easy way to critique a research article

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
3 Article Critique Outline
4 Article Critique Formatting
5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

A brief summary of the article .
A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
The purpose of the study
The research question or questions
The methods used
The outcomes
The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
Free unlimited checks
All common file formats
Accurate results
Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
Use evidence from to support your points.
Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

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.

Stay ahead of the AI revolution.

How to Write a Critique of an Article: A Step-by-Step Guide

Whether you are a student or a professional, you may encounter the task of writing a critique of an article. This can be a daunting task if you're not familiar with the process. In this guide, we'll provide you with step-by-step instructions on how to write a critique that is well-structured, insightful, and informative.

Understanding the Purpose of a Critique

Before we delve into the specifics of writing a critique, it's essential to understand its purpose. A critique is a critical evaluation of an article that examines its strengths and weaknesses. It provides an analysis of the author's argument, evidence, and sources, as well as an evaluation of the article's organization, clarity, and overall effectiveness.

A critique serves as a tool for readers to evaluate the quality of an article. It helps readers to determine whether an article is worth reading and whether it provides valuable insights into a particular topic. A critique also helps readers to identify areas where the author could have improved the article, which can guide future research and writing.

What is a Critique?

A critique is an assessment of an article that involves a detailed analysis of the author's argument, evidence, and sources. It also evaluates the article's structure, writing style, and overall effectiveness. The purpose of a critique is to provide the reader with an informed assessment of the article's quality and value.

When writing a critique, it's important to remain objective and avoid personal biases. Your goal is to evaluate the article based on its merits and demerits, not on your personal opinions or beliefs. This requires careful analysis of the article, including its arguments, evidence, and sources.

The Importance of Critiquing Articles

Critiquing articles is an essential skill for students and professionals across different fields. It enables you to analyze the validity of an argument, assess the quality of evidence and sources, and provide feedback that can guide future research and writing. By honing your critique skills, you can become a more effective reader, writer, and researcher.

Critiquing articles also helps to promote critical thinking and intellectual rigor. It encourages readers to question assumptions, evaluate evidence, and consider alternative perspectives. This can lead to a deeper understanding of a particular topic and can help to advance knowledge in a particular field.

Different Types of Critiques

There are different types of critiques, each with its unique purpose. A literary critique, for instance, evaluates a work of literature, while a film critique assesses a movie's plot, acting, and direction. In this guide, we focus on writing a critique of an article.

When critiquing an article, it's important to consider the article's purpose and intended audience. This can help you to determine whether the author has achieved their goals and whether the article is relevant and useful to its intended audience.

Overall, critiquing articles is an important skill that can help readers to evaluate the quality and value of written works. By carefully analyzing an article's strengths and weaknesses, readers can provide valuable feedback that can guide future research and writing, promoting intellectual rigor and advancing knowledge in a particular field.

Preparing to Write a Critique

Preparation is a crucial part of writing an effective critique. It involves reading the article thoroughly, taking notes, identifying key points, and analyzing the article's structure and content.

Read the Article Thoroughly

Before you begin writing a critique, read the article thoroughly. Go beyond surface-level reading and try to understand the author's perspective, thesis, and supporting arguments. Take note of any unclear or confusing sections, inconsistencies, or contradictions.

Take Notes and Identify Key Points

As you read the article, take notes on key points that stand out to you. Identify the author's thesis, main arguments, supporting evidence, and sources. Note any instances where the author uses persuasive language, engages with counterarguments, or addresses potential weaknesses in their argument.

Analyze the Article's Structure and Content

After reading and noting the article's key points, analyze its structure and content. Evaluate whether the author's argument is logical and well-organized. Assess the article's use of evidence and sources, and determine whether they are credible and relevant to the topic. Consider the article's writing style and assess its clarity and coherence.

Writing the Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for your critique. It should provide basic information about the article, state your thesis or main argument, and outline your critique's structure.

Provide Basic Information about the Article

In the introduction, provide basic information about the article you are critiquing. Include the article's title, author's name, publication date, and the journal or website where it was published.

State Your Thesis or Main Argument

The thesis statement communicates your stance on the article and your main argument. It should be clear, concise, and specific. Your thesis statement should be informed by your analysis of the article's structure, content, and context.

Outline Your Critique's Structure

In the introduction, provide a brief overview of your critique's structure. This might include a summary of the main arguments you will make in the body of your critique, or an outline of the sections you will cover.

Evaluating the Article's Content

The body of your critique should focus on evaluating the author's content, arguments, evidence, and sources.

Assess the Author's Main Points

Evaluate the author's main points and assess whether they are valid and persuasive. Explain why you agree or disagree with the arguments presented and provide evidence to support your claims.

Analyze the Author's Evidence and Sources

Assess the author's evidence and sources for credibility and relevance. Consider whether the author uses primary or secondary sources, whether the sources are current, and whether the author effectively incorporates the sources into their argument.

Discuss the Article's Organization and Clarity

Evaluate the article's organization and clarity. Analyze whether the author's argument is well-structured and easy to follow. Assess whether the author's writing style is clear and coherent.

ChatGPT Prompt for Writing a Critique of an Article

Chatgpt prompt.

Please compose a thorough and analytical evaluation of a chosen article, examining its strengths and weaknesses, assessing its arguments and evidence, and providing your own informed and reasoned perspective on the topic at hand. Your critique should demonstrate your critical thinking skills and your ability to engage with complex ideas and concepts, while also offering constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement.

[ADD ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. CAN USE BULLET POINTS.]

Your conclusion should summarize your critique and restate your thesis or main argument. It may also suggest areas for future research or provide recommendations based on your assessment of the article.

Be specific and provide evidence to support your claims. Avoid making sweeping statements without supporting evidence.
Use transitional phrases to guide your reader through your critique. These phrases help to maintain coherence and connect one section to another.
Proofread your critique for grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. Also, ensure that your critique is formatted correctly and that your links, if any, work correctly.

By following these steps, you can write a critique that is well-structured, insightful, and informative. Remember, critiquing articles is an essential skill that can benefit your academic and professional development. Practice your critique skills regularly, and you'll soon become an expert at evaluating and providing informed feedback on articles and other publications.

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

Writing an article SUMMARY
Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

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.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
Was the sample too small to generalize from?
Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

<< Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
Next: Citing Sources >>
Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally, not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
Hypothesis or aims of the study
Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
Were there any obvious biases?
If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Help and Feedback

Publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Sweepstakes
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2024 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

How to Write It
Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
Did the results support their hypothesis?
Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews . Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles . Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

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

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Affiliation.

1 School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland.
PMID: 16114192
DOI: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38

Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Taylor & Francis

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.

Queen's University Library
Research Guides

How to Critique an Article (Psychology)

Introduction.

The introduction is a justification for why the study was conducted.
By the end of the introduction you should have a very good idea of what the researchers are going to study, and be convinced that the study is absolutely necessary to advance the field.
The justification should be a combination of improving on previous research and good theoretical reasons and practical reasons for why the study is important.
If the authors are talking about a controversial issue, are they presenting both sides in a reasonable way? Is their choice of one side over the other based on hard evidence?
Do you understand what their hypotheses are e.g. what they expect to find?
It is not good enough just to say that the study has not been done before. There are plenty of topics that have not been scientifically researched before but that doesn't mean that they should be. For example, I doubt that anyone has ever looked at the correlation between favorite color of Skittles and personality, but that doesn't mean that it should be researched unless there is a good theoretical reason for why we would expect a relationship and a good reason to think that knowing the relationship would advance our understanding of personality in some meaningful way.

Last Updated: Jun 27, 2024 1:59 PM
Subjects: Psychology

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Cite sources with ease

How to Critique an Article Right and Easy

Updated 03 Sep 2024

When an average person thinks about how to critique an article, they usually believe that the purpose is to find all the wrong points and be as critical as possible. Our guide helps to demystify the majority of questions related to the article critique. These basic rules, explanations, and an example can help you learn along. Even if you receive cryptic instructions from your college professor, our article critique guide will make things clearer as you continue!

