example of article review

example of article review

The Importance of Article Reviews

1. Introduction

Published in the Annals of Periodontology in 1998, the article written by Dr. Panos N. Papapanou (Department of Stomatology, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Athens, Athens, Greece) and Dr. Ray C. Williams (J. Walter Reeves Jr., Endowed Chair and Professor, Medical College of Georgia, School of Dentistry, Augusta, GA) focuses on critical appraisal of clinical relevance and scientific rigor of current and future research in periodontology and related fields. This work proposes that to perform a meaningful review of research studies in the field of periodontology, investigators should adhere to a standard methodology akin to clinical investigations. The authors suggest that it is imperative to separate the concepts of ‘critical appraisal’ and ‘review’ from the traditional subjectivity of editorials and expert opinions. This is important as it enables the reader to place higher confidence in the scientific merit and clinical relevance of reviewed studies, as it parallels modern concepts in evidence-based healthcare. The authors stress that this form of endeavor should not be an activity strictly for academicians, as these opinions may be biased and unrepresentative of the clinician demographic. The authors argue that interdisciplinary interaction with a broad range of readers should be a priority, as there are significant implications and applications of periodontal research findings in related fields of dentistry and health care. The ultimate benefit is improved public health and these should be the studies which are subject to review. This point is well taken as the group of studies considered for review of today’s healthcare will essentially dictate the subject of future health care.

2. Overview of Article Review Process

Article review process is an integrated utilization of summarizing an article, evaluating it, and categorizing it. Your article review must be modeled after the article you are summarizing. By using the ideas of the author, evaluate the article and summarize what you believe were the main points. Next, categorize what you think should be added, changed, or deleted. Finally, give an overall opinion of the article. This entire process can be memorized using the acronym “ECR” which stands for Evaluate, Categorize, and Recommend. When evaluating an article, you are to figure out the strengths and weaknesses of the article. This can be hard for some students who have adapted to persuasive writing styles. They should temporarily forget their own writing style and only adopt the ideas of the article. Next, you should categorize. This is a speculating process on what the author can do to improve. Figure out what ideas can be built upon and what ideas may need to be adjusted. The final step “recommend” is the plans you have just made on improving the article. This whole process will lead to a clearer understanding of the article and the review will be the evidence. An article review, however, is pointless without full understanding of the article. Remember to read the article as many times as necessary to get a full understanding. This perhaps could involve looking up some of the author’s background information and past articles. You may even need to research ideas that you didn’t understand. This is a reason why article reviews are constructive in improving research and learning.

3. Benefits of Article Reviews

The major benefit of reviewing articles is that the process of reviewing an article not only improves the reviewer’s understanding of the article and the particular topic, but also develops important skills in information organization and information technology. Organizing information is a very important part of the review process because, essentially, the reviewer is providing the essential framework and evidence for the claims made in the article. The act of organizing information allows the reviewer to establish a strong foundation upon which to build evaluation and interpretation skills which are critical to professional development. But more importantly, these skills are transferable to various different fields and careers. The skills developed in information organization will make the evaluation and interpretation of data in any field more manageable and the evidence and conclusions drawn from such evaluations more precise. Evidently, these are skills which are worth developing. Another important benefit of article reviews is the enhancement of writing skills. During the process of a review, the reviewer is engaging in a methodical and analytical approach to problem solving. The goal of this process is to understand and interpret the article, evaluate the article in terms of the review’s new understanding, and lastly, to communicate both the interpretations and evaluations. Essentially, the reviewer must confirm his understanding of the article and its salient points through the process of writing. He must provide and explain his evidence for all positive or negative claims or evaluations. He must be concise and coherent and assembling all of these factors, the review provides a unique opportunity to develop and integrate writing, critical thinking, and problem solving skills. An opportunity that, once again, is transferable to various fields and careers. In this case, improved writing and critical thinking skills will improve the communication and analysis of evidence and ideas in any decision making process.

4. Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

Developing and maintaining a good form of informative writing is an essential factor. Ensure your review does not digress from being informative at any point. This is usually why the neutral critique is turned into a biased opinion. If at any point you make an evaluative statement, you should always back this up with some evidence. The most proven method for informative writing is to have someone else at the end of it asking “So what?” If you can effectively answer this to them, you’re already halfway there.

The most important aspect of your review is to ensure it is a balanced, objective critique, not a discriminatory rant. Inevitably, at some point in this process, you may be subjected to bias. Recognizing this is the first step to changing these opinions. Many students often come back to me with the argument “I’m entitled to my opinion,” my answer to this is “yes, you are, but this is not an opinion piece.” This is an essential manner for success in this standard. This style of review can be achieved by following these steps.

To have the most persuasive tone in your response, you want to demonstrate that you understand the research and be able to apply what was learned to real-world situations. This means providing the reader with evidence that you have read and understood the article. A brief summary in the introduction should give the reader a rough idea of what’s to come. This will not only help the reader decide if the article is for them but also give you, the reviewer, a rough idea of what to take note of when writing the main body.

5. Conclusion

Reading and critiquing an article gives the reader an in-depth insight, it also gives the reader a more analytical view of the text. Establishing the relevance of the research to practice is discussed through analysis of the methodology. If the reader of the critique feels that the methodology of the article is too weak and not beneficial to practice, it could deter the reader from implementing the results. This critical thinking can only be good for research and practice. The more analytical view of an article has only positive effects. It provokes discussion and opens up dialogue between the academic and the practitioner. The educator that reads a critique can take it to a classroom setting and look at what were only abstract concepts and see if they can apply them to the teaching practices, the same can be done by a clinician. This is enriching the academic community. Step three of implementation of change is the most important. The ROS has mentioned that the end goal of research is to improve patient outcome. Any changes at any level should always be an attempt to improve patient care. Analysis of research is the to first and only way to attempt to judge its effects on patient outcome. If during the critique it is found that an article is not really an improvement on an existing practice, then it is a cheap and easy way to scrap the idea. This article is only an example of the first stage of a case study on the first author. However it is a good exercise in use of medical evidence to assess an idea and can serve as an analogous example. Overall critiquing an article can give the writer an excellent understanding of the research and should never be undermined as an academic exercise. Article review has a pantheon of benefits for anyone seeking to publish an. Article critique is a published disapproval or a debate on a specific article it is crucial and can only strengthen medical research and its links to clinical practice.

Article review is a thrilling and enriching opportunity to learn about the recently established scope of insight, to assess the relevance of the research to practice, and to identify the strength and weakness of the article. It is indeed a pivotal form of scholarly exchange within the academic community. The article review offers a way for professionals to publish on a regular basis, it also provides a forum to critique and discuss the role of research in an attempt to improve practice. Publication of a critique on an article in a professional journal is a stepping stone for implementation of change. Step one of this process is realizing the need for change. By critiquing an article, the first step of evaluating the research has been taken.