Six things yous should keep in mind when writing a review article

Writing a review article is about more seizing on an interesting topic and gathering the references.

Past My Pham - July 19, 2019  5 mins

RA writing reviews banner

Writing a review commodity is about more than seizing on an interesting topic and gathering the relevant references. It is an opportunity for yous to contribute to the development of your field by creating a synthesis of the best resources bachelor and potential new inquiry areas to explore in the future. Done well, a adept review article can end up becoming the definitive "become to" guide on a topic, forming the backbone of reading lists and actualization as a reference in endless books and articles globally.

Even so, the key elements for a compelling review article are still a mystery for many researchers, especially those in the early on stages of their careers. To aid illuminate this phenomenon, Matt Pavlovich and Lindsey Drayton, editors in the Trends reviews journals group with Cell Printing, offered their editorial perspective on what they look for in a review in Researcher Academy's latest webinar. Below are the fundamental take-aways from the experts.

  1. A review is non a list of results

    The most important question you need to inquire yourself before proposing or writing a review is whether you accept something new to say. A review article should form more than than merely the sum of its parts: readers should learn something(s) that they couldn't get just by reading the references. Therefore, brand certain you include your point(s) of view including a comparison, critique and assessment of the studies you are reviewing and/or your ideas for hereafter experiments.

  2. If possible, submit a proposal before writing the manuscript

    You tin save yourself a lot of time by reaching out to the editors of the journal in question to see whether or not it'due south worth writing a full-length piece for their journals. Doing so likewise gives editors the opportunity to help shape your idea into something that delivers powerfully for the journal, which also means a higher hazard of publication for your paper.

    In the proposal, you need to make clear why the topic is of import – and why it is important now. You also need to justify why you should write information technology. You do not necessarily need to explicitly list the reasons, but yous should present them in a style that makes the editor understand why they should accept your proposal.

  3. Accept a articulate idea in mind about the construction you desire for your commodity

    Starting with an outline and knowing exactly how you want to lead your readers through your narrative (being aware how their "journeying" should develop) non only makes your commodity much clearer and easier to follow, it too helps you decide what should and should not be included in the review. It is important to manage readers' expectations early by telling them why you have chosen to write this review right now and highlight how your article differs from other existing work.

  4. Avoid jargon

    You are an expert in the field – that's why you are writing a review. But your readers may not exist as familiar with the intricacies of the topic. Therefore, endeavor to avert jargon as much equally possible. In instance you accept to use technical language, practice not forget to explain it in lay terms or include a glossary if you have that option. While doing so, brand certain that the definitions conform to accepted standards and that terms are used consistently throughout your article.

    To go the extra mile, information technology is also highly recommended to have someone unfamiliar with your field to read your article to brand sure it makes sense to a lay audience.

  5. Follow the periodical'southward guidelines

    Many review authors invest much effort in polishing the content of their reviews but forget to pay sufficient attending to the periodical's stylistic and formatting guidelines. This common pitfall can easily lead to a slow-downward and not being aware of – and acting on – any requirements, can negatively affect your review commodity'southward risk of being published. Make sure, then, that you carefully familiarize yourself with the house manner and guide for authors for the periodical in question.

  6. Expect to heavily revise the first draft
    Fifty-fifty if yous call back you have followed all the requirements and produced a perfect first typhoon of your review article, in that location is a high chance yous will receive it back with numerous comments and suggestions for change. Don't exist disappointed or discouraged. Go along in mind that the editors and reviewers are hither to help your paper succeed and by following their communication, you will emerge with a stronger version.

    Make the best out of this by budgeted the comments with an open attitude and really appoint with them instead of just treating information technology apathetically as a "pigment by numbers" job. If you lot can afford to do so, information technology's frequently a wise idea to take a few days off and refresh your mind earlier returning to your article and working on a revised typhoon.

At that place is a lot more to know!

You tin acquire more about other insightful tips and practices on writing a compelling review article in the total webinar recording at the Elsevier Researcher University and can also find answers to some questions asked during the split webinar on the Cell Mentor programme . If yous even so have questions after doing so, y'all are welcome to post in the associated Mendeley grouping where the team will attempt to find answers to your questions.

Contributors

My Pham

Written past

My Pham is a Marketing and Communications Intern at Elsevier, based in Amsterdam. Her previous roles include covering economic and political news as a Foreign Correspondent for Reuters in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. She has a principal's degree in Journalism, Media and Globalisation from the University of Amsterdam.