What is an Article Critique?

In simple terms, an article critique is a type of essay writing where an author should provide sufficient, unbiased, critical evaluation of the article in question. Of course, it will involve at least a brief summary of the contents and information about the author's background (if it is necessary). Yet, it does not have to turn into a listing of the contents! Knowing how to summarize and critique an article means helping your audience see all the key points of the article along with the author's ideas, objectives, or major intentions. The main purpose of every article critique is to reveal the strengths and the weaknesses of the article by keeping the tone neutral in terms of personal considerations. Since it has to be written in formal language with a precise structure, one should follow the general academic pattern where analysis has the beginning or introduction, the body parts, and a strong conclusion that sums things up.

The trick is to read it more than once and describe how it makes you feel through the lens of academic objectives and the general academic value. Speaking of the purpose, composing an article critique, you have to describe the main ideas of the author. Provide a brief description of why it is important in your specific context. Next, remember to mention all the interesting aspects that help to reveal the value of the article. Finally, talk about the author's intention and vision regarding the subject. The final part of the article critique must offer a summary of the main purpose. Learning how to write a critique of an article, remember that your conclusion is the important part where you can let the audience know whether you agree or disagree with the author. It is the place to provide supporting thoughts and references either from the article or another academic source. Need a dissertation service? Try us.

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step?

The writing process of the article critique is simpler than it seems. It is only necessary to know where to start and how to align your critique when you are dealing with complex academic writing. Therefore, follow these simple four steps as you learn how to do an article critique:

Take Enough Time to Read The Article. Such an approach is necessary to understand every idea described in your reading material. It may be challenging at times to understand it. Check it again or read it aloud to see if it makes more sense. When in doubt, you can consult similar sources or articles that further explain the subject. Consider the readability and clarity of the article as you criticize it.
Take Notes. When the article feels clear to you and you understand (more or less!) what it is about, it is high time to read it again in a bit different way and take notes to help yourself move along. For example, if you encounter something interesting or an argument that moves you, you should consider it as something that is worth being discussed. You can either quote the part or use it as argumentation to prove your point.
Turn Your Notes Into Outline. Your notes are there for a reason. You can implement them into your structure and use your points as the topic sentences as you discuss the important parts. As you let your article critique evolve, provide opinions or leave comments to help your audience understand things clearer.
Your Opinion Comes Here. This is where you should summarize your thoughts and explain whether you like the article or if it has too many weak and unclear parts. Of course, your ideas should be supported with a piece of clear evidence.

Remember that if you have used any other reference or consulted external information beyond the article in question, always mention it on your Bibliography / References page. Every part of your article critique should be written in a proper way and sometimes qualified dissertation help online is just what you need to keep all your worries aside.

Save your time! We can take care of your essay

Proper editing and formatting
Free revision, title page, and bibliography
Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Learn About Article Critique Format & Structure

Unless it is specified otherwise, your article critique should follow this template:

Outline. This is what your introduction should look like since you have to provide background information about the article and explain the author's main points without turning it into a summary. Approach things from the critical point of view.
Thesis Statement. Your thesis statement should explain the value of the article or methodology if you are dealing with a research article critique.
Article's Purpose. This part is your body paragraphs part where you have to brainstorm the author's ideas and crash-test them against the common knowledge. See what is good, what is insufficient, and what parts are the most important for achieving a certain purpose set by the author.
Additional References. If you are dealing with a research article, it may be necessary to consult relevant external research papers to prove the importance and methodology of the article before you explain your opinion.
Conclusion/Summary With Your Opinion. The conclusion part of the article critique is usually the most challenging. It is where you have to explain your opinion. The trick is just saying how the article has made you feel, how it has helped you, or what flaws you have found, always providing relevant evidence.

Without a doubt, you may have to provide a different structure, yet following the structure above is the perfect balance where you express both your findings, opinion, and the general variables. Remember that your article critique must cover not only the negative points that you encounter but the positive discoveries as well.

How to Write an Article Critique: Journal vs Research Article

The major difference between writing a research article critique and dealing with the general journal article is the approach that you have to take. As a rule, research articles represent empirical or primary sources. It means your critique style must consider the introduction provided by the author, the methods that have been used, the samples and surveys, the results of the certain research, and the discussion of the outcomes that have been achieved.

Now dealing with the general review articles that mostly represent secondary sources with an already included synthesis of certain information, you should work with the topic and its importance for the general audience. In other words, the purpose is always different. You should provide more of a summary than the analytical research work. Coming back to the research article critique,try to study the problem and see if the author makes some statement. Then, focus on review of the relevant literature, and hypothesis or research questions set by the author.

Remember to review the Bibliographical information if it is provided and explain whether it poses importance for the review and if all the information mentioned in the article has been properly referenced. Remember you should also provide references for your quotes and references in your article critique in relevant writing style (APA, MLA, or Chicago) to avoid possible plagiarism issues.

The Article Critique Example

As an example of the article, let us take " Contribution of Psychoacoustics and Neuroaudiology in Revealing Correlation of Mental Disorders With Central Auditory Processing Disorders " that has been presented in 2003 by V. Iliadou and S. Lakovides. Below is the short passage, an article critique sample that will help you get an idea of how it’s done:

The article represents interesting and innovative research in the field of Psychoacoustics by focusing not only on the aspects of Neuroaudiology but also dealing with the electrical activity of the auditory pathways. The authors have dealt with the challenges of Central Auditory Processing Disorders, meaning that the article relates to the field of Psychiatry. This particular MEDLINE research has been conducted by turning to over 564 papers to establish the methodology and sufficient samples to maintain the importance of psychoacoustic elements through the lens of neurological or mental disorders. What makes this research special is the use of various tests and experiments that have been done with the help of auditory simulation methods. All the sources provided are properly referenced and offer sufficient background regarding the reasons why particular scientific aspects have been highlighted. The authors provide a unique balance between psychoacoustic and electrophysiologic tests based on the type of lesion chosen. It must be noted that the various types of mental disorders have been taken into consideration to provide well-weighted research. The article meets its purpose of providing varied research based on the works of skilled experts in Psychiatry, Neurology, Neuropsychology, and Pediatric Psychology among other sciences. The value of the article also lies in the importance of addressing numerous learning challenges like dyslexia, ADHD, and autism differently because the auditory aspect is explored at greater depth. Although the educational factor is mentioned briefly as the article is more evidence-based, it leaves enough space for relevant scientific research.

As you can see, the purpose is to explain and show why the article is important and what exactly makes it special. Try offering related evidence from the critique article either with the quotes or by paraphrasing.

Affordable & Reliable Writing an Article Critique Help

If the concept of article critique still seems too confusing to you or you would like to get your critique assignment checked in terms of clarity, style, or plagiarism, the help is out there. Regardless if you need to learn how to write an article review or struggle with critique writing, we know how to make things easier. Turn to our writers who are ready to help you 24/7. Keep your challenges resolved, meet the deadlines and avoid plagiarism. Just place your order with EduBirdie and let our professionals deal with even the most complex article critique or any other college task.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback, related blog posts, how to write a movie review: tips for aspiring critics.

If you wish to know how to write a movie review, then you are on the right page. A movie review forms part of essays college students writes. While...

Best Capstone Project Ideas for Students across subjects

The most challenging aspect of crafting a top-tier capstone project is often getting started. The initial hurdle involves selecting a strong, impac...

Learn how to write an annotated bibliography to achieve the best grades!

Writing an annotated bibliography is one of academic work's most challenging yet essential parts. This helpful EduBirdie guide will tell you all ab...

