Content

• Steps
• Part 1 of 3: Actively work through the text
• Part 2 of 3: Rate the article
• Part 3 of 3: Write a Review

Whether you need to publish a review of a journal article or do a homework assignment, then the analysis must be fair, comprehensive, and constructive. Read the article briefly to get an idea of ​​the material organization system, then re-read the text a few more times, writing down notes and comments. Evaluate each piece of text and determine how it works towards the overall goal. Write a thesis that briefly summarizes your assessment of the article, write the review text, and provide specific examples that support your claims.

Steps

Part 1 of 3: Actively work through the text

1. 1 Check out the style guide. If the review is to be published, then first you need to study the style and format requirements. Familiarity with the publication standards will allow you to clearly evaluate the article and write a review.
   • This step is especially important if you have not previously published your materials in this magazine. For example, there may be a requirement to recommend an article for publication, satisfy a word count, or provide revised versions of the text.
   • If the review is a study homework assignment, study the instructor's requirements.
2. 2 Skim the article to get an idea of ​​how the material is organized. Start by looking at a magazine article and trying to understand the logic behind the text. Read the title, abstract, and subheadings to appreciate the order in which the article is organized. Now try to identify the key issue or problem that is being addressed in this text.
3. 3 Reread the article briefly again. After your initial consideration, read the article from start to finish to form an overall impression. At this stage, define the thesis of the article or the main statement, and also underline or highlight this point in the introduction and conclusions.
4. 4 Reread the article and take notes. After you have read it thoroughly, scrutinize the article piece by piece. Print a copy on paper to make notes and comments in the margins. If you are more comfortable working with a digital copy, then write down the notes in an electronic text document.
   • Upon a closer reading of the article, evaluate how competently the central problem is solved in the article. Think: "Is this research valuable and is it adding something new to the existing field of knowledge?"
   • At this stage, it is necessary to note all terminological inconsistencies, problems of logic and organization of the text, typos and formatting errors.

Part 2 of 3: Rate the article

1. 1 Evaluate how the abstract and introduction give you an idea of ​​the article. Explore the annotation and introduction, paying attention to every detail. Answer the following questions:
   • How well does the abstract summarize the article, the problems presented, the methods, the results and the importance? For example, it may turn out that the abstract describes the topic of a pharmaceutical research, followed immediately by the results without detailed consideration of the research methods.
   • Does the introduction give the structure of the entire article? Does it clearly state the main points? A good introduction allows you to get a clear idea of ​​what to expect from the following sections. It may contain a problem and an assumption, briefly describe all research methods, and also report whether the original assumption was confirmed.
2. 2 Rate the references and literature review in the article. Most journal articles provide an overview of the existing literature on the topic, and the text provides links to previous research papers. Determine the reliability of the sources cited by the author, the level of consideration of other works and knowledge of the topic. Does the author analyze authoritative works or does he just list famous names?
   • If necessary, study the texts referred to by the author of the article in order to understand the existing literature on this topic as best as possible.
   • A good literature review includes the following statements: "In an authoritative 2015 study, Smith and Jones demonstrated the success of treatment for men and women. However, they did not investigate the results and safety of this method in children and adolescents. This question will be the main issue of this article."
3. 3 Learn the methods. Think: "Are these methods reasonable, acceptable approaches to solving the problem?" Provide other possible ways to prepare for the experiment or design the study design, and indicate possible improvements that could be used by the authors.
   • For example, it can be noted that the subjects of this medical study are not a representative sample of the population.
4. 4 Evaluate the way in which the data and results are presented in the article. Determine the effectiveness of all tables, diagrams, legends, and other visual aids. Assess the literacy of the presentation and interpretation of the data obtained in the results and discussion sections. How useful or inappropriate are tables and charts?
   • For example, it may turn out that the tables contain a lot of chaotic data that has not been analyzed in any way in the text of the article.
5. 5 Consider unscientific evidence and data analysis. In the case of the humanitarian topic of the article, evaluate how competently the facts are presented to confirm the statement. How relevant is this evidence? Has the author convincingly interpreted and analyzed the above facts?
   • For example, if you are writing a review of an article on art history, then the author can give a competent analysis of the work of art or simply impose his opinion. A competent analysis contains arguments like "The author of the picture was a student of Rembrandt, which is very noticeable in the harsh lighting of the depicted scene and the sensual texture of the canvas."
6. 6 Rate the author's style. Even articles that are intended for a narrow circle of readers should be written in clear, literate and concise language. Assess the style by asking the following questions:
   • Is the language of the article clear and unambiguous? An excess of jargon prevents the author from expressing his point of view in an accessible way?
   • Does the article contain verbose wording? Is it possible to express the idea in a simpler way?
   • Have you found grammar, punctuation or terminology errors?

Part 3 of 3: Write a Review

1. 1 Plan a review. Review the notes you made while evaluating each piece. Then, formulate a thesis and outline a plan that will allow you to make a convincing case in the text of the review. Use specific examples that demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the article that were noted during the analysis.
   • Your thesis and reasoning should be constructive and meaningful. Note not only the advantages, but also the disadvantages of the article.Do not limit yourself to listing the shortcomings of the text and offer your own solutions to the problems.
   • An example of a good thesis: "The author of the article showed that in certain populations, drug treatment was better than placebo, but further studies with a larger sample are required."
2. 2 Write a draft review. After drawing up the thesis and plan, start working on the text. The structure of the review is determined by the style guide of the journal, but the general rules can almost always be followed:
   • The introduction contains a short summary of the article and your thesis.
   • The main part provides specific examples from the text that support your thesis.
   • The conclusion summarizes the review, repeats the thesis, and offers recommendations for future research.
3. 3 Rework the draft. After completing the text, check the material for typos, grammatical and punctuation errors. Try to look at your text with someone else's eyes. Your criticism is justified and balanced, and the examples provided confirm the stated statements?
   • The text should be clear, concise and consistent. If you criticize an article for verbosity, then your review should not sin with unnecessarily cumbersome wording.
   • Show the review to someone who understands the topic to get outside opinion.