how to write an article review

how to write an article review

Writing an Effective Article Review

1. Understanding the Purpose of an Article Review

An effective review is written as a summary. Either way, the reviewer has to understand the article and have the intent to summarize it for someone who has not read the article. This is a chance for the reviewer to demonstrate some communication skills. It’s a common mistake that a review is more of a guide. Some reviews discuss statements in the article and try to prove/disprove them. This is very analytical and can be a complex form of review. Any type of review is okay as long as it’s effective. An ineffective review is when the reviewer has understood the topic but does a poor job at trying to explain it to others who frankly don’t understand. This can be boring and not very challenging for the reviewer.

To begin with, the essay is going to define the meaning of article review. It will help the reader to understand what an article review is, which can be defined as a piece of writing where you effectively summarize or assess someone else’s writing. This can be about a journal article, a book, a piece of writing or any other form of text.

2. Analyzing the Structure and Content of the Article

The rest of this process of comparison can be done by creating a list of the positive and negative aspects of the article reviewed, with evidence given for them. Then, it will simply note whether the evidence the reviewer provided was accurate.

When making notes of good points, this is an effective time to decide a positive to note in a review. However, if no effective points are found, there is your evidence of a bad review. With no notes at all of the original article, that makes it even easier.

First, I will read the article and make notes on anything I didn’t understand or an effective point made by the author of the review to be looked at further. I will then go back and, using a highlighter, do the same on the review. This comparing will give me a good indication of the review’s effectiveness as it will be easy to tell whether the review is simply summarizing or actually reviewing the article.

First, I will summarize the article the review is on, then generate some predictions on what it has to say before critically analyzing the review and the original article. This will all contribute to making it effective.

Before you read the entire article, you should generate a prediction about what the review has to say: an abstract, a concept of the genre and form, a close examination of the text, and your critical response to the text. This will help me understand the review and the article, which will overall help in producing your own review.

3. Evaluating the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article

The evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the article is well defined. The guidelines include discussing the flaws and strong points of the article, what did the article set out to do and whether that was achieved, were the results meaningful and was the research efficient. This is a very effective way to judge the piece as the writer is given a clear set of things to consider when writing the review. This will prevent the review from being biased as the review is based on evidence and reasoning. The conclusion provided by the guidelines will also give a definitive answer to the question of whether the article was of an acceptable standard. It was difficult to find the flaws in this particular section of the article review guidelines provided. One criticism could be that it would only be appropriate to use these guidelines when reviewing a piece of research. But since the types of article can vary from a news report, to an opinion piece, travel writing or a piece of research etc. It could have expanded the guidelines to cover some of the different types of article that will be reviewed. These will always be used for an article of a scientific nature.

4. Crafting a Well-Structured and Coherent Review

Creating a well-structured article review is important, particularly for training in verbal exchange, due to the fact that the crucial coherence and communication of thoughts requires knowing how to organise and convey information well. This talent is transferable to the effective verbal exchange of ideas in the workplace. The reviewer, through the structured articulation of critique, opinions, and suggestions, will increase the chance that the text of the article will be transferred and retained in the mind of the reader. The first step to a successful review is to understand the assignment. Knowing the assignment beforehand will prevent wasting time and energy. Understanding what the professor wants from the article review will let the reviewer choose how much of the article to discuss. This will also help to create a good evaluation of the article. An article can be reviewed fully or only certain parts of it may be reviewed. Once the reviewer knows how much of the article will be discussed, they should begin to plan the review by taking notes on the article. All notes should be referenced with specific parts of the article and the page number. These notes will be used as a guide through the review to ensure that no information or ideas are left uncritiqued. This is also important for ensuring that no information is misinterpreted or misrepresented. At this stage, it could be quite helpful to create a short outline of the article review which will be a mental map to ensure that the review stays coherent and adequately critiques the article.

5. Providing a Balanced and Persuasive Critique

Critiques in qualitative research can often be overgeneralizations, overly simplified, harshly negative, or take too much the form of an approval/disapproval. It is important to differentiate between a critique and a statement of personal preference. Giving a broadly negative generalization of an approach states only the author’s preference for a different type of approach, it does not provide a valid reason why someone else should not use the approach being criticized. Oversimplification can occur in that complex results are dismissed as merely being an effect of the method used. Measures are suggested to “facilitate the comparison and interpretation of data” between two different approaches e.g. Qualitative Comparative Analysis and standard content analysis. It is implied that the latter method is lacking and it would be better if it just did the same as QCA but this is not written. This is a simple comparison of the two methods and is actually providing the sort of result which the paper is saying is a complex one to compare.

It can be a matter of disappointment when an article, no matter how well written, incites a critical response of negativity or rejection. This is particularly apparent in the criticism of qualitative research where the most celebrated outcome is consensus on an approach, its most persuasive findings, or a comprehensive theory. Not all research papers fall under the heading of being either “right or wrong” though. Discussing how to provide and how to judge the validity of a balanced and well-supported critique, this paper attempts to raise the awareness of the importance of this often overlooked aspect of research appraisal.