Join our 150K of happy users

Get original papers written according to your instructions
Save time for what matters most

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
Hypothesis or aims of the study
Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
Were there any obvious biases?
If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Help and Feedback

Publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

How to Critique an Article: Mastering the Article Evaluation Process

Did you know that approximately 4.6 billion pieces of content are produced every day? From news articles and blog posts to scholarly papers and social media updates, the digital landscape is flooded with information at an unprecedented rate. In this age of information overload, honing the skill of articles critique has never been more crucial. Whether you're seeking to bolster your academic prowess, stay well-informed, or improve your writing, mastering the art of article critique is a powerful tool to navigate the vast sea of information and discern the pearls of wisdom.

How to Critique an Article: Short Description

In this article, we will equip you with valuable tips and techniques to become an insightful evaluator of written content. We present a real-life article critique example to guide your learning process and help you develop your unique critique style. Additionally, we explore the key differences between critiquing scientific articles and journals. Whether you're a student, researcher, or avid reader, this guide will empower you to navigate the vast ocean of information with confidence and discernment. Still, have questions? Don't worry! We've got you covered with a helpful FAQ section to address any lingering doubts. Get ready to unleash your analytical prowess and uncover the true potential of every article that comes your way!

What Is an Article Critique: Understanding The Power of Evaluation

An article critique is a valuable skill that involves carefully analyzing and evaluating a written piece, such as a journal article, blog post, or news article. It goes beyond mere summarization and delves into the deeper layers of the content, examining its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. Think of it as an engaging conversation with the author, where you provide constructive feedback and insights.

For instance, let's consider a scenario where you're critiquing a research paper on climate change. Instead of simply summarizing the findings, you would scrutinize the methodology, data interpretation, and potential biases, offering thoughtful observations to enrich the discussion. Through the process of writing an article critique, you develop a critical eye, honing your ability to appreciate well-crafted work while also identifying areas for improvement.

In the following sections, our ' write my paper ' experts will uncover valuable tips on and key points on how to write a stellar critique, so let's explore more!

Unveiling the Key Aims of Writing an Article Critique

Writing an article critique serves several essential purposes that go beyond a simple review or summary. When engaging in the art of critique, as when you learn how to write a review article , you embark on a journey of in-depth analysis, sharpening your critical thinking skills and contributing to the academic and intellectual discourse. Primarily, an article critique allows you to:

Evaluate the Content : By critiquing an article, you delve into its content, structure, and arguments, assessing its credibility and relevance.
Strengthen Your Critical Thinking : This practice hones your ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in written works, fostering a deeper understanding of complex topics and critical evaluation skills.
Engage in Scholarly Dialogue : Your critique contributes to the ongoing academic conversation, offering valuable insights and thoughtful observations to the existing body of knowledge.
Enhance Writing Skills : By analyzing and providing feedback, you develop a keen eye for effective writing techniques, benefiting your own writing endeavors.
Promote Continuous Learning : Through the writing process, you continually refine your analytical abilities, becoming an avid and astute learner in the pursuit of knowledge.

How to Critique an Article: Steps to Follow

The process of crafting an article critique may seem overwhelming, especially when dealing with intricate academic writing. However, fear not, for it is more straightforward than it appears! To excel in this art, all you require is a clear starting point and the skill to align your critique with the complexities of the content. To help you on your journey, follow these 3 simple steps and unlock the potential to provide insightful evaluations:

Step 1: Read the Article

The first and most crucial step when wondering how to do an article critique is to thoroughly read and absorb its content. As you delve into the written piece, consider these valuable tips from our custom essay writer to make your reading process more effective:

Take Notes : Keep a notebook or digital document handy while reading. Jot down key points, noteworthy arguments, and any questions or observations that arise.
Annotate the Text : Underline or highlight significant passages, quotes, or sections that stand out to you. Use different colors to differentiate between positive aspects and areas that may need improvement.
Consider the Author's Purpose : Reflect on the author's main critical point and the intended audience. Much like an explanatory essay , evaluate how effectively the article conveys its message to the target readership.

Now, let's say you are writing an article critique on climate change. While reading, you come across a compelling quote from a renowned environmental scientist highlighting the urgency of addressing global warming. By taking notes and underlining this impactful quote, you can later incorporate it into your critique as evidence of the article's effectiveness in conveying the severity of the issue.

Step 2: Take Notes/ Make sketches

Once you've thoroughly read the article, it's time to capture your thoughts and observations by taking comprehensive notes or creating sketches. This step plays a crucial role in organizing your critique and ensuring you don't miss any critical points. Here's how to make the most out of this process:

Highlight Key Arguments : Identify the main arguments presented by the author and highlight them in your notes. This will help you focus on the core ideas that shape the article.
Record Supporting Evidence : Take note of any evidence, examples, or data the author uses to support their arguments. Assess the credibility and effectiveness of this evidence in bolstering their claims.
Examine Structure and Flow : Pay attention to the article's structure and how each section flows into the next. Analyze how well the author transitions between ideas and whether the organization enhances or hinders the reader's understanding.
Create Visual Aids : If you're a visual learner, consider using sketches or diagrams to map out the article's key points and their relationships. Visual representations can aid in better grasping the content's structure and complexities.

Step 3: Format Your Paper

Once you've gathered your notes and insights, it's time to give structure to your article critique. Proper formatting ensures your critique is organized, coherent, and easy to follow. Here are essential tips for formatting an article critique effectively:

Introduction : Begin with a clear and engaging introduction that provides context for the article you are critiquing. Include the article's title, author's name, publication details, and a brief overview of the main theme or thesis.
Thesis Statement : Present a strong and concise thesis statement that conveys your overall assessment of the article. Your thesis should reflect whether you found the article compelling, convincing, or in need of improvement.
Body Paragraphs : Organize your critique into well-structured body paragraphs. Each paragraph should address a specific point or aspect of the article, supported by evidence and examples from your notes.
Use Evidence : Back up your critique with evidence from the article itself. Quote relevant passages, cite examples, and reference data to strengthen your analysis and demonstrate your understanding of the article's content.
Conclusion : Conclude your critique by summarizing your main points and reiterating your overall evaluation. Avoid introducing new arguments in the conclusion and instead provide a concise and compelling closing statement.
Citation Style : If required, adhere to the specific citation style guidelines (e.g., APA, MLA) for in-text citations and the reference list. Properly crediting the original article and any additional sources you use in your critique is essential.

How to Critique a Journal Article: Mastering the Steps

So, you've been assigned the task of critiquing a journal article, and not sure where to start? Worry not, as we've prepared a comprehensive guide with different steps to help you navigate this process with confidence. Journal articles are esteemed sources of scholarly knowledge, and effectively critiquing them requires a systematic approach. Let's dive into the steps to expertly evaluate and analyze a journal article:

Step 1: Understanding the Research Context

Begin by familiarizing yourself with the broader research context in which the journal article is situated. Learn about the field, the topic's significance, and any previous relevant research. This foundational knowledge will provide a valuable backdrop for your journal article critique example.

Step 2: Evaluating the Article's Structure

Assess the article's overall structure and organization. Examine how the introduction sets the stage for the research and how the discussion flows logically from the methodology and results. A well-structured article enhances readability and comprehension.

Step 3: Analyzing the Research Methodology

Dive into the research methodology section, which outlines the approach used to gather and analyze data. Scrutinize the study's design, data collection methods, sample size, and any potential biases or limitations. Understanding the research process will enable you to gauge the article's reliability.

Step 4: Assessing the Data and Results

Examine the presentation of data and results in the article. Are the findings clear and effectively communicated? Look for any discrepancies between the data presented and the interpretations made by the authors.

Step 5: Analyzing the Discussion and Conclusions

Evaluate the discussion section, where the authors interpret their findings and place them in the broader context. Assess the soundness of their conclusions, considering whether they are adequately supported by the data.

Step 6: Considering Ethical Considerations

Reflect on any ethical considerations raised by the research. Assess whether the study respects the rights and privacy of participants and adheres to ethical guidelines.

Step 7: Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses

Identify the article's strengths, such as well-designed experiments, comprehensive, relevant literature reviews, or innovative approaches. Also, pinpoint any weaknesses, like gaps in the research, unclear explanations, or insufficient evidence.

