article review help

article review help

The Importance of Article Reviews

1. Benefits of Article Reviews

Peer review is an important part of the research and publication process. It is considered to be the test and assessment for the presented research. The honest feedback will be helpful in improving the paper to the required in the scholarly publication. This process filters the research and adds to the quality of content. On the other hand, the reviewer gets a chance to access the recent work in his field of expertise. This will aid the reviewer to keep abreast with the latest research. This is otherwise not possible by reading or through other means. This will help the beginning reviewer to know how to write a well-structured review and it also gives guidance to what points require special attention. This is usually through the annotated comments on the submission. An important benefit of the peer review process is that it will identify the suitable research work. There is chance of improving the submission if the review identifies potential areas for enhancement. This could lead to regenerating the work in those areas and resubmitting. Finally, the reviewers to some journals are rewarded. This could be through a number of means such as free subscription, payment or even customer recognition.

2. How to Write an Effective Article Review

5. Write a critique: Though you can write a critique for an article without an outline, a summary, and an overview, the critique will most likely result in you losing the main point of the article and result in a jumbled piece. Because of this, it is important to critique all sections of the article as well as the article as a whole. This is the main body of your article review. With the outline fresh in your mind, you should be able to provide an informed critique. A critique is your opinions on the article, backed with evidence and a methodical analysis. This includes giving an opinion if the author accomplished the theory, if you agree with the theory, and what parts of the theory were strong. Then, the critique can move on to the evidence used to support the theory. An effective method is to work through the article, beginning to end, comprehensively judging every aspect. Remember to avoid your own opinion in the summary and overview. This should be a methodical critique of the article.

4. Give an overview: This should only take a few sentences. In the outline, write a brief description of the theory. Keep it to only one paragraph and do not go too much into detail. An article review is written for an audience who is knowledgeable in the subject matter instead of a general audience.

3. Prepare the summary: In a few sentences, summarize the article. Reveal your impression of the article, describing whether you think the author was clear in his explanation of the theory and whether he provided enough evidence or information.

2. Outline the article: Write an outline of your article based on the understanding from the first step. Think about what the author is trying to tell the readers and the way he or she supported it. Then, think about the wider impression the arguments and supporting evidence have. Now you are prepared to write the article summary.

1. Narrow it down: You should begin by skimming the article to identify its main points and sample supportive evidence. Then, read the article again, taking note this time of the main points and supporting arguments. See if the article supports a thesis statement. Do you think the article supports an interesting theory? It has an interesting one and here you can find it. Now you can quickly and easily understand the article, and knowledge of the theory is fresh in your mind.

Writing an article review requires a systematic approach. Reviewing an article is not as easy as it sounds: it requires a critical mind and doing some extra research. Check out these 6 essential tips that will help you write a better and polished article review.

3. Common Mistakes to Avoid in Article Reviews

An article review should provide a very clear analysis.

A third common error is criticism without explanation. If a reviewer is going to criticize a certain point, he/she must explain why the point is a weak point. This should also be supported by evidence from the article. If an error is made but a right explanation is given by the reviewer, it is likely he or she misinterpreted the article and needs to change the review to match the correct interpretation.

Another common error is giving an opinion as to the article’s well-hidden implications which are not stated directly in the article. If the article has implications, it is important that the reviewer find them. If the reviewer wants to say the article has no implications, he or she must provide reasons for that opinion. But, a reviewer should not give his/her own implications for the article. It is important to distinguish the author’s implications from the reader’s own ideas and critiques.

One of the most common errors is too much plot summary. An article review is not a plot summary. The review should provide an in-depth analysis of the article, not a surface explanation of the article contents. If the reviewer is stating what this article is about too much, he or she is likely summarizing.

There are several errors that occur in article reviews, but they can be corrected easily by following certain remedies. The common errors are gathered from many first-year student papers as they attempt to learn how to write an article review. These errors, even though they are often unintentional, may overshadow the point of the review and waste the time of the person reading the review.

4. Tips for Conducting a Critical Analysis

Trust me, following these steps will make your critical analysis more than a breakdown of someone else’s work. Too often, students write a summary rather than an analysis. This occurs because students do not know the difference between the two. Knowing the difference will result in a higher quality analysis. An analysis is an argument in response to the work, whereas a summary is just a recount of the main features. To compare is to explain one thing in terms of saying it is like another. For example, it could be said that a particular book is like a particular film. By comparing the book and the film, it is clear that the individual intends to elucidate the book in terms of the film. This is a good method of analysis to employ, providing the points are valid. A contrast analysis is when the individual delineates the similarities of two things that at first seem different. A good example is one I had a student do on poetry. She compared two poems that were different in style and content to show that the event that the content revolved around was the defining point in each poem’s emotion, despite the different type of emotion conveyed. The content of an article analysis is of great importance and is based on the mode of analysis used. Usually, it is best to summarize the work and then to contrast and compare its points with those of similar articles because this is an effective way to prove an argument. Define the main points of the article. Essentially, say in your own words what you believe the author was attempting to say in the work. This part can be written as a list to succinctly outline the work. This is still not an analysis, but it is necessary to orientate the reader of the analysis. Next is the analysis stage, depending on what was learned from the mode of analysis, this will take different forms. Get to know the article and author well. This will require several readings of the article. You need to understand fully what the author is trying to achieve and what you have to assess in seeking to understand the article’s assumed argument. At this point, it is useful to ask yourself questions about the article.

5. Conclusion: Enhancing Your Article Review Skills

In conclusion, developing your skills in reviewing articles is an important step in developing your research and publication practices. It’s an opportunity to participate in the conversation of scientific advancement, an exercise in critical thinking, and a chance to understand the intricacies of research. Skill in reviewing articles will enhance the depth and quality of the scientific literature. Constructive criticism provides the author with specific feedback by which they can modify their work. This process is tinged with a myriad of emotions including anxiety, resentment, and fulfillment. By understanding the nature of a constructive review, authors will be better equipped to handle the critiques of their peers. An effective article review allows you to advocate for a change in clinical practice, make a policy recommendation, or alter the views on an issue based on evidence in the literature. The skills developed in critiquing others’ work can also be applied to your own publishing endeavors. With the burgeoning number of open access journals, the opportunity to be an author or co-author is ever increasing. By reviewing articles you will learn from the good and bad practices of others and bring those lessons to your own written work.