journal article reviews

journal article reviews

The Importance of Journal Article Reviews in Academic Research

1. Introduction to Journal Article Reviews

When a person is college writing, there’s a strange preference for writing incorrectly, in order to find a better way of writing correctly. Oh, the irony. But why do people do that? In order to learn from it, and making an article review can do that. When you are writing a scholarly review, you have to summarize in a way that already contains the entry’s content and becomes concise. After doing so, the author’s syntax will make it great or break the document when trying to revise. What does this mean? By summarizing an entry, you can expand an article review and learn crucial lessons.

An article review, also known as a scholarly review, is a review of an article or a specific source. It summarizes the main points of the author and the major points or arguments in the contribution. Article reviews allow individuals to keep up with current information in their field. By researching, writing, and maintaining a review of sources, scholars fill in the blanks in their own knowledge of a subject and are then better able to comprehend the topic. For those seeking tenure, this is extremely important. You will have to write book-length publications and article critiques. The more you think and write, the more practice you get – Walden Writing Center.

2. Benefits of Engaging in Journal Article Reviews

The scholarly environment is replete with an abundance of opinions and voices; the desire is that the learned community helps students in interpreting the rich benefits and accountabilities attendant on a professional career. There are tremendous benefits available to educators in teaching their students the processes of examining journal articles. Not the least of which are students’ gains revealed by critical thinking. Every article review written forces students to participate in rhetorical criticism. The questioning is, did the author develop a clear thesis, acknowledge opposing ideas, and if so, did the defense of sound argument follow? The writing suggests that faculty members are rational individuals interested in the examination of their problems and willing to intercede why their dilemmas should be equally interesting to anyone else. As students become increasingly adept, they begin examining the veracity and scrutinizing the conclusions and interpretations of their classmates. This is, of course, the raison d’être of all educational enterprises. However, reliance upon this tactic should be preceded with caution by educators interested in developing unique points of view in their students as professional scholars.

It is a maxim that higher education incorporates the capacity for original analysis, innovation, criticism, and research. In furtherance of these attributes, journal article critiques are essential tasks to study, understand, and analyze the writings on academic subjects. Specifically, it of necessity replicates the writing styles or lacks pupils’ opinions on whether the source is worthy of scholarly publishing. Overall, the importance of journal article reviews in academic research reveals itself in students’ knowledge base prior to the introduction of any new information. It could, therefore, be argued that educators are charged with the responsibility to ensure the critique and examination (synthesis, comprehension, analysis, and application) of the writings of qualified professionals in academia.

3. Critical Evaluation Techniques for Journal Article Reviews

While journal editors and conference organizers have varying priorities, they value similar qualities in journal article reviews. Editors and conference organizers seek clarity, precision, argument, and evaluation in their reviewers’ feedback. Peer reviewers should comment on the significance, originality, and interest to an applicable field in research. Editors and conference organizers expect confirmation of rigorous study methodology, sufficiency of the current literature review, and tone sensitivity to a client’s institutions, innovative perspectives, and implications. Additionally, reviewers offer critique of a manuscript’s organization and clarity as well as international comparisons. Editors and conference organizers evaluate the synthesis to determine whether or not to include the manuscript in their publication or presentation lists.

A journal article review analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of an article. A typical review evaluates both the content and form, highlighting specific areas for further research and recommendations by drawing on evidence from the text. Part of the summary of a journal article review indicates the article’s purpose, intended audience, and organization. In the evaluation section of a review, authors present evidence both in support of and against statements in the text and draw inferences from the evidence. Additionally, they examine sources for strengths and weaknesses, assess limitations and validity, and propose further study.

4. Best Practices for Writing a Comprehensive Journal Article Review

Keywords are useful for journal articles as they help the evaluator understand better what the writer meant. Abstract allows you to have a glimpse of the journal article. It usually includes: Research problem or questions, Research purpose, Research scope (specific components of the topic that are included in the review), Literature review and conceptual foundation, Data and methodology used, Data source, and sampling, Data analysis techniques, Research findings, Contributions to larger field, Implications for construction engineering and management, and Limitation of the research. It is always advisable to go through the section of keywords and abstracts, or the so-called outline from where the evaluator gets the idea of what will be described.

Inevitably, over time, as you read the article, you exhaust all the things you would have to say because they were not explicitly stated in the article. At this point, it’s important to be sure to keep in regular contact with your primary sources. It is best to use at least two databases and a quick targeted search and then do a more thorough job for each of the databases. It would help in refining the keywords or shorten the list as appropriate so that the sort of the journal article would match your need.

5. Conclusion and Future Directions

If PhD students carefully evaluate phenomena, concepts, terms, and theories relevant to the problem, they can obtain strong comments about the main aspects that must be handled by the research. Next, researchers should be able to create an opinion about the engagement of practical or theoretical research to the field. Researchers can develop meaningful analytical tools to analyze the evidence. Today, there are many tools to analyze presented evidence. However, none of them are suitable for every research. Therefore, researchers can develop various tools for differential studies. Finally, researchers should express how the research fulfills the gap and advances existing work. Analyzing the gap at the end of the study can contribute in this regard by providing practical implications.

As we approach the end of this article, we would also like to underline that information on the above-mentioned issues is crucial for PhD students and inexperienced researchers. When PhD students are trying to write their first review, they usually have difficulty organizing their studies. It is necessary to follow certain steps in order to have a healthy academic review. First, PhD students should focus on the establishment of a solid relationship between the research subjects and questions. Second, they should discover the fundamental contributions of the sources reviewed. If researchers do not include the contributions of the followed-up processes in their research, such a situation shows that those reviews are problematic reviews. Therefore, it is important to present strong implementations of research for the literature.