Step 8: Offering Constructive Feedback

Provide constructive feedback to the authors, highlighting both positive aspects and areas for improvement for future research. Suggest ways to enhance the research methods, data analysis, or discussion to bolster its overall quality.

Step 9: Presenting Your Critique

Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.

By following these steps on how to critique a journal article, you'll be well-equipped to craft a thoughtful and insightful piece, contributing to the scholarly discourse in your field of study!

Got an Article that Needs Some Serious Critiquing?

Don't sweat it! Our critique maestros are armed with wit, wisdom, and a dash of magic to whip that piece into shape.

An Article Critique: Journal Vs. Research

In the realm of academic writing, the terms 'journal article' and 'research paper' are often used interchangeably, which can lead to confusion about their differences. Understanding the distinctions between critiquing a research article and a journal piece is essential. Let's delve into the key characteristics that set apart a journal article from a research paper and explore how the critique process may differ for each:

Publication Scope:

Journal Article: Presents focused and concise research findings or new insights within a specific subject area.
Research Paper: Explores a broader range of topics and can cover extensive research on a particular subject.

Format and Structure:

Journal Article: Follows a standardized format with sections such as abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
Research Paper: May not adhere to a specific format and allows flexibility in organizing content based on the research scope.

Depth of Analysis:

Journal Article: Provides a more concise and targeted analysis of the research topic or findings.
Research Paper: Offers a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis, often including extensive literature reviews and data analyses.
Journal Article: Typically shorter in length, ranging from a few pages to around 10-15 pages.
Research Paper: Tends to be longer, spanning from 20 to several hundred pages, depending on the research complexity.

Publication Type:

Journal Article: Published in academic journals after undergoing rigorous peer review.
Research Paper: May be published as a standalone work or as part of a thesis, dissertation, or academic report.
Journal Article: Targeted at academics, researchers, and professionals within the specific field of study.
Research Paper: Can cater to a broader audience, including students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public.
Journal Article: Primarily aimed at sharing new research findings, contributing to academic discourse, and advancing knowledge in the field.
Research Paper: Focuses on comprehensive exploration and analysis of a research topic, aiming to make a substantial contribution to the body of knowledge.

Appreciating these differences becomes paramount when engaging in the critique of these two forms of scholarly publications, as they each demand a unique approach and thoughtful consideration of their distinctive attributes. And if you find yourself desiring a flawlessly crafted research article critique example, entrusting the task to professional writers is always an excellent option – you can easily order essay that meets your needs.

Article Critique Example

Our collection of essay samples offers a comprehensive and practical illustration of the critique process, granting you access to valuable insights.

Tips on How to Critique an Article

Critiquing an article requires a keen eye, critical thinking, and a thoughtful approach to evaluating its content. To enhance your article critique skills and provide insightful analyses, consider incorporating these five original and practical tips into your process:

1. Analyze the Author's Bias : Be mindful of potential biases in the article, whether they are political, cultural, or personal. Consider how these biases may influence the author's perspective and the presentation of information. Evaluating the presence of bias enables you to discern the objectivity and credibility of the article's arguments.

2. Examine the Supporting Evidence : Scrutinize the quality and relevance of the evidence used to support the article's claims. Look for well-researched data, credible sources, and up-to-date statistics. Assess how effectively the author integrates evidence to build a compelling case for their arguments.

3. Consider the Audience's Perspective : Put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience and assess how well the article communicates its ideas. Consider whether the language, tone, and level of complexity are appropriate for the target readership. A well-tailored article is more likely to engage and resonate with its audience.

4. Investigate the Research Methodology : If the article involves research or empirical data, delve into the methodology used to gather and analyze the information. Evaluate the soundness of the study design, sample size, and data collection methods. Understanding the research process adds depth to your critique.

5. Discuss the Implications and Application : Consider the broader implications of the article's findings or arguments. Discuss how the insights presented in the article could impact the field of study or have practical applications in real-world scenarios. Identifying the potential consequences of the article's content strengthens your critique's depth and relevance.

Wrapping Up

In a nutshell, article critique is an essential skill that helps us grow as critical thinkers and active participants in academia. Embrace the opportunity to analyze and offer constructive feedback, contributing to a brighter future of knowledge and understanding. Remember, each critique is a chance to engage with new ideas and expand our horizons. So, keep honing your critique skills and enjoy the journey of discovery in the world of academic exploration!

Tired of Ordinary Critiques?

Brace yourself for an extraordinary experience! Our critique geniuses are on standby, ready to unleash their extraordinary skills on your article!

What Steps Need to Be Taken in Writing an Article Critique?

What is the recommended length for an article critique.

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.

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

How to Review & Evaluate a Journal Publication

Last Updated: April 20, 2024 Fact Checked

Active Reading

Critical evaluation, final review.

This article was co-authored by Richard Perkins . Richard Perkins is a Writing Coach, Academic English Coordinator, and the Founder of PLC Learning Center. With over 24 years of education experience, he gives teachers tools to teach writing to students and works with elementary to university level students to become proficient, confident writers. Richard is a fellow at the National Writing Project. As a teacher leader and consultant at California State University Long Beach's Global Education Project, Mr. Perkins creates and presents teacher workshops that integrate the U.N.'s 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the K-12 curriculum. He holds a BA in Communications and TV from The University of Southern California and an MEd from California State University Dominguez Hills. 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 152,651 times.

Whether you’re publishing a journal article review or completing one for a class, your critique should be fair, thorough, and constructive. Don't worry—this article will walk you through exactly how to review a journal article step-by-step. Keep reading for tips on how to analyze the article, assess how successful it is, and put your thoughts into words.

Step 1 Familiarize yourself with your publication’s style guide.

Familiarizing yourself with format and style guidelines is especially important if you haven’t published with that journal in the past. For example, a journal might require you to recommend an article for publication, meet a certain word count, or provide revisions that the authors should make.
If you’re reviewing a journal article for a school assignment, familiarize yourself the guidelines your instructor provided.

Step 2 Skim the article to get a feel for its organization.

While giving the article a closer read, gauge whether and how well the article resolves its central problem. Ask yourself, “Is this investigation important, and does it uniquely contribute to its field?”
At this stage, note any terminological inconsistencies, organizational problems, typos, and formatting issues.

Step 1 Decide how well the abstract and introduction map out the article.

How well does the abstract summarize the article, the problem it addresses, its techniques, results, and significance? For example, you might find that an abstract describes a pharmaceutical study's topic and skips to results without discussing the experiment's methods with much detail.
Does the introduction map out the article’s structure? Does it clearly lay out the groundwork? A good introduction gives you a clear idea of what to expect in the coming sections. It might state the problem and hypothesis, briefly describe the investigation's methods, then state whether the experiment proved or disproved the hypothesis.

Step 2 Evaluate the article’s references and literature review.

If necessary, spend some time perusing copies of the article’s sources so you can better understand the topic’s existing literature.
A good literature review will say something like, "Smith and Jones, in their authoritative 2015 study, demonstrated that adult men and women responded favorably to the treatment. However, no research on the topic has examined the technique's effects and safety in children and adolescents, which is what we sought to explore in our current work."

For example, you might observe that subjects in medical study didn’t accurately represent a diverse population.

Step 4 Assess how the article presents data and results.

For example, you might find that tables list too much undigested data that the authors don’t adequately summarize within the text.

Step 5 Evaluate non-scientific evidence and analyses.

For example, if you’re reviewing an art history article, decide whether it analyzes an artwork reasonably or simply leaps to conclusions. A reasonable analysis might argue, “The artist was a member of Rembrandt’s workshop, which is evident in the painting’s dramatic light and sensual texture.”

Is the language clear and unambiguous, or does excessive jargon interfere with its ability to make an argument?
Are there places that are too wordy? Can any ideas be stated in a simpler way?
Are grammar, punctuation, and terminology correct?

