critiques of research articles

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

• Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
• Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
• Hypothesis or aims of the study
• Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

• What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
• What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
• Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
• Were there any obvious biases?
• If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

• There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
• Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
• The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

• Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Help and Feedback

Publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY
• Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

• Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
• What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
• Was the sample too small to generalize from?
• Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
• How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
• How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
• Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
• Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
• How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
• What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

• << Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland.
• PMID: 16114192
• DOI: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38

Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• A guide to critiquing a research paper on clinical supervision: enhancing skills for practice. Fothergill A, Lipp A. Fothergill A, et al. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014;21(9):834-40. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12161. Epub 2014 May 13. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014. PMID: 24818837
• Critiquing research. Preston J. Preston J. Nurs Stand. 2015 Dec 2;30(14):61-2. doi: 10.7748/ns.30.14.61.s47. Nurs Stand. 2015. PMID: 26639295
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care. Lipp A, Fothergill A. Lipp A, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2015 Mar;35(3):e14-7. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.12.010. Epub 2015 Jan 24. Nurse Educ Today. 2015. PMID: 25638278 Review.
• Engaging nurses in research utilization. Wintersgill W, Wheeler EC. Wintersgill W, et al. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2012 Sep-Oct;28(5):E1-5. doi: 10.1097/NND.0b013e31826a008c. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2012. PMID: 22992644
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. Ryan F, Coughlan M, Cronin P. Ryan F, et al. Br J Nurs. 2007 Jun 28-Jul 11;16(12):738-44. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2007.16.12.23726. Br J Nurs. 2007. PMID: 17851363 Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Taylor & Francis

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

SPH Writing Support Services

• Appointment System
• ESL Conversation Group
• Mini-Courses
• Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group
• Career Writing
• Citing Sources
• Critiquing Research Articles
• Project Planning for the Beginner This link opens in a new window
• Grant Writing
• Publishing in the Sciences
• Systematic Review Overview
• Systematic Review Resources This link opens in a new window
• Writing Across Borders / Writing Across the Curriculum
• Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers (Vance et al.)
• Critique Process (Boswell & Cannon)
• The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective (Knowles & Gray)
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care (Lipp & Fothergill)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research (Coughlan et al.)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research (Coughlan et al.)

Guidelines:

• Critiquing Research Articles (Flinders University)
• Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study (American Nurses Association)
• How to Critique a Journal Article (UIS)
• How to Critique a Research Paper (University of Michigan)
• How to Write an Article Critique
• Research Article Critique Form
• Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article (University of Calgary)

Presentations:

• The Critique Process: Reviewing and Critiquing Research
• Writing a Critique
• << Previous: Citing Sources
• Next: Project Planning for the Beginner >>
• Last Updated: Aug 30, 2024 11:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/writing_support_services

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

• Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

• How to Write It
• Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

• Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
• Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
• Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
• Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

• Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
• Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

• How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
• Did the results support their hypothesis?
• Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.  

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

• As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
• Reading scientific articles can be challenging at first. Remember that this is a skill that takes time to learn but that your skills will become stronger the more that you read.
• Take a rough draft of your paper to your school's writing lab for additional feedback and use your university library's resources.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews .  Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article?   Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles .  Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Massive Attack’s science-led drive to lower music’s carbon footprint

Career Feature 04 SEP 24

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

Career Feature 28 AUG 24

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Career Column 28 AUG 24

Why I’m committed to breaking the bias in large language models

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find

Nature Index 27 AUG 24

Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized

News 04 SEP 24

Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI

How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?

Career Feature 02 SEP 24

Assistant Professor, Tenure Track

Scripps Research Institute is seeking outstanding applicants for a tenure track Assistant Professor position in La Jolla, CA.

La Jolla, California

Scripps Research Institute

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

Postdoctoral Researcher - Neural Circuits Genetics and Physiology for Learning and Memory

A postdoctoral position is available to study molecular mechanisms, neural circuits and neurophysiology of learning and memory.

Dallas, Texas (US)

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

Assistant/Associate Professor (Tenure Track) - Integrative Biology & Pharmacology

The Department of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology (https://med.uth.edu/ibp/), McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Scienc...

Houston, Texas (US)

UTHealth Houston

Faculty Positions

The Yale Stem Cell Center invites applications for faculty positions at the rank of Assistant, Associate, or full Professor. Rank and tenure will b...

