article review example

article review example

The Importance of Article Reviews in Academic Research

1. Introduction

Article reviews are critical to the dissemination of information and important in the development of a field of inquiry. Reviews evaluate the current state of the art on a topic by examining studies already conducted. The integrative nature of a review is useful for building a theoretical framework to set the stage for testing hypotheses, and the emerging theories and hypotheses can provide a foundation for future research predicted to have high significance for a field. In this way, review articles can be seminal in developing new research fields. Whether published as a supplement to a current journal or as a standalone repository of review articles, the work must be peer-reviewed to ensure that the highest quality reviews are published. In the end, the conclusions one might draw from a review are important in that they can direct future research, and the ability of reviewers to draw insightful conclusions can hinge on methodological quality. Given knowledge that review articles can influence changes and improvements in clinical practice, it is important to ensure that review articles are as methodologically sound as possible. High-quality reviews have the potential to change practice and policy. In the end, reviews should be assessed by their impact and relevance to practice, and researchers must consider the most suitable outcomes to assess the effects of their review. High-quality review is better reflected in the existing standards for reporting in the health sciences (PRISMA) and recent developments provide a 27-item checklist of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA-P). These new tools can improve the quality of reporting by review authors. Finally, research methodology is also evolving in the field of review. There is now significant interest in the development of new methods for review and synthesis of studies. Current problem areas in research synthesis and areas for potential improvement have recently been addressed. All of these concepts are expanded in the following articles in the series. Consideration of these methods and concepts will also be important in training the next generation of review authors and users.

2. Benefits of Article Reviews

2.2 Improve and develop research ideas Using the example of a medical student who is doing an assignment on current issues, he managed to find an article about the issue but could not really get a good picture and sometimes misunderstand the article and write his own opinion. Imagine if the article is reviewed and it turns out that the article is reliable and has strong evidence. At that time, when the student discusses with his colleagues, he will get a lot of different opinions that will help him better understand the issue and correct his ideas. Reviewing can also spark new ideas and open up alternative perspectives, as there are studies that show the relationship between increased errors or bias in the reinterpretation of research when the time gap from the publication of the original research to the disconfirmation of the research is long. This is because some of the findings from the disconfirmation studies do not reach the original researchers (Snyder and Swann, 1978), and some events in the original research are forgotten and later recall often involves remembering incorrectly (Mech and Farvolden, 1994). This indicates that the article is still relevant to be discussed, but it is still necessary to find resources and conduct restudies to further clarify any doubts.

2.1 Explore multiple research resources Involving with research means that an individual is free from stagnancy that could retard his progress of knowledge. Therefore, he should be able to perceive the same things from different points of view. Different methods of reviews “provide corrections in database searches and offer recommendations for future studies” (Dellavalle et al., 2004). Each corrected mistake in previous searches means that the resource obtained before is not perfect, and it could be improved with the addition of similar or different resources. This is beneficial for researchers as not only will their research be improved and corrected, but their knowledge of finding correct resources for their research will also be broadened. In the long run, there are researchers who conduct literature reviews for replication studies, or redo the same studies to assess whether previous research is still valid in another situation or at a different time. Hensley (1993) stated that 70% of undergraduate psychology students conduct replication studies. This is a good start for students to learn about redoing research without the complexity of creating new resources. Therefore, they can benefit from previous researchers who conducted article reviews by using the same resources and study methods to achieve the best results.

3. How to Conduct an Effective Article Review

Then look to see if the article clearly states its thesis or hypothesis. For example, look at the abstract, as this may tell you what the article is trying to prove. If the article is purely exploratory, ensure that it has said so. If relevant, make note of the aim of the article.

Preparing to write a review Before writing a review, it is a good idea to build up an inventory of articles, and it is prudent to keep a record of each article written down on hardcopy or electronically. This could save you time later when you are looking for a specific article. An electronic copy can be stored and looked for much easier than a hard copy, which is likely to be one of many articles in a folder somewhere.

An effective article review permits you to entertain, undergo, and comprehend the message of an article, without merely swotting it. Articles are often used in research projects, so it is important to be able to find and review them. Reviewing an article is not as easy as it sounds: it requires a critical mind and a good command of language; it also requires a deep understanding of how to go about it.

4. Common Mistakes to Avoid in Article Reviews

There are a number of common mistakes that students make when writing article reviews. These include: – Inadequate summarization of the article. – While an article review is a short piece of writing, it is designed for the student to pick the most relevant points from the article to talk about. This is done with the intent of giving the student more experience in identifying and understanding the important information from an article. Giving too much detail in the summary leaves the task of assessment on the article, rather than on the student. – Lack of analysis of the article. – An extension of the previous point, it is important that the article review is not an exercise in writing to the teacher what the article said, but is rather an exercise in the student asking themselves, “What did this article mean?”. All articles have a point, or a thesis, that they are trying to put across. They have data or arguments designed to convince the reader of the validity of their point. The student needs to identify these and effectively communicate in the review whether or not the author achieved their intentions. – Unintentional plagiarism. – Some students are not aware that close, or verbatim quotation from an article requires an in-text citation, as does paraphrasing another’s work. Failure to do this constitutes plagiarism, whether it was intentional or not.

5. Conclusion

The insight into the strengths and weaknesses of diverse research, the broader understanding of the landscape, and the communication of scientific and scholarly works all depend on a full articulation of the author’s findings in a tangible form. So article reviewing, as the evaluation and expression of value of one piece of research, in relation to what it adds to the body of what is known; interpretive commentary and criticism, often taking a much broader overlook of a field of research; and even the undertaking of meta-analyses are all forms of research on research and an integral and underappreciated part of the scholarly process. Given that reviewing is often a lot less visible and is typically unrewarding in comparison to other forms of research, article reviewing could be said to represent an academic luxury good with an inverse pricing. This truly necessary activity commands a greater resource. Ultimately, it is the nature of article reviewing as a guarantor of quality and an improver of science that must be maintained and enhanced.

In conclusion, article reviews are effective tools to increase the visibility, impact, and quality of research. They are considered so important that in many instances, they are funded, commissioned, and judged by research and academic institutions. Although often undervalued or dreaded by scholars, when seen from the perspective of the whole knowledge enterprise, article reviews perform an invaluable function and embody many of the best aspects of research and scholarly writing. And yet, many aspects of article reviewing can be improved. The potential for reviewing to be a didactic and constructive process that contributes to the education and development of authors and to the communication of science is still under-realized. In many instances, the energy and insights of reviewers are dissipated through a suboptimal process or a poor match between the paper and the reviewers. There is often a stark disconnection or asymmetry between the effort invested in a review and the impact it has on the article and the advancement of science. And while the various functions of article reviewing and the context and criteria for assessing a review differ greatly in type and discipline, there are enough commonalities to work towards a general framework and best practices for article reviewing.