Your thesis and evidence should be constructive and thoughtful. Point out both strengths and weaknesses, and propose alternative solutions instead of focusing only on weaknesses.
A good, constructive thesis would be, “The article demonstrates that the drug works better than a placebo in specific demographics, but future research that includes a more diverse subject sampling is necessary.”

The introduction summarizes the article and states your thesis.
The body provides specific examples from the text that support your thesis.
The conclusion summarizes your review, restates your thesis, and offers suggestion for future research.

Step 3 Revise your draft before submitting it.

Make sure your writing is clear, concise, and logical. If you mention that an article is too verbose, your own writing shouldn’t be full of unnecessarily complicated terms and sentences.
If possible, have someone familiar with the topic read your draft and offer feedback.

Community Q&A

↑ https://www.science.org/content/article/how-review-paper
↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
↑ https://library.queensu.ca/inforef/criticalreview.htm

About This Article

If you want to review a journal article, you’ll need to carefully read it through and come up with a thesis for your piece. Read the article once to get a general idea of what it says, then read it through again and make detailed notes. You should focus on things like whether the introduction gives a good overview of the topic, whether the writing is concise, and whether the results are presented clearly. When you write your review, present both strengths and weaknesses of the article so you’re giving a balanced assessment. Back up your points with examples in the main body of your review, which will make it more credible. You should also ensure your thesis about the article is clear by mentioning it in the introduction and restating it in the conclusion of your review. For tips on how to edit your review before publication, keep reading! Did this summary help you? Yes No

Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Jun 30, 2019

Did this article help you?

Laura Drawls

Aug 26, 2017

Oct 29, 2019

Sep 27, 2018

Sarah Corduroy

Dec 5, 2022

Featured Articles

Watch Articles

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

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

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.

Login to your account

Change password, your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

a lower case character,
an upper case character,
a special character

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Create a new account

Can't sign in? Forgot your password?

Enter your email address below and we will send you the reset instructions

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Institutional Access

Cookies Notification

Our site uses Javascript to enchance its usability. You can disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com to view the full content.

Select your blocker:, adblock plus instructions.

Click the AdBlock Plus icon in the extension bar
Click the blue power button
Click refresh

Adblock Instructions

Click the AdBlock icon
Click "Don't run on pages on this site"

uBlock Origin Instructions

Click on the uBlock Origin icon in the extension bar
Click on the big, blue power button
Refresh the web page

uBlock Instructions

Click on the uBlock icon in the extension bar

Adguard Instructions

Click on the Adguard icon in the extension bar
Click on the toggle next to the "Protection on this website" text

Brave Instructions

Click on the orange lion icon to the right of the address bar
Click the toggle on the top right, shifting from "Up" to "Down

Adremover Instructions

Click on the AdRemover icon in the extension bar
Click the "Don’t run on pages on this domain" button
Click "Exclude"

Adblock Genesis Instructions

Click on the Adblock Genesis icon in the extension bar
Click on the button that says "Whitelist Website"

Super Adblocker Instructions

Click on the Super Adblocker icon in the extension bar
Click on the "Don’t run on pages on this domain" button
Click the "Exclude" button on the pop-up

Ultrablock Instructions

Click on the UltraBlock icon in the extension bar
Click on the "Disable UltraBlock for ‘domain name here’" button

Ad Aware Instructions

Click on the AdAware icon in the extension bar
Click on the large orange power button

Ghostery Instructions

Click on the Ghostery icon in the extension bar
Click on the "Trust Site" button

Firefox Tracking Protection Instructions

Click on the shield icon on the left side of the address bar
Click on the toggle that says "Enhanced Tracking protection is ON for this site"

Duck Duck Go Instructions

Click on the DuckDuckGo icon in the extension bar
Click on the toggle next to the words "Site Privacy Protection"

Privacy Badger Instructions

Click on the Privacy Badger icon in the extension bar
Click on the button that says "Disable Privacy Badger for this site"

Disconnect Instructions

Click on the Disconnect icon in the extension bar
Click the button that says "Whitelist Site"

Opera Instructions

Click on the blue shield icon on the right side of the address bar
Click the toggle next to "Ads are blocked on this site"

System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)

How to Read and Critique a Scientific Research Article

By (author):
Foong May Yeong ( NUS, Singapore )
Add to favorites
Download Citations
Track Citations
Recommend to Library
Description
Supplementary

BookAuthority Best Scientific Research Books of All Time

Given the explosion of information and knowledge in the field of Life Sciences, adapting primary literature as materials in course work as part of active learning seems to be more effective in improving scientific literacy among science undergraduates than the pure transmission of content knowledge using traditional textbooks. In addition, students also read research articles as part of undertaking laboratory research projects useful for preparing them for graduate school. As such, a good grasp of reading and analytical skills is needed for students to understand how their research project contributes to the field that they are working in. Such skills are being taught at UK and USA universities. In Asia, this approach in teaching has not yet been as widespread, although similar ideas are beginning to be used in education. Written as a quick guide for undergraduate students and faculty members dealing with scientific research articles as part of a module or research project, this book will be useful, especially in Asia, for students and faculty members as the universities look to incorporating the use of scientific research articles in their undergraduate teaching.

For Life Science students, the first time they encounter a primary literature can be rather daunting, though with proper guidance, they can overcome the initial difficulties and become confident in dealing with scientific articles.

This guidebook provides a structured approach to reading a research article, guiding the reader step-by-step through each section, with tips on how to look out for key points and how to evaluate each section.

Overall, by helping undergraduate students to overcome their anxieties in reading scientific literature, the book will enable the students to appreciate better the process of scientific investigations and how knowledge is derived in science.

Sample Chapter(s) Chapter 1: Introduction (165 KB)

Request Inspection Copy

Introduction
How to Search for an Article
Anatomy of a Typical Scientific Article
A Brief Insight into How Scientific Articles Get Published in Journals
The Introduction Section: Background Information on the Topic of Research
More on the Introduction Section: Hypothesis or Question that the Authors were Investigating
The Materials and Methods Section: Reagents and Techniques Used in the Study
The Results Section: What were the Important Observations Made?
The Discussion Section: What were the Main Conclusion(s) Made by the Authors Arising from the Data?
What are Your Views on the Article?
Writing Activities Related to Critiquing an Article
Final Words

FRONT MATTER

Pages: i–xiii

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_fmatter

List of Figures
List of Tables

1: Introduction

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0001

The first time you are tasked to read a research article describing original research findings, try not to let the unfamiliarity of the article layout and the perception that research articles are incomprehensible deter you. First of all, do not feel that you have to understand the entire paper at one reading, as some of us take a few readings to appreciate the implications of the data presented in the entire article, 1 even after we have gone on to graduate school and beyond. Secondly, reading research articles improves with experience, so with more experience reading articles, you will get better and better as you go along. If it is your first attempt at reading a scientific research article, you might want to break the reading into several steps and go through the article systematically. It could help you to keep the key points in Table 1.1 in mind as you start. In that way, you will not feel too overwhelmed by the details, which you will be able deal with in a progressive manner subsequently (see following the chapters)…

2: How to Search for an Article

Pages: 7–10

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0002

One of the initial steps to reading a research article is to find and retrieve the full article. In certain cases, your lecturer could provide you the article in its entirety. In other instances, you might only be provided the title and names of the authors of the article. You then have to look up the articles and download them at the appropriate journal or library websites. It is good to learn more about which search engines or databases are used routinely for finding and retrieving articles of interest…

3: Anatomy of a Typical Scientific Article

Pages: 11–15

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0003

After retrieving the article of interest, you could first scan through it to get a general overview of the article layout. Generally, you would see a typical organisation such as shown in Fig. 3.1…

