article review guidelines

article review guidelines

How to Write Effective Article Reviews

1. Introduction

Different Article Review Approaches It explains various types of article review approaches. From part 1, we understand the purpose and process of an article review writing. Before writing an article, you should have a look to see whether it’s truly an article review in order to avoid some misunderstanding among article review writings. Because sometimes people mistake an article summary for a real understanding of the article. Meanwhile, when writing a real article review, it is only possible to write a constructive piece through a comprehensive understanding of the article. So the main idea of an article review, which can be done at the end of reading an article, is to provide an overall understanding of an article.

Article Review Writing Process This is an advanced guide to various types of article writing. It points out the process of writing an article review and also explains different viewpoints on writing article reviews. This is a certain process that will take some time. Your writing process is a kind of chance to let your mind explore new ideas for understanding. This may involve discussing the topic which you are writing on. Basically, the review writing process of an article includes two different methods. The first method is a comparison/contrast of the article to other articles you have read. The second method is more interesting; it can involve a point-by-point critique of an article. This may take various forms. Perhaps you want the critique to be a separate assignment from the article being critiqued, or you might want it to be part of the article itself.

2. Understanding the Purpose of an Article Review

To write an effective article review, you must understand what the article is attempting to do. The article reviewed in the length of an essay is placed within a larger body of research. What steps will successful completion of the objectives take? Be aware of them as you evaluate the article. While the title might suggest an exhaustive article, many articles are simply pieces of much larger research. It is possible that the article reviewed has more than one major objective. In fact, articles often have several important points, and it can take some time to understand all of them. This degree of specification may not be readily apparent. Differentiate the major points from the sub-points. Any review must go through the article methodically. It is here that understanding what an article review is comes in handy. A review is an evaluation, but it is necessary to establish a set of criteria. Any evaluation must be based on a set of expectations, goals or a standard. It will be difficult to make an evaluation of the article in question without first establishing what the criteria is. Considering the nature of the article and its objectives, some criteria are more appropriate than others. The article may be a study, discussion or a call for a change in public policy. In any case, the reviewer who is unclear of the article’s goals will have a difficult time evaluating it. This sort of confusion usually leads to an expression of the reviewer’s own thoughts on the article, as opposed to an evaluation. An article summary can be a separate document, or a section at the start of the article. Coming to a firm understanding of the article’s goals will help the reviewer to understand whether they have correctly grasped said goals in the article summary.

3. Key Elements of an Article Review

Historical reviews usually involve the summary of the article in question, establishing historical arguments, examining the authors’ intentions, and examining how well the author has succeeded in meeting the purposes of the article. Most importantly, the reviewer must discuss the relevance of the article to the study of history. It is essential that you provide the main point and a brief outline of the article. Finally, you must give a comment and indicate the article’s usefulness to the historical field. This is usually the best way to approach any article review, and it will be the most beneficial to the reader. Subscribers of scholarly periodicals will like to see some critical reviews offered by any article summarization. This is the place for a succinct analysis as you will offer both a brief overview followed by a more in-depth discussion of your thesis statement, which is supported throughout the body of your article review.

4. Tips for Writing an Engaging Article Review

Be positive and constructive in your comments, and the nature of the earlier advice will be of immense help. Keep in mind that criticism or analysis of writing can be compared with that of an architect sketching out a rough plan on a scrap of paper. He will give up the idea of sharing his inspiration, knowing fully well that any criticism may create a certain amount of prejudice or make his work the target for cheap ridicule. The success of any written article is based on the reader wanting to read further after the first couple of sentences. The article review is a reaction to the article, so there is a basic need to demonstrate an understanding of the article being summarized. This can be achieved by a read-through of the article and the collection of initial reactions. If no reactions are apparent, it may be worthwhile creating a list of points of the article to help trigger any thoughts. A lot of articles these days are written to make people buy a product, and many more are traditional journalistic attempts to right a wrong, make a stand, or change the nature of something. Home in on an article that’s interesting. It sounds obvious, but too many people skim through the article and then write their review based on what they think the article is about, rather than what it is actually saying. While the initial reaction is important, to summarize and evaluate the article accurately, it is essential to have a clear understanding.

5. Conclusion

We are convinced that this publication will furnish you, the reviewer, with the requisite knowledge and understanding to produce a high-quality article review. We believe in this regard our approach is entirely pioneering; one that breaks free from convention and is focused upon the development of a set of reviewer-based learning tools. Traditionally, reviewers have learnt by trial and error or via apprenticeship and it is certain that many will be reluctant to embrace a new way of learning. However, this is the 21st century and we find it difficult to accept that a group of people, so instrumental to the progress of science, should be reliant upon age-old learning methods to develop a skill so pertinent to their trade. Therefore, our ambition is to build a portal for article reviewers, one that hosts a series of free learning tools accompanied by a global community of reviewers, who with the same set of knowledge and skills can appraise an article to an equal standard. A resource such as this can enable continuous improvement of article reviews and, in turn, raise the standard of published articles. We are aware that our resources are not infallible nor applicable to every review scenario and it is in the nature of a learning process that further questions will arise. Therefore, we are open to comments and further suggestions on the approaches outlined in this text. At the bottom of each learning tool is a comment board, which we encourage users to employ, whether it be to share their thoughts with our community or to ask questions on the approaches and methods described. Finally, should the demand be sufficient, we have discussed the possibility of hosting a real-time journal club, in which a specific article is appraised using our tools and methods, with discussion board interaction between the reviewers and whoever scribed the article or commissioned its review. We hope that such inclusive and focused learning activity can serve to advance the knowledge and skills of article reviewers everywhere.