New Haven, Connecticut

Yale Stem Cell Center

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

• 1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
• 2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
• 3 Article Critique Outline
• 4 Article Critique Formatting
• 5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
• 6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
• 7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
• 8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

• A brief summary of the article .
• A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
• A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

• Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
• Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
• Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
• Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
• Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
• Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
• Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

• The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
• The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
• The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

• Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
• Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
• Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

• Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
• Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
• Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
• Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
• The purpose of the study
• The research question or questions
• The methods used
• The outcomes
• The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
• Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

• Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
• Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
• Use evidence from to support your points.
• Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Cite sources with ease

How to Critique an Article Right and Easy

Updated 03 Sep 2024

When an average person thinks about how to critique an article, they usually believe that the purpose is to find all the wrong points and be as critical as possible. Our guide helps to demystify the majority of questions related to the article critique. These basic rules, explanations, and an example can help you learn along. Even if you receive cryptic instructions from your college professor, our article critique guide will make things clearer as you continue!

What is an Article Critique?

In simple terms, an article critique is a type of essay writing where an author should provide sufficient, unbiased, critical evaluation of the article in question. Of course, it will involve at least a brief summary of the contents and information about the author's background (if it is necessary). Yet, it does not have to turn into a listing of the contents! Knowing how to summarize and critique an article means helping your audience see all the key points of the article along with the author's ideas, objectives, or major intentions. The main purpose of every article critique is to reveal the strengths and the weaknesses of the article by keeping the tone neutral in terms of personal considerations. Since it has to be written in formal language with a precise structure, one should follow the general academic pattern where analysis has the beginning or introduction, the body parts, and a strong conclusion that sums things up.

The trick is to read it more than once and describe how it makes you feel through the lens of academic objectives and the general academic value. Speaking of the purpose, composing an article critique, you have to describe the main ideas of the author. Provide a brief description of why it is important in your specific context. Next, remember to mention all the interesting aspects that help to reveal the value of the article. Finally, talk about the author's intention and vision regarding the subject. The final part of the article critique must offer a summary of the main purpose. Learning how to write a critique of an article, remember that your conclusion is the important part where you can let the audience know whether you agree or disagree with the author. It is the place to provide supporting thoughts and references either from the article or another academic source. Need a dissertation service? Try us.

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step?

The writing process of the article critique is simpler than it seems. It is only necessary to know where to start and how to align your critique when you are dealing with complex academic writing. Therefore, follow these simple four steps as you learn how to do an article critique:

• Take Enough Time to Read The Article.  Such an approach is necessary to understand every idea described in your reading material. It may be challenging at times to understand it. Check it again or read it aloud to see if it makes more sense. When in doubt, you can consult similar sources or articles that further explain the subject. Consider the readability and clarity of the article as you criticize it.
• Take Notes.  When the article feels clear to you and you understand (more or less!) what it is about, it is high time to read it again in a bit different way and take notes to help yourself move along. For example, if you encounter something interesting or an argument that moves you, you should consider it as something that is worth being discussed. You can either quote the part or use it as argumentation to prove your point.
• Turn Your Notes Into Outline.  Your notes are there for a reason. You can implement them into your structure and use your points as the topic sentences as you discuss the important parts. As you let your article critique evolve, provide opinions or leave comments to help your audience understand things clearer.
• Your Opinion Comes Here.  This is where you should summarize your thoughts and explain whether you like the article or if it has too many weak and unclear parts. Of course, your ideas should be supported with a piece of clear evidence.

Remember that if you have used any other reference or consulted external information beyond the article in question, always mention it on your Bibliography / References page. Every part of your article critique should be written in a proper way and sometimes qualified dissertation help online is just what you need to keep all your worries aside.

Save your time! We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Learn About Article Critique Format & Structure

Unless it is specified otherwise, your article critique should follow this template:

• Outline.  This is what your introduction should look like since you have to provide background information about the article and explain the author's main points without turning it into a summary. Approach things from the critical point of view.
• Thesis Statement.  Your thesis statement should explain the value of the article or methodology if you are dealing with a research article critique.
• Article's Purpose.  This part is your body paragraphs part where you have to brainstorm the author's ideas and crash-test them against the common knowledge. See what is good, what is insufficient, and what parts are the most important for achieving a certain purpose set by the author.
• Additional References.  If you are dealing with a research article, it may be necessary to consult relevant external research papers to prove the importance and methodology of the article before you explain your opinion.
• Conclusion/Summary With Your Opinion.  The conclusion part of the article critique is usually the most challenging. It is where you have to explain your opinion. The trick is just saying how the article has made you feel, how it has helped you, or what flaws you have found,  always providing relevant evidence.

Without a doubt, you may have to provide a different structure, yet following the structure above is the perfect balance where you express both your findings, opinion, and the general variables. Remember that your article critique must cover not only the negative points that you encounter but the positive discoveries as well.

How to Write an Article Critique: Journal vs Research Article

The major difference between writing a research article critique and dealing with the general journal article is the approach that you have to take. As a rule, research articles represent empirical or primary sources. It means your critique style must consider the introduction provided by the author, the methods that have been used, the samples and surveys, the results of the certain research, and the discussion of the outcomes that have been achieved.

Now dealing with the general review articles that mostly represent secondary sources with an already included synthesis of certain information, you should work with the topic and its importance for the general audience. In other words, the purpose is always different. You should provide more of a summary than the analytical research work. Coming back to the research article critique,try to study the problem and see if the author makes some statement. Then, focus on review of the relevant literature, and hypothesis or research questions set by the author.

Remember to review the Bibliographical information if it is provided and explain whether it poses importance for the review and if all the information mentioned in the article has been properly referenced. Remember you should also provide references for your quotes and references in your article critique in relevant writing style (APA, MLA, or Chicago) to avoid possible plagiarism issues.

The Article Critique Example

As an example of the article, let us take " Contribution of Psychoacoustics and Neuroaudiology in Revealing Correlation of Mental Disorders With Central Auditory Processing Disorders " that has been presented in 2003 by V. Iliadou and S. Lakovides. Below is the short passage, an article critique sample that will help you get an idea of how it’s done:

The article represents interesting and innovative research in the field of Psychoacoustics by focusing not only on the aspects of Neuroaudiology but also dealing with the electrical activity of the auditory pathways. The authors have dealt with the challenges of Central Auditory Processing Disorders, meaning that the article relates to the field of Psychiatry. This particular MEDLINE research has been conducted by turning to over 564 papers to establish the methodology and sufficient samples to maintain the importance of psychoacoustic elements through the lens of neurological or mental disorders. What makes this research special is the use of various tests and experiments that have been done with the help of auditory simulation methods. All the sources provided are properly referenced and offer sufficient background regarding the reasons why particular scientific aspects have been highlighted. The authors provide a unique balance between psychoacoustic and electrophysiologic tests based on the type of lesion chosen. It must be noted that the various types of mental disorders have been taken into consideration to provide well-weighted research. The article meets its purpose of providing varied research based on the works of skilled experts in Psychiatry, Neurology, Neuropsychology, and Pediatric Psychology among other sciences. The value of the article also lies in the importance of addressing numerous learning challenges like dyslexia, ADHD, and autism differently because the auditory aspect is explored at greater depth. Although the educational factor is mentioned briefly as the article is more evidence-based, it leaves enough space for relevant scientific research.

As you can see, the purpose is to explain and show why the article is important and what exactly makes it special. Try offering related evidence from the critique article either with the quotes or by paraphrasing. 

Affordable & Reliable Writing an Article Critique Help

If the concept of article critique still seems too confusing to you or you would like to get your critique assignment checked in terms of clarity, style, or plagiarism, the help is out there. Regardless if you need to learn how to write an article review or struggle with critique writing, we know how to make things easier. Turn to our writers who are ready to help you 24/7. Keep your challenges resolved, meet the deadlines and avoid plagiarism. Just place your order with EduBirdie and let our professionals deal with even the most complex article critique or any other college task.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback, related blog posts, how to write a movie review: tips for aspiring critics.

If you wish to know how to write a movie review, then you are on the right page. A movie review forms part of essays college students writes. While...

Best Capstone Project Ideas for Students across subjects

The most challenging aspect of crafting a top-tier capstone project is often getting started. The initial hurdle involves selecting a strong, impac...

Learn how to write an annotated bibliography to achieve the best grades!

Writing an annotated bibliography is one of academic work's most challenging yet essential parts. This helpful EduBirdie guide will tell you all ab...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

A guide for critique of research articles

Following is the list of criteria to evaluate (critique) a research article. Please note that you should first summarize the paper and then evaluate different parts of it.

Most of the evaluation section should be devoted to evaluation of internal validity of the conclusions. Please add at the end a section entitled ''changes in the design/procedures if I want to replicate this study." Attach a copy of the original article to your paper.

Click here to see a an example (this is how you start) of a research critique.

Click here to see the original article.

The following list is a guide for you to organize your evaluation. It is recommended to organize your evaluation in this order. This is a long list of questions. You don’t have to address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions . Some questions may not be relevant to your article.

Introduction

1.     Is there a statement of the problem?

2.     Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be investigated through the collection and analysis of data?

3.     Is background information on the problem presented?

4.     Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?

5.     Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

Review of Related Literature

1.     Is the review comprehensive?

2.     Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation?

3.     Are most of the sources primary, i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources?

4.     Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of various studies compared and contrasted, i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?

5.     Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?

6.     Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?

1.     Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated?

2.     Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference?

3.     If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

4.     Is each hypothesis testable?

Method          Subjects

1.     Are the size and major characteristics of the population studied described?

2.     If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?

3.      Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?

4.     Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?

5.     Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?

6.     Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represented?      

Instruments

1.     Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?

2.     Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content?

3.     Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables?

4.     Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample under study?

5.     Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate?

6.     Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients?

7.     If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?

8.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its development and validation described?

9.     If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?

Design and Procedure

1.     Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the   study?

2.     Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?

3.     If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the subsequent study?

4.     Are the control procedures described?

5.     Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or she was unable to control for?

1.     Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented?

2.     Was the probability level, α, at which the results of the tests of significance were evaluated,

       specified in advance of the data analyses?

3.     If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the

       required assumptions for parametric tests?

4.     Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the

       study?

5.     Was every hypothesis tested?

6.     Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom?

7.     Are the results clearly presented?

8.     Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand?

9.     Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?

Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)

1.     Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates?

2.     Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results

        obtained by other researchers in other studies?

3.     Are generalizations consistent with the results?

4.     Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed?

5.     Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed?

6.     Are recommendations for future action made?

7.     Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on statistical

       significance only, i.e., has the author avoided confusing practical and statistical

       significance?

8.     Are recommendations for future research made?

Additional general questions to be answered in your critique.

1. What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?

2. Describe the sample used in this study.

3. Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.

4. What type of research is this?  Explain.

5. How was the data analyzed?

6. What is (are) the major finding(s)?

Writing for Law Review

• Introduction to Law Review
• Researching
• Topic Selection
• Preemption-Checking​
• Cite-Checking

For a Law Review Writing Checklist, see one of my favorites that includes a great checklist is  Lisa Smith Butler The Law Review Article how to tell your story . 

Selecting a Topic Based on Category

As you think about potential topics, it may be helpful to think about the many forms law review publications can take and view examples of them. The Scholarly Writing for Law Students, in its introduction, has created a categorical list of those forms and provides citations to examples.

Scholarly Writing for Law Students by Elizabeth Fajans; Mary R. Falk

Watch this video if you are interested in learning more about finding topics using Bloomberg Law. 

Topics Inherently Ripe for Law Review

As a practical matter, choosing an initial topic that is inherently ripe for a law review article is an option and a good place to start because they focus on an unresolved legal issue. 

1. Circuit Splits - A circuit split is "[t]he existence of conflicting decisions between two or more of the United States courts of appeals, usu[ally] on a question of law.  Circuit Split,  Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). A circuit spilt is a ripe topic for law review because it allows for the author to make a number of normative statements about the law at issue.  U.S. Law Week , which can be accessed by Bloomberg, is a great resource for circuit splits. Watch the below video on how to use LexisNexis to find circuit splits. 

2. Cases of First Impression  - A case of first impression is "a case for the determination of which no precedent can be found."   Case primae impressionis , Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1969). ​Like a circuit spilt, a case of first impression is a ripe topic for law review because it allows for the author to make a number of normative statements about the law at issue as it is an unresolved legal issue. 

Search "first impression", "case of first impression" or "matter of first impression" when researching in case law, legal news, blogs, or you can use Lexis+AI (please note that you should always check the results of AI).  

3.  Comparative State Surveys -  Comparative state surveys will allow you to compare law across states as you search for unresolved legal issues. 

Where to Find Topics

• Proquest - This database contains thousands of publications including the  New York Times  and the  Chicago Tribune . 
• Global Newsbank  - This database contains thousands of publications including a Hot Topics section on crime and law. 

2. Legal News 

• Law360  - is a LexisNexis service has articles on recent court cases, legislative changes, and regulatory developments. 
• Bloomberg Law News - Bloomberg Law News aims to help professionals stay informed about the latest legal issues and updates by  providing analysis and insights on a variety of legal topics.
• News and Insight from Reuters - This is a Thomson Reuters database that contains recent legal news both domestically and international. 

3. Legal Blogs

Typically, legal blogs are online platforms where individuals post their opinions about current legal trends. You can use blogs as a way to browse current topics being discussed. 

• PrawfsBlawg  
• 3 Geeks and a Law Blog 

Other general places you can search for topics are:

a. For a historical archive of primary and secondary sources in PDF, see  HeinOnline .  

b. For interdisciplinary publications, see  JSTOR . 

c. For new and unpublished working papers, see  SSRN . 

d. For a broader and more general search, see  Goggle Scholar . 

e. For new law journal publications, see  Current Index to Legal Periodicals . 

• << Previous: Researching
• Next: Preemption-Checking​ >>
• Last Updated: Sep 3, 2024 12:43 PM
• URL: https://libguides.depaul.edu/WritingforLawReview

Mobile phones are not linked to brain cancer, according to a major review of 28 years of research

Director Radiation Research and Advice, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), and Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Wollongong

Assistant Director, Health Impact Assessment, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), and Adjunct Associate Professor (Practice), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Disclosure statement

Sarah Loughran receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC). She is the Director of Radiation Research and Advice at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), a member of the Scientific Expert Group at the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and a member of the World Health Organisation Task Group on Radiofrequency Fields and Health Risks.

Ken Karipidis is the Assistant Director of Health Impact Assessment at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and he is also the Vice Chair of the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

University of Wollongong provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

A systematic review into the potential health effects from radio wave exposure has shown mobile phones are not linked to brain cancer. The review was commissioned by the World Health Organization and is published today in the journal Environment International .

Mobile phones are often held against the head during use. And they emit radio waves, a type of non-ionising radiation . These two factors are largely why the idea mobile phones might cause brain cancer emerged in the first place.

The possibility that mobile phones might cause cancer has been a long-standing concern. Mobile phones – and wireless tech more broadly – are a major part of our daily lives. So it’s been vital for science to address the safety of radio wave exposure from these devices.

Over the years, the scientific consensus has remained strong – there’s no association between mobile phone radio waves and brain cancer, or health more generally.

Radiation as a possible carcinogen

Despite the consensus, occasional research studies have been published that suggested the possibility of harm.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radio wave exposure as a possible carcinogen to humans . The meaning of this classification was largely misunderstood and led to some increase in concern.

IARC is part of the World Health Organization. Its classification of radio waves as a possible carcinogen was largely based on limited evidence from human observational studies. Also known as epidemiological studies, they observe the rate of disease and how it may be caused in human populations.

Observational studies are the best tool researchers have to investigate long-term health effects in humans, but the results can often be biased.

The IARC classification relied on previous observational studies where people with brain cancer reported they used a mobile phone more than they actually did. One example of this is known as the INTERPHONE study .

This new systematic review of human observational studies is based on a much larger data set compared to what the IARC examined in 2011.

It includes more recent and more comprehensive studies. This means we can now be more confident that exposure to radio waves from mobile phones or wireless technologies is not associated with an increased risk of brain cancer.

No association

The new review forms part of a series of systematic reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization to look more closely at possible health effects associated with exposure to radio waves.

This systematic review provides the strongest evidence to date that radio waves from wireless technologies are not a hazard to human health.

It is the most comprehensive review on this topic – it considered more than 5,000 studies, of which 63, published between 1994 and 2022, were included in the final analysis. The main reason studies were excluded was that they were not actually relevant; this is very normal with search results from systematic reviews.

No association between mobile phone use and brain cancer, or any other head or neck cancer, was found.