4: A Brief Insight into How Scientific Articles Get Published in Journals

Pages: 17–21

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0004

So what is the fundamental difference between publishing a scientific article in academic journals and publicising data on one's own webpage or in a self-published book? The central objective of publishing scientific research articles is to disseminate findings from experimental work so as to extend the knowledge in the field. Therefore, one critical difference is the process of peer-review that takes place when an article is initially sent to the journals for consideration to be published. This means that the work has to be properly evaluated by experts in the field who will judge whether the work has sufficient merit to warrant its acceptance to the journal for publication. Therefore, publishing one's work in a scientific journal involves stringent process that scientists in their respective communities are engaged in to ensure that the scientific findings reported formally that might influence and shape our understanding of biological processes are in fact based on proper scientific investigative methods. 4 As it stands, publication in scientific journals is part and parcel of academic pursuits and forms quite a substantial part of the process of conducting scientific research…

5: The Introduction Section: Background Information on the Topic of Research

Pages: 23–31

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0005

The “Introduction” section is an essential part of an article where the authors lay down the background information related to the research project. In essence, the current state of the knowledge in the field is set out for the readers so they would appreciate it better when the authors try to explain how their research work will contribute new information to the field. Therefore, the Introduction can actually be a rich resource for students to learn more about the topic. For students keen to find out more than what is given in the Introduction section, there are the cited references that can provide further background information for the reader. 5 More significantly, the Introduction section also states the rationale and key question(s) that the researchers attempted to answer through their experiments (Fig. 5.1)…

6: More on the Introduction Section: Hypothesis or Question that the Authors were Investigating

Pages: 33–42

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0006

As mentioned earlier (Fig. 5.1), the authors would lay down the research question in the Introduction section. This is typically towards the end of the Introduction, where the authors would propose testing of a specific idea or hypothesis so as to establish new information or novel perspectives in their research field. Broadly-speaking, the term “hypothesis” would entail a premise on which one builds an idea to explain the underlying basis of a particular phenomenon or observation that one wants to test. As there are different research approaches, so different types of work are published, for instance, articles detailing work that aim to resolve outstanding issues or other types of work that challenge existing views. Generally, there are two distinct approaches that research can be conducted. One type would be a “question-driven” and the other “discovery science-driven” research (Fig. 6.1)…

7: The Materials and Methods Section: Reagents and Techniques Used in the Study

Pages: 43–49

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0007

A general rule about the Materials and Methods section is that the information provided in this section should allow other researchers to repeat the experiments described in the article. 16 This is essential, as it makes available, the different methods, especially the new ones, to interested researchers to conduct the same or related experiments. Interestingly, long ago it used to be that the editors of journals repeated the experiments described in research articles so as to ensure the reliability of the data reported by the authors…

8: The Results Section: What were the Important Observations Made?

Pages: 51–76

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0008

The data described by the authors form the basis of the authors' stand concerning a specific issue they were researching on. That is to say, the support for the authors' ideas should come from the data resulting from their experimentation. Therefore, based on the data, the authors will be able to state their conclusions, which will be explored in the section on Discussion. In the main Results section, there would be in-depth elaboration on what data were obtained for each experiment conducted (Fig. 8.1)…

9: The Discussion Section: What were the Main Conclusion(s) Made by the Authors Arising from the Data?

Pages: 77–84

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0009

The Discussion section is where the authors elaborate on their analysis of the data described in the Results section. This is different from the Results section in that the description in the Results only deals with the findings and the conditions for specific experiments. In the Discussion, in addition to data analysis, the authors could further attempt to put the data into the context of the research question (Fig. 9.1). The authors also have to make justifications as to whether the data support their initial hypothesis and how their findings help to expand the existing knowledge. Normally, the authors would make comparisons of their data with what is currently known in the field and then make statements as to whether their results are consistent with what is accepted. At times, they would even draw up a model (Fig. 8.4) in an attempt to provide a synthesis of their ideas in light of the existing knowledge. If that is the case, the findings might serve to extend what is known, and as such, help to deepen the knowledge in the field 28 …

10: What are Your Views on the Article?

Pages: 85–87

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0010

At the end of your reading, you would have examined the details of the various aspects of the article. So are you able now to state what you think the article 31 ? For instance, you might or might not agree with the strategy of the research, the interpretation of the results and the conclusions stated by the authors. The prime objective of reading an article critically is to learn to form your opinion of the authors' data presented in the article by going through each section and systematically evaluating what has been presented. This way, you can back up your views with examples of the strengths and weaknesses in the article and not merely state your support for or rejection of the article based on guesswork or “gut-feeling.” That is to say, you should move away from making a stand without a basis…

11: Writing Activities Related to Critiquing an Article

Pages: 89–93

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0011

Depending on why you have to read a research article, you might have other activities that follow your reading activity. For instance, based on reading a selected research article, you might have to write 32 a commentary article for a term paper, an argumentative essay for an assessment or a literature survey for a project work. These various writing assignments will need you to apply critical analysis of the research article as well as write down your thoughts in the form of an essay. The styles of writing might be different, as different tasks will have specific emphasis and requirements…

12: Final Words

Pages: 95–97

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_0012

The reading of scientific articles can be a challenging activity especially if you are doing it for the first time. From my experience using reading and writing assignments as part of learning and (fairly low-stakes) assessments, students who responded to my end of semester surveys reflected that they found the reading not easy at the beginning. However, they noted the tips I provided for reading articles helped them navigate around the research article. Moreover, once they get past the initial difficulties such as the unfamiliarity in handling scientific articles, they actually thought the exercise beneficial in several ways…

BACK MATTER

Pages: 99–102

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579179_bmatter

Bibliography

Related Books

A Textbook of Bioinformatics

Computational Systems Bioinformatics — Methods and Biomedical Applications

Cures vs. Profits

The Saga of the Nerve Growth Factor

Emperor of Enzymes

History and Philosophy of Biology

Large-Scale Genome Sequence Processing

Computational Systems Bioinformatics

The Incredible Shrinking Bee

Nobel Prizes and Notable Discoveries

The Road to Scientific Success

Nobel Prizes and Nature's Surprises

The Struggles and Dreams of Robert Langer

Degrees of Freedom

Embryogenesis Explained

Corrupt Cultures

Fixing Your Damaged and Incorrect Genes

Biodata Mining and Visualization

Dispelling the Darkness

Rethinking Biology

Israel-Gaza War
War in Ukraine
US Election
US & Canada
UK Politics
N. Ireland Politics
Scotland Politics
Wales Politics
Latin America
Middle East
In Pictures
BBC InDepth
Executive Lounge
Technology of Business
Women at the Helm
Future of Business
Science & Health
Artificial Intelligence
AI v the Mind
Film & TV
Art & Design
Entertainment News
Destinations
Australia and Pacific
Caribbean & Bermuda
Central America
North America
South America
World’s Table
Culture & Experiences
The SpeciaList
Natural Wonders
Weather & Science
Climate Solutions
Sustainable Business
Green Living

9/11's long legacy: How the attack on the World Trade Center is still claiming lives

Diseases related to the dust and smoke produced by the collapse of the Twin Towers have claimed twice as many lives than the attacks themselves 23 years ago – and new health problems are still emerging.

It was after a month of working at Ground Zero that Elizabeth Cascio developed a cough that she couldn't shift. Soon after that, she began to suffer sinus issues and headaches.

"We all knew the air quality was not safe – it was very toxic in terms of how it felt," says Cascio, a former New York Fire Department (FDNY) emergency medical technician. She was one of thousands of first responders who attended the shattered site of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center in New York City during the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks . "Initially, when I came off the bus and arrived at the Trade Center, you felt like you had to hold your breath. But there's only so long you can hold your breath. I could feel the particles coming into my nose and mouth and thought: 'This can't be good' ."

Cascio would ultimately spend nearly two months looking for human remains in what became known as " The Pile " among first responders. She had initially been there to set up a triage centre, assuming there would be more survivors.What Cascio didn't know at the time was the effect it would have on her own health two decades later. In 2019, she underwent treatment for invasive cervical cancer, that has been attributed to her time at Ground Zero.

