidence for support.
Synthesize Information: Go beyond summarizing sources to draw new insights and perspectives. Write Clearly and Concisely: Ensure that your essay is well-structured, with clear transitions and a logical flow of ideas. Review and Refine: Revise your essay for clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy.
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.
A journal article review is written for a reader who is knowledgeable in the discipline and is interested not just in the coverage and content of the article being reviewed, but also in your critical assessment of the ideas and argument that are being presented by the author. Your review might be guided by the following questions:
Just get the draft down on the page as quickly as possible. Write the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion and then set the draft aside. Write your critique of the article. The main part of how to write a review of an article is writing your critique. Refer to your outline and summary to draft several paragraphs evaluating the ...
Writing an article CRITIQUE A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author's argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher's claims.
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. Intro. Following the identification, write a short introductory paragraph.
Writing a Literature Review. A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels ...
Cite the Article. Start your paper by referring to the article's name and author, the journal or newspaper title, and publication year. The concrete citing format depends on the style you use. For example, if you study psychology, sociology, economics, and other social sciences, you'll work with the APA style.
Step 4: Write a Review of the Article. An article review comprises several parts: introduction, summary, review, and conclusion. If you follow this simple structure, you'll be safe. It's also important to remember the rules of academic writing. Here are a few things to keep in mind: 🎓 Use academic style.
Identifying Main Arguments and Supporting Evidence. First, skim the title, abstract, headings, and conclusion. This gives you an overview of the article's main points and structure. Then, look for the thesis statement - the main argument the author is making. After that, identify topic sentences in each paragraph.
Analyze, Summarize, & Critique. The first way to be successful with any type of analytical writing is to ask questions. In the same way that you would ask questions of a person you're trying to ...
Rephrase the article in your own words and write down all the main and crucial points. Once done, review it carefully and make sure that you did not miss anything important. 5. Add a Short and Engaging Title. Your article review should have a short, creative title that is strong enough to grab readers' attention.
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
Published on: March 22, 2024. This guide aims to demystify the review paper format, presenting practical tips to help you accelerate the writing process. From understanding the structure to synthesising literature effectively, we'll explore how to create a compelling review article swiftly, ensuring your work is both impactful and timely.
"We write what we have been thinking about most, which means the article reflects our questions, our knowledge, and our interests. A round or two of editing and refining before submission to the journal is valuable." H. Broman advises that editing can help your article be accepted and save time in the long run. "Editing does yourself a ...
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.
Reviewer 1. Point 1: [Quote the reviewer's comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you've made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer's comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you've made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!
Literature Review: Review this section to see how the research fits within the existing body of knowledge. Note key theories and previous findings referenced. Methods: Understand how the research was conducted, including the design, procedures, and tools used. Note the sample size and data collection methods.