write my article review for me

write my article review for me

The Importance of Article Reviews

1. Introduction

In current times, when competition in the job market is so intense, if you do not know how to write an article review, you will be at a significant disadvantage. The unspoken requirement is that if you can’t produce a professional review, you won’t be taken seriously. When you are asked to write a review, you should actually reflect on the article in question, and not just present a recap. Unfortunately, this is a common pitfall. A few journals even go so far as to print guidelines for writing reviews! It’s important to take these into consideration, as they will strongly affect the impression your review makes on the author and the subsequent fate of the article. Remember that your purpose is to evaluate. The following set of guidelines has been used by several journals (although with slight variations) and can provide a very useful detailed outline for how to take a critical approach to the article. This is, by far, the most important step, because the review you write will often be what the author sees when he or she looks at the feedback from his or her article. If you are too decorative at this point, you might find it difficult to go back and ‘add substance’ to your comments in the evaluation stages. Any review should be strictly objective. Even if you are the author’s close friend, you should avoid personally praising his/her work in the review, as this can be embarrassing for the author if his/her article is later rejected. Be sure to address the article at its most basic level, as this is often a good place to begin in an evaluation. Any comments you make should be indicative of an educated, thought-out response.

2. Benefits of Article Reviews

There are many reasons and purposes of reading articles and reviewing them. A systematic review has an explicit method and it tries to summarize the results of the available evidence by use of a reproducible and rigorous method. It can be said the article review/critique is a more sophisticated form of practice, it is bringing to the new student a chance to demonstrate so much more and it allows the student to show the depth of learning. As a reliable method for gathering, organising, interpreting and discussing information the systematic review has a clearer and more detailed approach in order to answer the proposed question. In brief, an article can be of an excellent piece of work but a review will allow the student to demonstrate more skills. Once you have understood the article and its decision to assemble a review, there are various different types and methods to collect and process information in order to answer the proposed question. The systematic review has become the part of everyday decision making processes, by defining the best available evidence and providing helpful conclusions this tool is now used by all medical practitioners and is becoming the standard alternative. By applying knowledge from an article and adding new evidence to it an evidence based article can be produced. This looks at defining the Clinical Knowledge, Skill or Attitude (KSA) needs of Learners and by using research and analysis can produce the best available evidence to define the needs of the learners and changes in educational outcomes. At the other end of the spectrum a method of less academic approach can apply to produce the known as evidence information, using knowledge gained from an article and discussing new or existing evidence this method will allow learning to demonstrate an acute understand of a subject and a method of critical thinking. Another form of article to review with be a literary review, usually concentrating on a specific data and a body of knowledge, this will aim to interpret the data and the knowledge contained to define key concepts and a understand a specific area of interest.

3. How to Write an Effective Article Review

Following the complete summary of the document, the review should then go on to evaluate the article. This should be done by asking a series of questions about the document. For example, how well was the objective defined? What were the strong and weak points of the argument? What is your overall impression of the document? These questions should be used as a basis to write the review, and it is often easiest to answer these questions separately. Finally, the review should conclude with a restating of the article’s objective and a critical statement of whether the author failed to attain this objective.

Begin your review by referring to the author and the title of the document. The author and title should be briefly defined at the beginning of the review. This should only take one or two sentences. Then, you should define the author’s objectives of the document in question. This can usually be found in the introduction or abstract of the document. Following this, you should describe the author’s means of attaining his/her objective, which is the type of evidence used in the document. This is usually the largest part of the review and the least clearly defined as it will involve both a summary of the document and an evaluation. Despite this, it is often best to separate the summary and evaluation.

Writing an effective article review is not an easy task. There are many aspects to be considered when doing a review. The main points, like the review should be understandable to non-specialists, the review should not be a conclusion, also the review should not contain new results, and the most important is an effective review must be a critical review. A critical review is a review in which you should identify whether the author was successful in his objectives, and should relate the work to your own knowledge. This guide will take you through all of these aspects and more, in order to write an effective article review.

4. Tips for a Persuasive Article Review

2. Also ensure that you exclude the topic and comments about the overall quality of the article. This is a common pitfall in article review writing. It is all too easy to stray from the study in question, to discussing the topic area as a whole, or to give an exposition of the background and context of the article. While showing that you have knowledge of the bigger picture can be beneficial, it should be done with reference to the article in question, not in a detailed explanation of the general area of study. Similarly, comments regarding the overall quality of the article, with no specifics on certain points, tend to be vague and lacking in persuasive force. For example, to say ‘This article is quite good and I think I’ve learnt something from it,’ is uninteresting and gives no indication of what the speaker thinks is ‘quite good’, likewise ‘This article is bad. I didn’t like it at all,’ says nothing. Any comments on the quality of the article should be backed with reference to specific points, for example ‘The logic of the explanation of X was quite convoluted and hard to follow.’ A helpful way to ensure that you remain focused on the article is to ask yourself whether the article could be identified from hearing the points in your review.

1. Use a persuasive tone in your response. Many of the article review writing tasks have a critical or analytical component. The aim is not simply to regurgitate the contents of the articles, but rather to use them as a basis for discussing issues and offering your own evaluations. In discussing these points, it is important that you also give some thought to any weaknesses of the studies you are reviewing. A review from which the author’s voice is silent and does not begin to take a stand is in danger of being a mere description or a series of disconnected comments. Go out on a limb and have a go at critiquing the work. This does not mean that you must be aggressive or insulting about the article in question, but it does mean that you should offer some critique using the knowledge and understanding you have gained from your study of the area. Analysis that is on the whole descriptive, or that is so badly focused that it could apply to most articles is not persuasive. It often lacks the punch to stimulate further discussion on the points you have raised, and it does not help the reader to assess how much they agree with what you have said. When critiquing, it is often beneficial to use the first person (i.e. ‘I feel that.’). This makes the critique less authoritative and more open to discussion, it takes it out of the realm of pure fact and shows that it is your opinion given the evidence in the article. Be careful however not to overuse the first person, which would result in the review ‘taking over’ the article at its subject’s work!

5. Conclusion

This essay has discussed the importance of article reviews and has highlighted the various ways in which a review is written may influence the reader and determine the overall quality of the study. It has been shown that the type of review written can depend greatly on the person who is writing it and the purpose of the review. A poorly written review can change the interpretation of an article and can lead to misinformation being taken from the article. It has been shown that the traditional or narrative review is the simplest type of review to produce. The quality of a review article can be judged on the depth of knowledge an author has on the topic. In the lack of indexing studies, it has been shown that a poorly written review can result in a study being duplicated. This will just waste time and funds. In an extreme case, a postgraduate medical student in Peru was told by the head of his school to stop working on a review, in order to not waste time. He was told to get the evidence he required from the original articles and make a small summary, using the well-known mnemonic (PICO) for the question he wanted to answer. This would allow a comparison of the data extracted to the original study at a later date. The question of what is clinical evidence in the practice of general medicine was born from his reading of the Cochrane Collection and resulted in a systematic review and an expert opinion piece. The concept and lots of evidence-based articles produced by the same person were later tested in a randomized control trial with measured clinical outcomes. The testing of one’s own article in an experiment is the highest form of evidence-based medicine. This was a great example of how article reviews can influence the direction of research for good or bad. High-quality review articles are a great source of information for the evidence-based practitioner.