She would go on to become the FDNY Chief of Staff before retiring in 2023. Now aged 61, Cascio is still monitored by the US government's World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program, which provides medical monitoring and treatment to those directly affected by the 9/11 attacks in New York, at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The programme also funds medical research into physical and mental health conditions related to 9/11 exposures.

It has been 23 years since Cascio worked amid the dust, smoke and debris of the World Trade Center, and she is keen to speak about the legacy it has left on people like her.

"It's a duty to speak about 9/11 because of the EMS workers who are underrepresented, and the women who are underrepresented," she says.

In the hours that followed the attack on the Twin Towers, an enormous plume of smoke and dust billowed out across Lower Manhattan , over the East River and into Brooklyn. As rescue workers rushed to help at the World Trade Center site, and later as the clean-up of the vast tangle of twisted metal, glass and concrete disturbed the debris, more dust from the buildings filled the air.

In places, the dust and soot would reach more than four inches (10cm) thick on the surfaces where it settled. It got inside buildings, and although heavy rains would wash much of the outdoor dust away, the air quality was still affected for months afterwards .

Getty Images As the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed, a huge cloud of dust billowed out across Lower Manhattan (Credit: Getty Images)

Authorities including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New York Mayor at the time, Rudy Guiliani , tried to reassure New Yorkers that despite this, the air was relatively safe to breathe. Although Guiliani and the New York Fire Department would also urge rescue workers to wear protective clothing and masks , many workers and volunteers went without breathing apparatus or protective clothing , while some wore simple disposable masks. Those living and working in the area tried to get on with their lives amid the polluted air.

It later transpired that those attempts to reassure the public about the dust laden air were misguided. Research shows the dust thrown out by the collapse of the twin towers contained asbestos, heavy metals, lead and toxic chemicals such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The fine dust contained huge volumes of gypsum and calcite – minerals commonly used in building materials including cement and plasterboard – that are known to irritate the eyes and lungs. Smoke billowing from the burning site for weeks afterwards also carried ultrafine soot particles, unburned jet fuel, along with fumes from burning plastic and wood.

The long-term effects of this on the people caught up in the catastrophe and those who tried to help are still becoming clear. Twenty three years later there are 127,567 people enrolled in the WTC Health Program , according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More than 82,000 of those are, like Cascio, workers and volunteers who rushed to take part in the rescue efforts or helped to clean up the wreckage at the World Trade Center in the months after 9/11. Another 44,000 were people who were working, at school or in care within the New York City Disaster Area , when the towers fell and the dust cloud enveloped the city.

As of December 2023, 6,781 of those who were registered with the programme have died from an illness or cancer linked to their time near or at Ground Zero after 9/11. It is more than twice the number of people who died on 9/11 . In September 2024, the FDNY announced more than 360 firefighters , EMT and department members have died from World Trade Center-related illness – more than the 343 people it lost on 9/11 itself .

"Some people got sick in two years, some people got sick in eight years, some people got sick in 12 years," says John Feal, a demolition expert and first responder who arrived at Ground Zero on the night of the attack. "There are people who worked there for the entire eight-month cleanup and never got sick. But we were all exposed to a toxic soup no one has ever seen before."

Feal was seriously injured six days after his arrival at Ground Zero when a piece of steel crushed his foot. Despite undergoing multiple surgeries, he remains permanently. Feal now dedicates much of his time advocating for health benefits for first responders.

Among the health conditions affecting those who were exposed to the dust and smoke on 9/11 are cancers, autoimmune diseases, asthma , respiratory illnesses and lingering post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Rare diseases such as sarcoidosis – lumps formed by inflammatory cells – have also been discovered to occur at an abnormally high rates in firefighters who were exposed to the dust and smoke on 9/11.

John Feal John Feal was permanently injured six days after the 9/11 attacks while working at Ground Zero and was later diagnosed with PTSD (Credit: John Feal)

Within days, people returned to their homes and work, and Wall Street reopened (though most schools remained shut through the end of the year). Within months – and for first responders, within hours – respiratory symptoms appeared . It wasn't long before school children being reported as new asthma cases and other respiratory illnesses . The post-traumatic stress in New York City was unmissable and rampant .

The CDC estimates up to 400,000 people could have been exposed to toxic contaminants, risk of injury and levels of stress that could lead to later health problems. The reported conditions include a range of breathing problems, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory disorder and painful chronic rhinosinusitis. The dust breathed in by people in New York in the days after the attacks has been found to trigger an intense inflammatory response that may have contributed to many of these long-term respiratory illnesses.

Others are suffering from gastric problems, anxiety disorders and depression. A wide range of cancers have also been reported in 37,500 people enrolled in the WTC Health Program, with non-melanoma skin cancer and prostate cancer being particularly common. A range of other cancers including breast cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer and thyroid cancer are also prevalent. The incidence of leukemia, thyroid and prostate cancer have been found to be particularly elevated.

The time it can take for cancers to develop may mean that the full scale of the health problems have yet to be realised.

"Cancer diagnoses are an ongoing scenario," says Iris Udasin, a professor of environmental and occupational health and justice at Rutgers School of Public Health in New Jersey, who studies WTC-associated health conditions. "Solid tumours have latency periods of 20 and 25 years – so now is the time to make sure people are getting the appropriate screenings."

Statistically, women make up a small pool of first responders and just 23% of the people monitored in the WTC health program me. But in 2023, r esearch by Udasin and her colleagues played a big role in getting uterine cancer certified as a covered condition in the WTC Health Program .

"Because the patient population is overwhelmingly male, we were able to show the studies pointing to endocrine disruptors in the area around Ground Zero," she says. She also helped to push for mammograms to be part of regular screening the programme.

The intense monitoring and research of 9/11-related health conditions is also bringing some benefits to those affected. Cancer survival rates, for example, are higher among first responders than the general population due to the free medical care and additional monitoring they receive for 9/11-related conditions.

"We found that if you're diagnosed in the WTC Health Program in New York, you have a high survival rate," says Marc Wilkenfeld, who was one of the first physicians to see survivors and first responders with health problems after 9/11. "If you're being monitored, you have a higher rate of survival."

Wilkenfeld witnessed the terror attacks in 2001 and immediately began studying the toxicity of the dust produced in the days that followed and the effect it was having on the first responders working at Ground Zero. He is still trying to unravel the long-term impact it is having and has become a vocal advocate for the healthcare of those affected.

" People ask me, 'you're still doing this 23 years later?'," he says. "But we're still seeing sick people."

Recently, Wilkenfeld was part of a team of doctors and public health researchers who found that people exposed to dust from the World Trade Center are also showing signs of nerve damage. They noticed that numbness, along with pins and needles, was a common symptom among responders and survivors, and they found it appeared to relate to high levels of neuropathy than in the general population. They argue it should be added to the growing list of health conditions related to 9/11.

Heart conditions should also be recognised as associated diseases to ensure those affected get the health cover they need, say campaigners. Cardiovascular disease is substantially higher in 9/11 responders than the general population, especially among women.

The health problems caused by 9/11 are also not restricted to people in New York, Wilkenfeld adds. First responders came to the city to help with the clean-up process from across the United States and around the world .

"People don't realise there are first responders in all 50 states – and abroad," Wilkenfeld says. "It's been 23 years [since 9/11] – people are retired now and live all over the world."

This makes measuring the scale of the problem difficult, but also means some people with 9/11-related conditions are also missing out on support being offered in the US.

"Not everyone connects their time at Ground Zero to their conditions, so getting the word out is important," says Bridget Gormley, whose father Billy Gormley was a FDNY firefighter who died of 9/11 related cancer in 2017 . She now advocates for improved healthcare for the 9/11 community. "There are people from all over the world –international rescuers – who came to help and may be living with conditions."

