strengths and weaknesses in article review examples

strengths and weaknesses in article review examples

Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of article reviews

1. Introduction

Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of article reviews. Introduction – This article is a first and necessary step to evaluating a more large scale project looking into the impact of open access publishing on the review and dissemination of research. At the simplest level, we need to be sure that the articles categorized as reviews have an increased probability of being appraised. If this is not the case, then the rest of the work is somewhat redundant. Steps can also be taken to establish which types of review are more likely to be appraised. For example, the Cochrane Collaboration has had a policy of assessing all their articles, which have created a special structured abstract to make the articles’ contents more accessible. This has no doubt had an impact on the assessment of Cochrane articles compared to other types of review. One analysis has even looked at the difference in appraisal of qualitative and quantitative reviews. By identifying such factors, it may be possible to give guidance to review authors on how to maximize the impact of their work. This research is only a starting point but an essential one.

2. Strengths of article reviews

Upholding the evidence-based aspect of healthcare, review is essential to take prior to developing clinical practice guidelines or carrying out evidence-based healthcare. In order to provide the best possible care for their patients, healthcare professionals must stay up to date with the latest evidence in their field. By reviewing articles, medical knowledge is put to the test, and outdated practice or theories can be identified. An article review can also compare teaching materials with the original research it is based upon. This may bring a new and valuable perspective to students learning the material.

In terms of searching for the literature, article review is a comprehensive and thorough way of information retrieval. This is because in many cases, reviewing articles often is conducted early in the research project and more than one time as the project evolves. Taking one closer to the topic, article review helps one to identify both the strengths and the weaknesses of a particular area of knowledge. This is especially important in an attempt to integrate information from different sources, i.e. from the articles in different countries. Identification of weaknesses can also be a long-term intellectual exercise which will help with the training of higher thinking skills. Further points in critical appraisal can form up questions for the research project, potentially saving a lot of time of what might be an irrelevant study.

3. Weaknesses of article reviews

Evaluator bias can occur if the research is unclear in some way—perhaps because the design is bad, or the English is poor. Such studies may report results which seem clear and positive, when they should be inconclusive or negative. Steps have been proposed to reduce the occurrence of such mistakes within the publishing and reviewing literature, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statements (8) to improve the reporting of randomized controlled trials, and the wider use of checklists for other types of studies (9). It is likely that such tools will make it easier for reviewers to judge the quality of reports, but these do not yet exist for all study types and many authors are unlikely to comply with such criteria if not mandated by a publication. An unfortunate result may be the worsening of the situation described above, as authors whose work does not fit the new criteria may find their study labeled as poor quality and receive a more scathing review than if the old standards were still in place. This may make article reviews’ judgments less valid, as a study that was really poorly done is different from a study that simply does not fit new reporting standards.

4. Conclusion

Evaluative article reviews are used more and more in today’s world to understand, interpret, and evaluate the content of the article. What this system of peer review is; is an evaluative summary of the article, in some cases it’s an in-depth analysis of the article with constructive criticism. The most common evaluative article review system is based on a numbering list of criteria, presented in the form of a table and mostly used for literature review articles. This helps the reader in understanding fully what has been evaluated and give a quick comparison between the evaluation and the article. Resulting in an understanding of whether the evaluation is highlighting positive criteria or negative. This method is seen to be very beneficial, since it gives the reader an understanding of what the reviewer is trying to interpret throughout the evaluation. This method is useful in interpreting the evaluation amassed and also in comparing different evaluations of the same article by different reviewers.