Guidelines for writing a Review Article
A)
Good
to know about review articles
What is a review article?
·
A critical, constructive analysis of the literature in a specific
field through summary, classification, analysis, comparison.
·
A scientific text relying on previously published literature or data. New
data from the author’s experiments are not presented
(with exceptions: some reviews contain
new data).
·
A stand-alone publication. Literature reviews as integral parts
of master theses,
doctoral theses or grant proposals will not be considered here. However,
many tips in this guideline are transferable to these text types.
What is the function of a review article?
·
to
organize literature
·
to
evaluate literature
·
to
identify patterns and trends in the literature
·
to
synthesize literature
·
to
identify research gaps and recommend new research areas
Who is the audience of review articles?
·
experts
in specific research areas
·
students
or novice researchers
·
decision-makers
Review articles targeted at the last two groups: Extended explanations of subjects or of subject-specific language are mandatory (e.g. through the uses of information boxes or glossaries).
Which types of review articles exist?
Types by
methodological approach
·
Narrative review
Selected studies are compared and summarized on the basis of the author’s experience, existing theories and models. Results are based on a qualitative rather than a quantitative level.
·
Best
evidence review
A focus on selected studies is combined with systematic methods of study-selection and result exploration.
·
Systematic review
|
·
Status
quo review
Presentation of the most current research for a given topic or field of research.
·
History review
Development of a field of research over time.
·
Issue
review
Investigation of an issue (i.e. a point of disagreement or a question) in a specific field of research.
·
Theory/model review
Introduction of a new theory or model in a specific field of research.
Types by
mandate
·
Invited
reviews: experienced researchers are invited
·
Commissioned
reviews: formal contracts of authors with clients
·
Unsolicited submissions: researchers develop
an idea for a review and submit it to
journal editors
How long is a review article?
Review articles vary considerably in length. Narrative reviews may range between 8,000 and 40,000 words (references and everything else included). Systematic reviews are usually shorter with less than 10,000 words.
B) Elements of a review article
Title
Function Helping readers to decide whether they should read the text or not.
Includes terms for indexing (e.g. in data bases).
Elements The
title must be informative:
·
The
title has to include important terms.
·
It has to indicate
that the text is a review article.
·
It may include the message of the article, not just its coverage (Gustavii 2003).
The title must be short:
·
Keep the
title concise.
·
A longer subtitle may be an option in case a specification is necessary.
Tense In a title with results indicated: the present tense stresses the general validity of the results and illustrates what the author is trying to achieve with the article; the past tense indicates that results are not established knowledge yet.
Citations None
Length between eight to 12 words (Davis 2005)
Question The title should only be a question if this question remains unanswered at the time of writing.
List of authors
Function Declare intellectual ownership of the work, provide contact information
Elements 1) Decision on authorship:
·
Every person that contributed significantly to the literature
search, literature exploration and/or writing
process.
2) Order of authors:
·
The first author
has done most of the research and written major parts of the article.
·
Authors between first and last author have contributed in one way or the other to the success of the project.
They may be ordered alphabetically (indicating equality) or in a
sequence of decreasing involvement.
·
The last author usually coordinated the project
and had the original idea.
IMPORTANT: Discuss authorship as early as possible!
Abstract
Function Informs about the main objectives and result of the review article (informative abstract) or indicates the text structure (descriptive abstract).
Descriptive abstract - for narrative reviews
Elements Description of subjects covered without specific details. A
descriptive abstract is like a table of contents in paragraph form.
Tense present
Informative
abstract - for
systematic and best evidence reviews
Elements 1) Objectives: One or two sentences describe the context and intention of the review.
2)
Material
and methods: One or a few sentences provide
a general picture of the methodological approach.
3) Results:
A few sentences
describe main outcomes.
4)
Conclusions: One or two sentences
present the conclusion
(which is linked to the objectives).
Tense objectives: present
material and methods, results: past conclusions: present
Citations usually none
Length usually 200 to 250 words
Table of Contents
Function Shows the readers the organisation of the text. Helps orientation among sections.
Note Some review journals print an outline/table of contents at the beginning of the article, others do not. In general, these are recommended for extensive narrative reviews.
Introduction
Function Provides information about the context, indicates the motivation for the review, defines the focus, the research question and explains the text structure.
Elements Elements of a three paragraph introduction (after Anonymous 2003).
1)
Subject background. The general topic, issue, or area of concern is given to illustrate the context.
2)
“Problem”. Trends, new perspectives, gaps, conflicts, or a single problem is indicated.