Getty Images Huge volumes of toxic chemicals, heavy metals and other pollutants were thrown into the air as the towers burned and collapsed (Credit: Getty Images)

For some of those caught up in the events of that day, the toll it has taken on their mental health may mean some cases are being missed.

"People disconnect themselves from 9/11 – especially if they didn't have direct correlation to the day," says retired FDNY first responder Michael O'Connell, who was 25 years-old on 9/11 and is now aged 48. O'Connell worked in 24-hour shifts at Ground Zero in the days immediately after the attacks. He didn't have any physical symptoms until six years later when he was diagnosed with rare autoimmune disease called sarcoidosis in 2007 , when he was in his early 30s. He was one of the first 9/11 firefighters to be diagnosed with the condition, which causes abnormal lumps of inflammatory cells to form in his organs. He describes it as feeling like he has been beaten up with a baseball bat. He now does advocacy work with John Feal and the Feal Good Foundation.

"It takes time for [diseases] to develop," he says. "For eight months we were breathing in toxic air. We're still getting sick, and people are dying from their exposure [23 years later]."

O'Connell's physician, David Prezant, chief medical officer for FDNY , studied sarcoidosis in first responders and concluded the disease was more prevalent in those with exposure to WTC toxins. Close to 100 firefighters have been identified as suffering from sarcoidosis since O'Connell's own diagnosis.

"It's a sad reality we're met with – and there's no waiting. Tomorrow can be too late for one person," says O'Connell.

IMAGES

How to Critique of an Article
How to Write an Article Critique
How to Critique a Research Article
Genuine Reasons for How to Critique a Research Article
Article Critique Writing Service and a Free Critique Sample
21+ Article Critique

VIDEO

Palworld Is Good (In A Bad Way!)
How To Critique a Research Article
HOW TO READ and ANALYZE A RESEARCH STUDY
How To Write An Article Review
How To Critique A Research Manuscript
How to Write Critical Review of a Research Article? Critique Paper or Critical Analysis of Article

COMMENTS

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step
When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read. Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor. Indent each new paragraph.
PDF Topic 8: How to critique a research paper 1
1. Use these guidelines to critique your selected research article to be included in your research proposal. You do not need to address all the questions indicated in this guideline, and only include the questions that apply. 2. Prepare your report as a paper with appropriate headings and use APA format 5th edition.
Writing an Article Critique
A summary of a research article requires you to share the key points of the article so your reader can get a clear picture of what the article is about. A critique may include a brief summary, but the main focus should be on your evaluation and analysis of the research itself. What steps need to be taken to write an article critique? Before you ...
How to Write a Critique of an Article: A Step-by-Step Guide
A critique is a critical evaluation of an article that examines its strengths and weaknesses. It provides an analysis of the author's argument, evidence, and sources, as well as an evaluation of the article's organization, clarity, and overall effectiveness. A critique serves as a tool for readers to evaluate the quality of an article.
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.
How to Critique a Research Article
Select Country. Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and ...
PDF Critique/Review of Research Article
1. Begin of briefly critique by identifying the article's title, author(s), date of publication, and the name. researchers. (see the your journal other publication in which app ared. In your introduction, you should also of the Table publication describe 1). or the If the in paper purpose which was it appeared and the credentials and not ...
How to Write an Article Critique
To write an article critique, you should: Read the article, noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations. Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas. Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance. Critically evaluate the contents of the article ...
Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews
How to write and review a review article. In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are ...
PDF Step'by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research
to identify what is best practice. This article is a step-by step-approach to critiquing quantitative research to help nurses demystify the process and decode the terminology. Key words: Quantitative research methodologies Review process • Research]or many qualified nurses and nursing students research is research, and it is often quite difficult
4 Ways to Critique an Article
Develop a preliminary concept for your critique. Form a vague opinion of the piece in question. Evaluate the author's overall argument after you have read the article through two or three times. Record your initial reactions to the text. [6] Make a list of possible sources of evidence for your critique.
Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper
Abstract. Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and ...
Introduction
The introduction is a justification for why the study was conducted. By the end of the introduction you should have a very good idea of what the researchers are going to study, and be convinced that the study is absolutely necessary to advance the field.
How to Critique an Article Right and Easy
Speaking of the purpose, composing an article critique, you have to describe the main ideas of the author. Provide a brief description of why it is important in your specific context. Next, remember to mention all the interesting aspects that help to reveal the value of the article. Finally, talk about the author's intention and vision ...
How to Write an Article Review (With Samples)
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.
How to Critique a Research Article
Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace. Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are. How to Critique. It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an ...
PDF Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article
Agreeing with, defending or confirming a particular point of view. Proposing a new point of view. Conceding to an existing point of view, but qualifying certain points. Reformulating an existing idea for a better explanation. Dismissing a point of view through an evaluation of its criteria. Reconciling two seemingly different points of view.
How to Critique an Article: Unleashing Your Inner Critic
Step 9: Presenting Your Critique. Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.
How to Review a Journal Article: A Guide to Peer Reviewing
2. Skim the article to get a feel for its organization. First, look through the journal article and try to trace its logic. Read the title, abstract, and headings to get a feel for how the article is organized. In this initial, quick skim, identify the question or problem that the article addresses. 3.
How To Write a Critique (With Types and an Example)
How to write a critique. When you're ready to begin writing your critique, follow these steps: 1. Determine the criteria. Before you write your critique, it's helpful to first determine the criteria for the critique. If it's an assignment, your professor may include a rubric for you to follow. Examine the assignment and ask questions to verify ...
Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for
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 [], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary.
How to Read and Critique a Scientific Research Article
Depending on why you have to read a research article, you might have other activities that follow your reading activity. For instance, based on reading a selected research article, you might have to write 32 a commentary article for a term paper, an argumentative essay for an assessment or a literature survey for a project work. These various ...
How To Critique A Research Paper, Article, Journal (Critical ...
DESCRIPTION: In this video you will learn how to critique a research paper and how to write a critique paper on a research article. This is the most detaile...
9/11's long legacy: How the attack on the World Trade Center is ...
She would go on to become the FDNY Chief of Staff before retiring in 2023. Now aged 61, Cascio is still monitored by the US government's World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program, which provides ...

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

What is an Article Critique Writing?

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

Article Critique Outline

Article Critique Formatting

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

How to Write a Research Article Critique

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

Tips for writing an Article Critique

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Stay ahead of the AI revolution.

How to Write a Critique of an Article: A Step-by-Step Guide

Understanding the Purpose of a Critique

What is a Critique?

The Importance of Critiquing Articles

Different Types of Critiques

Preparing to Write a Critique

Read the Article Thoroughly

Take Notes and Identify Key Points

Analyze the Article's Structure and Content

Writing the Introduction

Provide Basic Information about the Article

State Your Thesis or Main Argument

Outline Your Critique's Structure

Evaluating the Article's Content

Assess the Author's Main Points

Analyze the Author's Evidence and Sources

Discuss the Article's Organization and Clarity

ChatGPT Prompt for Writing a Critique of an Article

Recommended Articles

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

Writing an article CRITIQUE

You are using an outdated browser

How to Critique a Research Article

How to Critique

Title of Study/Research

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Conclusions

Final Thoughts

Help and Feedback

How to Write an Article Critique

Evaluating the Article

At a Glance

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Read the Results Section of the Article

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Introduction

Thesis Statement

Article Summary

Your Analysis

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

What This Means For You

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Similar articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

How to Critique an Article (Psychology)

How to Critique an Article Right and Easy

What is an Article Critique?

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step?

Save your time! We can take care of your essay

Learn About Article Critique Format & Structure

How to Write an Article Critique: Journal vs Research Article

The Article Critique Example

Affordable & Reliable Writing an Article Critique Help

Was this helpful?

Best Capstone Project Ideas for Students across subjects

Learn how to write an annotated bibliography to achieve the best grades!

Join our 150K of happy users

You are using an outdated browser

How to Critique a Research Article

How to Critique

Title of Study/Research