There was also no association with cancer if a person used a mobile phone for ten or more years (prolonged use). How often they used it – either based on the number of calls or the time spent on the phone – also didn’t make a difference.

Importantly, these findings align with previous research . It shows that, although the use of wireless technologies has massively increased in the past few decades, there has been no rise in the incidence of brain cancers.

A good thing

Overall, the results are very reassuring. They mean that our national and international safety limits are protective. Mobile phones emit low-level radio waves below these safety limits, and there is no evidence exposure to these has an impact on human health.

Despite this, it is important that research continues. Technology is developing at a rapid pace. With this development comes the use of radio waves in different ways using different frequencies. It is therefore essential that science continues to ensure radio wave exposure from these technologies remains safe.

The challenge we now face is making sure this new research counteracts the persistent misconceptions and misinformation out there regarding mobile phones and brain cancer.

There remains no evidence of any established health effects from exposures related to mobile phones, and that is a good thing.

• Wireless technology
• Mobile phones
• World Health Organization (WHO)
• Brain cancer
• Mobile technology
• New research, Australia New Zealand

Research Fellow in Coastal Numerical Modelling

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a review article?

In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. Before asking ‘how,’ the question of ‘why’ is more important when starting to write a review. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. A ‘methodological filter’ is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.

The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines. [ 1 , 2 ] The institutions which provide financial support for further investigations resort to these reviews to reveal the need for these researches. [ 3 ] As is the case with all other researches, the value of a review article is related to what is achieved, what is found, and the way of communicating this information. A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published in 1985, and 1986, and revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria. [ 4 ] In 1996 an international group that analyzed articles, demonstrated the aspects of review articles, and meta-analyses that had not complied with scientific criteria, and elaborated QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) statement which focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies. [ 5 ] Later on this guideline was updated, and named as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). [ 6 ]

Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic. [ 7 , 8 ] Since it is a result of a more detailed literature surveying with relatively lesser involvement of author’s bias, systematic reviews are considered as gold standard articles. Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. In both of them detailed literature surveying is performed. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated (ie. meta-analysis). [ 8 ]

Before inquring for the method of preparation of a review article, it is more logical to investigate the motivation behind writing the review article in question. The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements:

• The question(s) to be dealt with
• Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions.
• To synthetize available, but quite different researches

For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined. Discussions should be conducted with colleagues in the same area of interest, and time should be reserved for the solution of the problem(s). Though starting to write the review article promptly seems to be very alluring, the time you spend for the determination of important issues won’t be a waste of time. [ 9 ]

The PRISMA statement [ 6 ] elaborated to write a well-designed review articles contains a 27-item checklist ( Table 1 ). It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible.

PRISMA statement: A 27-item checklist

Contents and format

Important differences exist between systematic, and non-systematic reviews which especially arise from methodologies used in the description of the literature sources. A non-systematic review means use of articles collected for years with the recommendations of your colleagues, while systematic review is based on struggles to search for, and find the best possible researches which will respond to the questions predetermined at the start of the review.

Though a consensus has been reached about the systematic design of the review articles, studies revealed that most of them had not been written in a systematic format. McAlister et al. analyzed review articles in 6 medical journals, and disclosed that in less than one fourth of the review articles, methods of description, evaluation or synthesis of evidence had been provided, one third of them had focused on a clinical topic, and only half of them had provided quantitative data about the extend of the potential benefits. [ 10 ]

Use of proper methodologies in review articles is important in that readers assume an objective attitude towards updated information. We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions. Firstly, we can be prejudiced during selection of research articles or these articles might be biased. To minimize this risk, methodologies used in our reviews should allow us to define, and use researches with minimal degree of bias. The second problem is that, most of the researches have been performed with small sample sizes. In statistical methods in meta-analyses, available researches are combined to increase the statistical power of the study. The problematic aspect of a non-systematic review is that our tendency to give biased responses to the questions, in other words we apt to select the studies with known or favourite results, rather than the best quality investigations among them.

As is the case with many research articles, general format of a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion ( Table 2 ).

Structure of a systematic review

Preparation of the review article

Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]

Steps of a systematic review

The research question

It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).

Finding Studies

In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.

Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.

While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.

One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.

Evaluation of the Quality of the Study

As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.

A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]

Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question

Formulating a Synthesis

Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.