what is a journal article review

what is a journal article review

The Importance of Journal Article Reviews

1. Introduction

Finally, one of the most important reasons for reviewing articles is that it creates a learning opportunity. By reviewing an article and critiquing the methods and results, students often find that they have uncovered something that the author has overlooked. In science, this is not uncommon, and going back and forth to solve a problem often leads to a new understanding or discovery. This situation is perfect for students, providing them with an opportunity to ask the lecturer’s advice and to fully understand the intricacies of the problem they have encountered.

By reviewing several articles, the student can better understand what makes a good article and what information it should contain. This is done by comparing the articles and information in them to determine which method or result is most relevant to the article in question. This is particularly useful to students who do not have a strong background in research since it gives them a model on which they can base their own work. Often, students have difficulty starting their first assignment simply because they are unsure what is expected of them. By using a published article as a comparison, the student can alleviate these fears and produce a higher quality assignment.

Reviewing journal articles is an important aspect of academic research. In a scientifically oriented education, students are often required to define, understand, and digest new information. The best way to get to the key point of an article is to read and critique the article. By doing so, the student is actively participating in and engaging with the research process – an invaluable exercise that is preparation for real-world research.

2. Benefits of Journal Article Reviews

Because we are talking about the market in general SWOT position, it is actually impossible and not efficient to do a SWOT analysis for the whole global market. A certain company, large or small, which produces a product or service always has a target market, whether it’s too broad or specific. For a company with only one targeted market, doing a SWOT analysis for its market is sufficient. But for a company with multiple targeted markets, it often does an intensive SWOT analysis for its market segment in comparison to global market SWOT analysis. Global market SWOT analysis provides a big picture of all situations around the world that could affect the company in making a decision to change its operations, which could affect its products or services. Doing a SWOT analysis of a specific market segment is still better when considering its global situation.

Individual understandings of SWOT position in a specific market are definitely different, but the implications are the same. Every company or organization intends to do something good for its future. However, the actions are basically to minimize weaknesses, maintain strengths, rectify weaknesses outcomes if possible, and utilize all available opportunities to get rid of potential threats. By doing a SWOT analysis of a specific organization, we would be able to determine a suitable strategy for it. The readers must remember that the action strategy of a specific company must be aligned with its SWOT position. Any deviation would lead to inefficiency and even incompatibility between the condition of the company and the actions of its human resources.

3. How to Write a Journal Article Review

1. Begin your review with an introduction. 2. In the first paragraph, you should briefly describe the article you are reviewing. 3. Provide a summary. 4. In the next few paragraphs, you should summarize the article. The summary should be concise and clearly written. Avoid using first person point of view in the summary. Instead, use third person point of view. 5. Critique the article. Now that you have summed up the article, you should be able to critique it. What is the article trying to convey and how is it doing it? What you are assessing is the impression of the article. An article may be used that has already been summarized; it is your choice which article you use. 6. In the critique, you could provide your opinion – this is optional. There are different views on whether you should express your own opinion in a review that will vary from journal to journal. Check whether your journal of choice has any biases to what you may critique. For example, a positive bias. If this is the case, then there is no harm in showing a negative opinion. Remember to maintain the third person point of view. This can often confuse people as most use the first person point of view for opinion-oriented writing, but in this case, it is perfectly acceptable. This will allow you to not confuse opinion with a fact, for example, “I think that the fact that the product did not reach its expected target…” is opinion, whereas “…the product did not reach…” is a fact.

4. Tips for Writing an Effective Review

Remember, the statement that “a good reviewer requires having an understanding of the duties and expectations before accepting to review” is a too general a point of view. An understanding of the specific type of review expected and the type of manuscript to be reviewed is a prerequisite. How does a reviewer establish what is expected of a specific type of review? There is no hard and fast rule on this. This again emphasises the importance on the job of the editor—the detailed instructions provided for reviewers in specific notes for contributors to authors. An author who has a manuscript in a rough state and thinks it may not withstand the scrutiny of a Lancet or BMJ paper may suggest a letter to the editor rather than a rapid response review. It is always worth the reviewer while having decided to do a review to spend a little time looking at the advice to authors for the specific journal and/or specific notes for contributors to authors. Above all, the reviewer must always keep in mind that the purpose of the review is to serve as a tool that could be used to change/guide specific aspects of the manuscript to increase its chances of being accepted for publication. Always keep in mind that you are providing a service to an author and ultimately to the reader by viewing the review job as a subset of the broader task of the specific journal in providing high quality information towards an ultimate goal of improving public health. In the preface to the publication “Peer Review in Health Sciences” by Godlee et al. there is a stated expectation that the quality of health care worldwide should be enhanced through global promotion of the principles of peer review. A grand aim and one that is actually achieved primarily at the grass roots level through improved individual papers/contributions to specific journals. This means that when reviewing mere acceptance of the status quo is not good enough for any aspects of the review. Always ask the question “how can this be improved?”. As a general rule any assertion made by a reviewer should have a factual base rather than be based on intuition or personal preference. The more specific a critique, the more useful it is to the author in trying to improve the specific aspect of the paper (and the easier it is to convince an editor that a certain aspect of a manuscript needs work). The best reviews are the ones that accomplish the story telling test—author can relay what the reviewer said and why without continually checking the review. A fellow reviewer is often an editor’s best secret weapon for persuading a sceptical author to consider revising some aspect of a manuscript which he/she feels is not so problematic—sell them the idea of another expert in the field coming across to the same conclusion mentioned in your review.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the authors stress the importance of teaching students the skills needed to critically review articles. Given the prevalence of information that is readily accessible, it is imperative for students to develop evaluation skills in order to determine what is authoritative. Critical reviewing not only improves skills of comprehension, it also instills a habit of learning by raising questions, rather than mere passive absorption. In learning to review articles, students will benefit from having to think and write about research designs, the strength and weaknesses of current research, and to identify the knowledge gaps in a particular field. These are vital skills for aspiring academics, researchers, and health care providers. Furthermore, the ability to think and write critically is a precious skill that has far-reaching effects on the future life of students, both professionally and personally. Finally, by providing the tools to teaching students how to review journal articles, the authors hope to see the quality of research evidence improve within professions, and subsequently the quality of care for patients. The paper by Cook, C.N., Heath, F. and Thompson, R.L. (2000) stresses the importance of evidence-based practice within the field of exercise physiology. This parallels the importance of teaching students to review journal articles, as evidence-based practice requires the judicious use of the current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The ability to review scientific literature provides a means of locating, appraising, and interpreting this evidence. Failure to achieve these skills means that students/researchers will almost certainly use outdated information or even be unaware of current knowledge in their field. Cook et al (2000) also underline research findings suggesting that exercise practitioners do not widely adopt evidence-based practice, and an identified reason for this is a lack of skills in critical appraisal and knowledge of literature resources. This indicates a need to change the approach to how we educate exercise science students, and suggests that these findings are applicable to any health-related profession.