3)
Motivation/justification. The author’s reason
for reviewing the literature,
the approach and the organisation of
the text are described.
Tense present (use past tense for the description of your methods and your results)
Citations many
Length Between 10% and 20% of the core text (introduction, body, conclusions).
Note Make sure to have a narrow focus and an explicit research question. Indicate these two points clearly in the introduction. Give theoretical or practical justifications for the need for a review.
Body: Material and Methods
Function Systematic and best evidence reviews have a methods section. This section enables motivated researches to repeat the review. Narrative reviews do not have a methods section but should include some information about applied methods at the end of the introduction.
Elements The material and methods section contains for example
information about: data sources (e.g. bibliographic databases), search terms and search strategies, selection criteria (inclusion/exclusion of studies), the number of studies screened and the number of studies included, statistical methods of meta- analysis.
Tense past
Citations few (e.g. to statistical analyses or software used)
Length Approx. 5% of the core text (introduction, body, conclusions).
Note Make sure that data sources are clearly identified. Precision has first priority in the material and methods section.
Body: Main Part of the Review Article
Section structure A coherent structuring of the topic is necessary to develop the section structure (Bem 1995). Subheadings reflect the organisation of the topic and indicate the content of the various sections.
Possible criteria for structuring the topic are:
·
methodological
approaches
·
models
or theories
·
extent
of support for a given thesis
·
studies
that agree with another versus studies that disagree
·
chronological
order
·
geographical
location
Paragraph structure · Cover one idea, aspect or topic per paragraph.
·
Avoid referring to only one study per paragraph; consider several studies per paragraph
instead.
Links · Frequently link the discussed research findings to the research question stated in the introduction. These links create the a thread of coherence in your review article.
·
Link the studies to one another.
Compare and discuss
these relationships.
Tense According to Ridley (2008) three tenses are frequently used:
·
Present:
reporting what another
author thinks, believes, writes, reporting current knowledge or information of general validity,
e.g. It is believed…
·
Simple past: referring to what a specific researcher did or found,
referring to a single study, e.g. They found…
·
Present perfect: referring to
an area of research with a number
of independent researchers involved, e.g. They
have found…
Citations Citations are usually indirect but in some cases pointed and relevant remarks might be cited directly.
·
Non-integral references (indirect):
The author’s name, or a number referring to the reference list, appears in
brackets. Non-integral references emphasize
the idea, result, theory
etc.
rather than the person behind it (Ridley 2008). Most references in biology are non-integral.
·
Integral references (direct):
The author’s name has a grammatical function in the text. As Ridley
(2008) points out this type is appropriate to
emphasize the contribution of a
specific author.
Length 70 to 90% of the core text (introduction, body, conclusions).
Note Make sure to organise the different pieces of information into a line of argument. An appropriate organisation of information is all- important for the quality of a review (Day & Gastel 2006).
Throughout it is important that the idea/topic (paragraph 3 of the Introduction) drives the article and not the literature used; write an idea-driven, rather than literature-driven article!
Conclusions
Function Answer the research question set in the introduction.
Elements · implications of the findings
·
interpretations by the authors (kept separate from factual
information)
·
identification
of unresolved questions
Tense present: summarising and drawing conclusions
present perfect: referring to an area of research or a body of literature
Citations few or none
Length 5 to 10% of the core text (introduction, body, conclusions).
Note Make sure to have a clear take home message that integrates the points discussed in the review. Make sure your conclusions are not simply a repeat of the abstract!
Acknowledgements
Function · Expresses gratitude to people who helped with the literature
search, the structuring of the material or in the writing process (but whose contribution is too small to justify co-authorship).
·
Expresses gratitude to funding organisation and specifies the funding
program (often required by funding agencies).
Elements · Full names of people and their specific contributions to the
project are given.
·
The name of the funding
agency and program as well as the grant number and the person to whom it
was awarded are mentioned.
Tense present (past tense when referring to funding agencies in terminated projects)
Citations none
References
Function · Shows interested readers how to find the literature mentioned in the text.
·
Acknowledges
the work of other scientists.
·
Compulsory
to avoid charges of plagiarism
Elements Include every reference cited in the text. Do not include additional references. Avoid internet sources. If internet sources must be used, find the original source for the internet reference, check it has been correctly cited and cite it directly.
Length A range between 50-100 references is in most cases appropriate. Note · For narrative reviews the inclusion of all relevant, high-
quality studies is the target.
·
Systematic and best evidence reviews need explicit criteria for the inclusion/exclusion of studies from
which they got the data.
Illustrations: Concept Maps
Function Concept maps are used in review articles to visualize the structuring of the topic, to show the relationships between studies, concepts, models or theories.
Organisation of data Boxes with terms or names are arranged in a two-dimensional space. Arrows are used to link boxes. Specifications of the relationship are written on the arrows.
Legend The legend describes the concept map’s content. It is specific and informative (it should be possible to understand the map without reading the full text).
Note Concept maps are very useful to display complex relationships.
Boxes Often provided to explain terms/concepts for those who are interested in certain issues more in depth.
Glossary Often provided to explain terms particular to a subject area so that as broad an audience as possible may be reached.
If you want to include tables or figures in
your review article…
…see Guidelines for writing a Research Article
C)
Preparing
a review article in 18 steps
stage step
prepare 1. narrow
the topic, define a few research questions or
hypotheses
2.
search
for literature sources, refine topic and research
questions during the search*
3.
read, evaluate, classify
and make notes
4.
redefine the focus and the research
questions, define the take-home message
5.
compose a preliminary title
develop structure 6. find a structuring principle for the article (e.g. chronological,
subject matter, experimental procedure)
7.
prepare an outline, find headings for the sections
in the text body
8.
plan the content of each
paragraph in the different sections
9.
prepare tables, concept maps, figures
write draft 10. draft the methods
section (if needed)
11.
draft
the body sections
12.
draft
the conclusions
13.
draft
the introduction
14.
draft
the abstract
revise 15. revise drafts of different sections, abstract & title, tables,
figures & legends
16.
revise citations and references
17.
correct
grammar, spelling, punctuation
18.
adjust
the layout
*In systematic
and best evidence reviews additional points have to be defined and considered
in the preparation stage:
·
selection
of databases, published data and other
resources, search strategy
·
criteria
for inclusion and exclusion of studies
(comparability of methods is an important point here)
·
statistical
procedures for the analysis of studies (meta-analysis)
·
treatment
of qualitative research presented in the review
All these points have to be described in the material and
methods section. In addition, a detailed review protocol is required by some
contracting bodies.
IMPORTANT: For all types of review articles: Make sure to ask competent persons for feedback in the stages
“prepare”, “develop structure”, and “revise”.
D) Examples of high-quality review articles in the plant sciences
High impact review journals in the plant sciences
Annual Review
of Plant Biology Current Opinion in Plant Biology
New Phytologist: “Tansley review” series
(commissioned, paid)
Trends in
Ecology and Evolution Trends in Plant Science
Nature Reviews Genetics*
Nature Reviews Microbiology*
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology*
Sample review articles
Narrative
review: Kessler A. & I. T. Baldwin
(2002). Plant responses to insect herbivory: The emerging molecular analysis.
Annual Review of Plant Biology 53: 299 – 328.
The structure includes:
·
Title –
in this case does not indicate that it is a review article.
·
Abstract
– includes a description of subjects covered.
·
Table of
Contents – shows the reader the organization
of the text (overview)
·
Introduction includes a description of context (paragraph 1 – 3), motivation for review
(paragraph 4, sentence 1) and defines the focus (paragraph 4, sentences 2 – 3)
·
Body –
structured by headings and subheadings
·
Conclusion – states
the implications of the findings
and an identifies possible new research fields
·
References (“Literature Review”)
– organised by number in the order they were cited in the text.
Systematic
review: Ashmann T-L. & C. J. Majetic
(2006). Genetic constraints on floral evolution: a review and evaluation of
patterns. Heredity 96: 343 – 352.
The structure includes:
·
Title –
informs us it is a review
·
Informative Abstract – informs us this is a meta-analysis (novel analysis in a novel context of previously published data)
·
Introduction
·
Body – Material & Methods,
Results (including the use of tables
and figures to display
novel findings), Discussion
·
Conclusion
– a listing of novel findings of the meta-analysis
·
References
– organised alphabetically
This is
structured like a research article (see Guidelines
for writing a Research Article)
*Not specific to plant sciences but none the less important media in this
field.
E) References
Anonymous (2003): Tips for conducting a literature review. Centre AlphaPlus. Available on http://alphaplus.ca/pdfs/litrev.pdf; accessed 12 November 2008.
Bem, D.J. (1995): Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin 118 (2): 172-177.
Day,
R.A., Gastel, B. (2006): How to write and publish a
scientific paper. Sixth edition.
|
Greenwood Press, Westport.
|
Ridley, D. (2008): The literature review – a step-by-step guide for students. Sage Publications, London.
Post A Comment:
0 comments: