types of article review

How to Write a Review Article

Types of Review Articles
Before Writing a Review Article
Determining Where to Publish
Searching the Literature
Citation Management
Reading a Review Article

Descriptions of Types of Reviews

Reproduced from: Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J . 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148.

Article Review Writing: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide with Examples

What is an Article Review?

An article review is a critical evaluation and analysis of a piece of writing, typically an academic or journalistic article.

It goes beyond summarizing the content; it involves an in-depth examination of the author's ideas, arguments, and methodologies.

The goal is to provide a well-rounded understanding of the article's strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution to the field.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Types of Article Reviews

Article reviews come in various forms, each serving a distinct purpose in the realm of academic or professional discourse. Understanding these types is crucial for tailoring your approach.

Here are some common types of article reviews:

Journal Article Review

A journal article review involves a thorough evaluation of scholarly articles published in academic journals.

It requires summarizing the article's key points, methodology, and findings, emphasizing its contributions to the academic field.

Take a look at the following example to help you understand better.

Example of Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

A research article review focuses on scrutinizing articles with a primary emphasis on research.

This type of review involves evaluating the research design, methodology, results, and their broader implications.

Discussions on the interpretation of results, limitations, and the article's overall contributions are key.

Here is a sample for you to get an idea.

Example of Research Article Review

Science Article Review

A science article review specifically addresses articles within scientific disciplines. It includes summarizing scientific concepts, hypotheses, and experimental methods.

The type of review assesses the reliability of the experimental design, and evaluates the author's interpretation of findings.

Take a look at the following example.

Example of Science Article Review

Critical Review

A critical review involves a balanced critique of a given article. It encompasses providing a comprehensive summary, highlighting key points, and engaging in a critical analysis of strengths and weaknesses.

To get a clearer idea of a critical review, take a look at this example.

Critical Review Example

Article Review Format

When crafting an article review in either APA or MLA format, it's crucial to adhere to the specific guidelines for citing sources.

Below are the bibliographical entries for different types of sources in both APA and MLA styles:

How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps

Writing an effective article review involves a systematic approach. Follow this step-by-step process to ensure a comprehensive and well-structured analysis.

Step 1: Understand the Assignment

Before diving into the review, carefully read and understand the assignment guidelines.

Pay attention to specific requirements, such as word count, formatting style (APA, MLA), and the aspects your instructor wants you to focus on.

Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly

Begin by thoroughly reading the article. Take notes on key points, arguments, and evidence presented by the author.

Understand the author's main thesis and the context in which the article was written.

Step 3: Create a Summary

Summarize the main points of the article. Highlight the author's key arguments and findings.

While writing the summary ensure that you capture the essential elements of the article to provide context for your analysis.

Step 4: Identify the Author's Thesis

In this step, pinpoint the author's main thesis or central argument. Understand the purpose of the article and how the author supports their position.

This will serve as a foundation for your critique.

Step 5: Evaluate the Author's Evidence and Methodology

Examine the evidence provided by the author to support their thesis. Assess the reliability and validity of the methodology used.

Consider the sources, data collection methods, and any potential biases.

Step 6: Analyze the Author's Writing Style

Evaluate the author's writing style and how effectively they communicate their ideas.

Consider the clarity of the language, the organization of the content, and the overall persuasiveness of the article.

Step 7: Consider the Article's Contribution

Reflect on the article's contribution to its field of study. Analyze how it fits into the existing literature, its significance, and any potential implications for future research or applications.

Step 8: Write the Introduction

Craft an introduction that includes the article's title, author, publication date, and a brief overview.

State the purpose of your review and your thesis—the main point you'll be analyzing in your review.

Step 9: Develop the Body of the Review

Organize your review by addressing specific aspects such as the author's thesis, methodology, writing style, and the article's contribution.

Use clear paragraphs to structure your analysis logically.

Step 10: Conclude with a Summary and Evaluation

Summarize your main points and restate your overall assessment of the article.

Offer insights into its strengths and weaknesses, and conclude with any recommendations for improvement or suggestions for further research.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Article Review Outline

Creating a well-organized outline is an essential part of writing a coherent and insightful article review.

This outline given below will guide you through the key sections of your review, ensuring that your analysis is comprehensive and logically structured.

Refer to the following template to understand outlining the article review in detail.

Article Review Format Template

Article Review Examples

Examining article review examples can provide valuable insights into the structure, tone, and depth of analysis expected.

Below are sample article reviews, each illustrating a different approach and focus.

Example of Article Review

Law Article Review

Sample of article review assignment pdf

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

Crafting an effective article review involves a combination of critical analysis, clarity, and structure.

Here are some valuable tips to guide you through the process:

Start with a Clear Introduction

Kick off your article review by introducing the article's main points and mentioning the publication date, which you can find on the re-title page. Outline the topics you'll cover in your review.

Concise Summary with Unanswered Questions

Provide a short summary of the article, emphasizing its main ideas. Highlight any lingering questions, known as "unanswered questions," that the article may have triggered. Use a basic article review template to help structure your thoughts.

Illustrate with Examples

Use examples from the article to illustrate your points. If there are tables or figures in the article, discuss them to make your review more concrete and easily understandable.

Organize Clearly with a Summary Section

Keep your review straightforward and well-organized. Begin with the start of the article, express your thoughts on what you liked or didn't like, and conclude with a summary section. This follows a basic plan for clarity.

Constructive Criticism

When providing criticism, be constructive. If there are elements you don't understand, frame them as "unanswered questions." This approach shows engagement and curiosity.

Smoothly Connect Your Ideas

Ensure your thoughts flow naturally throughout your review. Use simple words and sentences. If you have questions about the article, let them guide your review organically.

Revise and Check for Clarity

Before finishing, go through your review. Correct any mistakes and ensure it sounds clear. Check if you followed your plan, used simple words, and incorporated the keywords effectively. This makes your review better and more accessible for others.

In conclusion , writing an effective article review involves a thoughtful balance of summarizing key points, and addressing unanswered questions.

By following a simple and structured approach, you can create a review that not only analyzes the content but also adds value to the reader's understanding.

Remember to organize your thoughts logically, use clear language, and provide examples from the article to support your points.

Ready to elevate your article reviewing skills? Explore the valuable resources and expert assistance at MyPerfectWords.com.

Our team of experienced writers is here to help you with article reviews and other school tasks.

So why wait? Get our essay writing service today!

Dr. Barbara is a highly experienced writer and author who holds a Ph.D. degree in public health from an Ivy League school. She has worked in the medical field for many years, conducting extensive research on various health topics. Her writing has been featured in several top-tier publications.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

$Solving Math Problems$

PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
EDIT Edit this Article
EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
Browse Articles
Learn Something New
Quizzes Hot
This Or That Game New
Train Your Brain
Explore More
Support wikiHow
About wikiHow
Log in / Sign up
Education and Communications
Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review

Last Updated: September 8, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,082,481 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Things You Should Know

Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information. [1] X Research source

Preparing to Write Your Review

Step 1 Understand what an article review is.

Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

Step 2 Think about the organization of the review article.

Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

Step 6 Write an outline of your evaluation.

What does the article set out to do?
What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
Are the central concepts clearly defined?
How adequate is the evidence?
How does the article fit into the literature and field?
Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

Writing the Article Review

For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [10] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

Sample Article Reviews

Expert Q&A

↑ https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/proofreading/
↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Oct 25, 2023

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Featured Articles

Watch Articles

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Do Not Sell or Share My Info
Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Duke NetID Login
919.660.1100
Duke Health Badge: 24-hour access
Accounts & Access
Databases, Journals & Books
Request & Reserve
Training & Consulting
Request Articles & Books
Renew Online
Reserve Spaces
Reserve a Locker
Study & Meeting Rooms
Course Reserves
Digital Health Device Collection
Pay Fines/Fees
Recommend a Purchase
Access From Off Campus
Building Access
Computers & Equipment
Wifi Access
My Accounts
Mobile Apps
Known Access Issues
Report an Access Issue
All Databases
Article Databases
Basic Sciences
Clinical Sciences
Dissertations & Theses
Drugs, Chemicals & Toxicology
Grants & Funding
Interprofessional Education
Non-Medical Databases
Search for E-Journals
Search for Print & E-Journals
Search for E-Books
Search for Print & E-Books
E-Book Collections
Biostatistics
Global Health
MBS Program
Medical Students
MMCi Program
Occupational Therapy
Path Asst Program
Physical Therapy
Researchers
Community Partners

Conducting Research

Archival & Historical Research
Black History at Duke Health
Data Analytics & Viz Software
Data: Find and Share
Evidence-Based Practice
NIH Public Access Policy Compliance
Publication Metrics
Qualitative Research
Searching Animal Alternatives

Systematic Reviews

Test Instruments

Using Databases

JCR Impact Factors
Web of Science

Finding & Accessing

COVID-19: Core Clinical Resources
Health Literacy
Health Statistics & Data
Library Orientation

Writing & Citing

Creating Links
Getting Published
Reference Mgmt
Scientific Writing

Meet a Librarian

Request a Consultation
Find Your Liaisons
Register for a Class
Request a Class
Self-Paced Learning

Search Services

Literature Search
Systematic Review
Animal Alternatives (IACUC)
Research Impact

Citation Mgmt

Other Software

Scholarly Communications

About Scholarly Communications
Publish Your Work
Measure Your Research Impact
Engage in Open Science
Libraries and Publishers
Directions & Maps
Floor Plans

Library Updates

Annual Snapshot
Conference Presentations
Contact Information
Gifts & Donations
What is a Systematic Review?

Types of Reviews

Manuals and Reporting Guidelines
Our Service
1. Assemble Your Team
2. Develop a Research Question
3. Write and Register a Protocol
4. Search the Evidence
5. Screen Results
6. Assess for Quality and Bias
7. Extract the Data
8. Write the Review
Additional Resources
Finding Full-Text Articles

Review Typologies

There are many types of evidence synthesis projects, including systematic reviews as well as others. The selection of review type is wholly dependent on the research question. Not all research questions are well-suited for systematic reviews.

Review Typologies (from LITR-EX) This site explores different review methodologies such as, systematic, scoping, realist, narrative, state of the art, meta-ethnography, critical, and integrative reviews. The LITR-EX site has a health professions education focus, but the advice and information is widely applicable.

Review the table to peruse review types and associated methodologies. Librarians can also help your team determine which review type might be appropriate for your project.

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

<< Previous: What is a Systematic Review?
Next: Manuals and Reporting Guidelines >>
Last Updated: Mar 20, 2024 2:21 PM
URL: https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/sysreview
Duke Health
Duke University
Duke Libraries
Medical Center Archives
Duke Directory
Seeley G. Mudd Building
10 Searle Drive
[email protected]

Useful Links

How to Write an Article Review That Stands Out

An article review is a critical assessment of another writer’s research paper or scholarly article. Such an activity aims to expand one’s knowledge by evaluating the original author’s research.

Of course, writing an article review could be tricky. But a few expert tips and tricks can get you on the right track. That’s what this interesting blog post is all about. So, ensure you read it till the end to make the most out of it.

Table of Contents

A Step-by-step Guide on How to Write an Article Review

Master the art of writing an article review with this step-by-step guide from professional paper help providers.

Step 1: Select the Right Article

The first step is to pick a suitable article for a review. Choose a scholarly source that’s connected to your area of study. You can look for pieces printed in trustworthy journals or by respected authors.

For Example:

For reviewing an article on climate change, consider selecting one from scientific journals like Nature or Science.

Step 2: Read and Understand the Article

It’s super important to read and understand the article before writing your review. Read the article a few times and jot down the notes as you go. Focus on the main arguments, major points, evidence, and how it’s structured.

Let’s say you’re looking at an article on how social media affects mental health. Ensure to take note of the following:

The number of people involved
How the data is analyzed
The Results

Step 3: Structure and Introduction

To start a solid review, start with an introduction that gives readers the background info they need. Must include the article’s title, the author, and where it was published. Also, write a summary of the main point or argument in the article.

“In the article ‘The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health by John Smith, published in the Journal of Psychology:

The author examines the correlation between excessive social media usage and adolescent mental health disorders.”

Step 4: Summarize the Article

In this part, you’ll need to quickly go over the main points and arguments from the article. Make it short but must cover the most important elements and the evidence that backs them up. Leave your opinions and analysis out of it for now.

For instance, you could write:

“The author discusses various studies highlighting the negative effects of excessive social media usage on mental health.

Smith’s research reveals a significant correlation between

Increased social media consumption and higher rates of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem among teenagers.

The article also explores the underlying mechanisms, such as social comparison and cyberbullying. All are contributing to the adverse mental health outcomes.”

Step 5: Critically Analyze and Evaluate

Now that you’ve given a rundown of the article, it’s time to take a closer look. Think about what the author did well and what could have been done better.

Check out the proof they used and if it seems solid. Give a thorough assessment, and use examples from the text to support your thoughts.

For Example

“While the article presents compelling evidence linking social media usage to mental health issues , it is important to acknowledge some limitations in Smith’s study.

The sample size of the research was relatively small. It comprises only 100 participants, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.

Additionally, the study primarily focused on one specific age group, namely adolescents. This way, there’s room for further research on other demographic groups.”

Step 6: Express Your Perspective

Here’s your chance to give your two cents and show off your smarts. Put your spin on the article by pointing out the pros, cons, and other potential improvements. Remember to back up your thoughts with facts and sound arguments.

Continuing with the Previous Example

Despite the limitations, Smith’s research offers valuable insights into the complex relationship between social media and mental health.

Future studies could expand the sample size and include a more diverse range of age groups. It is better to understand the broader impact of social media on mental well-being.

Furthermore, exploring strategies for developing digital literacy programs could be potential avenues for future research.

Step 7: Conclusion and Final Thoughts

At the end of your article review, wrap it up with a brief and powerful conclusion. Give a summary of your main points and overall thoughts about the article.

Point out its importance to the field and the impact of the study. Finish off with a thought-provoking conclusion. Give the reader a sense of finality and emphasize the need for additional research or discussion.

For instance

“In conclusion, John Smith’s article provides valuable insights into the detrimental effects of excessive social media usage on adolescent mental health.

While the research has limitations, it serves as a starting point for further investigation in this rapidly evolving field.

By addressing the research gaps and implementing targeted interventions:

We can strive to promote a healthier relationship between social media and mental well-being in our digitally connected society.”

Step 8: Editing and Proofreading

Before submission, set aside some time for editing and proofreading.

Ensure everything makes sense and everything is correct. Check out how it reads and if your points come across clearly. Get feedback from other people to get a different point of view and make it even better.

Types of Article Reviews

In college, you might be asked to write different types of review articles, including:

Narrative Review

This type of review needs you to look into the author’s background and experiences. You have to go through the specialist’s theories and practices and compare them. For the success of a narrative review, ensure that your arguments are qualitative and make sense.

Evidence Review

For a solid evidence paper, you got to put in the work and study the topic. You’ll need to research the facts, analyze the author’s ideas, their effects, and more.

Systematic Review

This task involves reviewing a bunch of research papers and summarizing the existing knowledge about a certain subject. A systematic paper type uses an organized approach and expects you to answer questions linked to the research.

Tips for Writing a Great Article Review

Here are some expert tips you could use to write an exceptional article review:

1. Figure out the main points you want to cover and why they matter.

It will help you zero in on the key points.

2. Look for and assess pertinent sources, both from the past and present.

It will give you a better understanding of the article you’re looking at.

3. Come Up with a Catchy Title, Summarize Your Topic in an Abstract, and Select Keywords

It will help people read your review and get a good idea of what it’s about.

4. Write the main point of a review along with introducing the topic.

It should help readers get a better grasp of the topic.

Outline for Writing a Good Article Review

Here’s an outline to write an excellent article review.

Introduction

– Begin with a summary of the article

– Put in background knowledge of the topic

– State why you are writing the review

– Give an overview of the article’s main points

– Figure out why the author choose to write something

– Look at the article and consider what it does well and what it could have done better.

– Highlight the shortcomings in the article

– Restate why you are writing the review

– Sum up the main points in a few sentences

– Suggest what could be achieved in the future research

Review Article Example

Title: “The Power of Vulnerability: A Review of Brené Brown’s Daring Greatly”

Introduction:

In her revolutionary book “Daring Greatly,”

Brené Brown, a renowned researcher and storyteller. Delves into vulnerability and how it can positively impact our lives, both professionally and personally.

Brown’s work has gained lots of praise. Since it resonates with people looking to build real connections in a world that often feels isolated.

This article looks to recap the main ideas and concepts from “Daring Greatly.” Also explains why it is such a captivating and insightful read.

Summary of Key Ideas:

“Daring Greatly” is all about how the vulnerability isn’t a sign of being weak. but it’s actually what it takes to be brave, strong and live a full life.

Brene Brown examines how society and culture can make it hard to be vulnerable. And, how fear of being judged or shamed stops us from being our authentic selves.

The book puts a lot of emphasis on shame and how it affects us.

Brown explains that shame thrives when it’s kept hidden away and can only be cured by being open, understanding, and compassionate.

By admitting our weaknesses, we can create meaningful connections and a sense of community.

Brown looks into the connection between being open to vulnerability and unleashing creative leadership and innovation.

She uses her own experiences and research to support her viewpoint. The book also gives useful advice on how to include vulnerability in different parts of life. Such as relationships, parenting, and the workplace.

Strengths of the Book:

Brown’s book is remarkable for her ability to mix her own experiences with comprehensive research. Combining her stories and evidence makes the material engaging and easy to understand.

Plus, her writing style is so friendly that readers feel they’re being acknowledged and accepted.

There’s advice on how to be kind to yourself. Set your limits, and accept that things won’t always be perfect. It’s like a toolkit to help you build strength and make positive changes.

Final Verdict

This book is really helpful for everyone, no matter who you are. It can help you figure out how to grow in life, have better relationships, and become a better leader. Plus, since it applies to all kinds of people, everyone can get something out of it.

If you want to write a great article review, it’s important to pick the right article, understand and analyze it critically. Finally, express your thoughts on it clearly. Ensure to stay impartial, back up your points with evidence, and write clearly and coherently.

Still if you are having troubles writing an article review, don’t hesitate to count on the expertise of our writers .

Get Your Custom Essay Writing Solution From Our Professional Essay Writer's

Timely Deliveries

Premium Quality

Unlimited Revisions

Calculate Your Order Price

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

Literature Reviews, Critiquing, & Synthesizing Literature

Literature Review

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature review types -- comparing, learning about study designs, critically appraised topics -- writing, integrative lit review.

Literature Review Steps Videos
Critiquing Literature / Critical Review
Synthesizing Literature
Summarizing Articles

Types of Literature Reviews:

Critically Appraised Topic (CATs) : A critically appraised topic (or CAT) is a short summary of evidence on a topic of interest, usually focused around a clinical question. A CAT is like a shorter and less rigorous version of a systematic review, summarizing the best available research evidence on a topic.

Integrative Review: A review via a systematic approach that uses a detailed search strategy to find relevant evidence to answer a targeted clinical question. Evidence can come from RCTs, observational studies, qualitative research, clinical experts, and other types of evidence. Does not use summary statistics.

Meta-analysis: a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance.

Narrative or Traditional Review: Critical research summary on a topic of interest, often to put a research problem into context. Captures a “snapshot” of the clinical problem or issue.

Rapid Review : A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data.

Scoping Review A s coping review is a descriptive approach, designed to chart the literature around a particular topic. It involves an extensive literature search and often uses structured mapping or charting of the literature.

Systematic Review : Comprehensive search strategies and rigorous research appraisal methods surrounding a clinical issue or question. Evidence is primarily based upon RCTs . Used to summarize, appraise, & communicate contradictory results or unmanageable amounts of research.

Umbrella Review : An umbrella review is a systematic collection and assessment of multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses on a specific research topic

Lit Review vs Systematic Rev vs Meta Analysis
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information and libraries journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Chart comparing Systematic Review Vs Literature Review Chart explaining differences. Chart by L. Kysh, MLIS from U. Ca
Conducting umbrella reviews Belbasis, L., Bellou, V., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2022). Conducting umbrella reviews. BMJ medicine, 1(1).
Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202-222.
Part 1: Difference between systematic reviews and rapid reviews (4:43) Cochrane Training video.
Rapid literature review: definition and methodology Smela, B., Toumi, M., Świerk, K., Francois, C., Biernikiewicz, M., Clay, E., & Boyer, L. (2023). Rapid literature review: definition and methodology. Journal of market access & health policy, 11(1), 2241234. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2023.2241234
Reviewing Research: Literature Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews: Differentiating the Three Review Types University of Buffalo LibGuide
Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis: Applications in veterinary medicine Sargeant, J. M., & O'Connor, A. M. (2020). Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis: Applications in veterinary medicine. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 11-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00011
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C. et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Systematic Review Service: What Type of Review is Right for You? University of Maryland Health Sciences and Human Services Library Decide with type of review. Decision Tree included.
Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative References Getting Help Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative Review Duquesne University
What Type of Review is Right for You? Cornell University Library Flowchart to decide about which review to use.
Study Design 101 Tutorial by George Washington University. Describes different study designs.

Critically Appraised Topics (CATs)

CEBMa Guideline for Critically Appraised Topics in Management and Organizations Barends, E., Rousseau, D. M., & Briner, R. B. (2017). CEBMa guideline for critically appraised topics in management and organizations. Center for Evidence-Based Management. https://cebma. org/wp-content/uploads/CEBMa-CAT-Guidelines. pdf.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) was developed in Oxford in 1993 and has since helped to develop an evidence based approach in health and social care, working with local, national and international partner organisations.
Evidence Based Medicine IV: how to find an evidence-based answer to a clinical question? Make a critically appraised topic! Beckers, G. M. A., Herbst, K., Kaefer, M., Harper, L., Castagnetti, M., Bagli, D., Kalfa, N., Fossum, M., & ESPU Research Committee. (2019). Evidence based medicine IV: How to find an evidence-based answer to a clinical question? make a critically appraised topic. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 15(4), 409-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.05.009
EXAMPLE: The Use of Orthotic Insoles to Prevent Lower Limb Overuse Injuries: A Critically Appraised Topic Kelly JL, Valier AR. The Use of Orthotic Insoles to Prevent Lower Limb Overuse Injuries: A Critically Appraised Topic. J Sport Rehabil. 2018 Nov 1;27(6):591-595. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2016-0142. Epub 2018 Oct 13. PMID: 28952905.
How to Perform a Critically Appraised Topic: Part 1, Ask, Search, and Apply Aine Marie Kelly and Paul Cronin American Journal of Roentgenology November 2011, Volume 197, Number 5
How to Perform a Critically Appraised Topic: Part 2, Appraise, Evaluate, Generate, and Recommend Aine Marie Kelly and Paul Cronin American Journal of Roentgenology November 2011, Volume 197, Number 5
How to write a critically appraised topic (CAT) Sadigh, G., Parker, R., Kelly, A. M., & Cronin, P. (2012). How to write a critically appraised topic (CAT). Academic radiology, 19(7), 872–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2012.02.005
How to write a Critically Appraised Topic: evidence to underpin routine clinical practice Callander J, Anstey AV, Ingram JR, Limpens J, Flohr C, Spuls PI. How to write a Critically Appraised Topic: evidence to underpin routine clinical practice. Br J Dermatol. 2017 Oct;177(4):1007-1013. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15873. Epub 2017 Oct 1. PMID: 28967117.
What is a Critically Appraised Topic (CAT) Physiopedia

Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande S, Taylor A, Meyer S, Scott M. Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers. J Res Nurs. 2021 Aug;26(5):427-438. doi: 10.1177/1744987121997907. Epub 2021 Aug 5. PMID: 35251272; PMCID: PMC8894639.
The integrative review: Updated methodology. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Strategies for completing a successful integrative review Oermann, M. H., & Knafl, K. A. (2021). Strategies for completing a successful integrative review. Nurse Author & Editor, 31(3-4), 65-68.
<< Previous: Literature Review
Next: Literature Review Steps Videos >>
Last Updated: Dec 8, 2023 8:35 AM
URL: https://libguides.ahu.edu/LitReviewSum

Resources listed on these guides are compiled by librarians at the R.A. Williams Library. We accept content recommendations, and after review, may include suggested resources on a guide. Our time is limited, so we generally do not reply to unsolicited recommendations from individuals not affiliated with AdventHealth University or notify them regarding whether or not we have linked to suggested content.

Research Process

Writing a good review article

3 minute read
69.7K views

Table of Contents

As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.

Types of review articles

Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.

A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more.

A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings.

Tips for writing a good review article

Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:

Define your question: Take your time to identify the research question and carefully articulate the topic of your review paper. A good review should also add something new to the field in terms of a hypothesis, inference, or conclusion. A carefully defined scientific question will give you more clarity in determining the novelty of your inferences.
Identify credible sources: Identify relevant as well as credible studies that you can base your review on, with the help of multiple databases or search engines. It is also a good idea to conduct another search once you have finished your article to avoid missing relevant studies published during the course of your writing.
Take notes: A literature search involves extensive reading, which can make it difficult to recall relevant information subsequently. Therefore, make notes while conducting the literature search and note down the source references. This will ensure that you have sufficient information to start with when you finally get to writing.
Describe the title, abstract, and introduction: A good starting point to begin structuring your review is by drafting the title, abstract, and introduction. Explicitly writing down what your review aims to address in the field will help shape the rest of your article.
Be unbiased and critical: Evaluate every piece of evidence in a critical but unbiased manner. This will help you present a proper assessment and a critical discussion in your article.
Include a good summary: End by stating the take-home message and identify the limitations of existing studies that need to be addressed through future studies.
Ask for feedback: Ask a colleague to provide feedback on both the content and the language or tone of your article before you submit it.
Check your journal’s guidelines: Some journals only publish reviews, while some only publish research articles. Further, all journals clearly indicate their aims and scope. Therefore, make sure to check the appropriateness of a journal before submitting your article.

Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!

Manuscript Preparation

What are Implications in Research?

How to write the results section of a research paper

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Doctor doing a Biomedical Research Paper

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

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

Research management

‘Woah, this is affecting me’: why I’m fighting racial inequality in prostate-cancer research

Career Q&A 20 MAR 24

So … you’ve been hacked

Technology Feature 19 MAR 24

Four years on: the career costs for scientists battling long COVID

Career Feature 18 MAR 24

Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?

Nature Index 20 MAR 24

Is the Mars rover’s rock collection worth $11 billion?

News 19 MAR 24

People, passion, publishable: an early-career researcher’s checklist for prioritizing projects

Career Column 15 MAR 24

Peer-replication model aims to address science’s ‘reproducibility crisis’

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Warmly Welcomes Talents Abroad

“Qiushi” Distinguished Scholar, Zhejiang University, including Professor and Physician

No. 3, Qingchun East Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang (CN)

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital Affiliated with Zhejiang University School of Medicine

Postdoctoral Associate

Our laboratory at the Washington University in St. Louis is seeking a postdoctoral experimental biologist to study urogenital diseases and cancer.

Saint Louis, Missouri

Washington University School of Medicine Department of Medicine

Recruitment of Global Talent at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

The Institute of Zoology (IOZ), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), is seeking global talents around the world.

Beijing, China

Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

Postdoctoral Fellow-Proteomics/Mass Spectrometry

Location: Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA Department: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Tulane University School of Med...

New Orleans, Louisiana

Tulane University School of Medicine (SOM)

Open Faculty Position in Mathematical and Information Security

We are now seeking outstanding candidates in all areas of mathematics and information security.

Dongguan, Guangdong, China

GREAT BAY INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY： Institute of Mathematical and Information Security

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

404 Not found

How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

Did you know that article reviews are not just academic exercises but also a valuable skill in today's information age? In a world inundated with content, being able to dissect and evaluate articles critically can help you separate the wheat from the chaff. Whether you're a student aiming to excel in your coursework or a professional looking to stay well-informed, mastering the art of writing article reviews is an invaluable skill.

Short Description

In this article, our research paper writing service experts will start by unraveling the concept of article reviews and discussing the various types. You'll also gain insights into the art of formatting your review effectively. To ensure you're well-prepared, we'll take you through the pre-writing process, offering tips on setting the stage for your review. But it doesn't stop there. You'll find a practical example of an article review to help you grasp the concepts in action. To complete your journey, we'll guide you through the post-writing process, equipping you with essential proofreading techniques to ensure your work shines with clarity and precision!

What Is an Article Review: Grasping the Concept

A review article is a type of professional paper writing that demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.

If you write a scientific review, you have to use database searches to portray the research. Your primary goal is to summarize everything and present a clear understanding of the topic you've been working on.

Writing Involves:

Summarization, classification, analysis, critiques, and comparison.
The analysis, evaluation, and comparison require the use of theories, ideas, and research relevant to the subject area of the article.
It is also worth nothing if a review does not introduce new information, but instead presents a response to another writer's work.
Check out other samples to gain a better understanding of how to review the article.

Types of Review

When it comes to article reviews, there's more than one way to approach the task. Understanding the various types of reviews is like having a versatile toolkit at your disposal. In this section, we'll walk you through the different dimensions of review types, each offering a unique perspective and purpose. Whether you're dissecting a scholarly article, critiquing a piece of literature, or evaluating a product, you'll discover the diverse landscape of article reviews and how to navigate it effectively.

Journal Article Review

Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.

Research Article Review

Distinguished by its focus on research methodologies, a research article review scrutinizes the techniques used in a study and evaluates them in light of the subsequent analysis and critique. For instance, when reviewing a research article on the effects of a new drug, the reviewer would delve into the methods employed to gather data and assess their reliability.

Science Article Review

In the realm of scientific literature, a science article review encompasses a wide array of subjects. Scientific publications often provide extensive background information, which can be instrumental in conducting a comprehensive analysis. For example, when reviewing an article about the latest breakthroughs in genetics, the reviewer may draw upon the background knowledge provided to facilitate a more in-depth evaluation of the publication.

Need a Hand From Professionals?

Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!

Formatting an Article Review

The format of the article should always adhere to the citation style required by your professor. If you're not sure, seek clarification on the preferred format and ask him to clarify several other pointers to complete the formatting of an article review adequately.

How Many Publications Should You Review?

In what format should you cite your articles (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)?
What length should your review be?
Should you include a summary, critique, or personal opinion in your assignment?
Do you need to call attention to a theme or central idea within the articles?
Does your instructor require background information?

When you know the answers to these questions, you may start writing your assignment. Below are examples of MLA and APA formats, as those are the two most common citation styles.

Using the APA Format

Articles appear most commonly in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. If you write an article review in the APA format, you will need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use:

Web : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
Journal : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
Newspaper : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

Using MLA Format

Web : Last, First Middle Initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
Newspaper : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print.
Journal : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.

Enhance your writing effortlessly with EssayPro.com , where you can order an article review or any other writing task. Our team of expert writers specializes in various fields, ensuring your work is not just summarized, but deeply analyzed and professionally presented. Ideal for students and professionals alike, EssayPro offers top-notch writing assistance tailored to your needs. Elevate your writing today with our skilled team at your article review writing service !

The Pre-Writing Process

Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you unsure of where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages from our dissertation services to get you started:

Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow:

Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
Define the positive points — identify the strong aspects, ideas, and insightful observations the author has made.
Find the gaps —- determine whether or not the author has any contradictions, gaps, or inconsistencies in the article and evaluate whether or not he or she used a sufficient amount of arguments and information to support his or her ideas.
Identify unanswered questions — finally, identify if there are any questions left unanswered after reading the piece.

Step 2: Move on and review the article. Here is a small and simple guide to help you do it right:

Start off by looking at and assessing the title of the piece, its abstract, introductory part, headings and subheadings, opening sentences in its paragraphs, and its conclusion.
First, read only the beginning and the ending of the piece (introduction and conclusion). These are the parts where authors include all of their key arguments and points. Therefore, if you start with reading these parts, it will give you a good sense of the author's main points.
Finally, read the article fully.

These three steps make up most of the prewriting process. After you are done with them, you can move on to writing your own review—and we are going to guide you through the writing process as well.

Outline and Template

As you progress with reading your article, organize your thoughts into coherent sections in an outline. As you read, jot down important facts, contributions, or contradictions. Identify the shortcomings and strengths of your publication. Begin to map your outline accordingly.

If your professor does not want a summary section or a personal critique section, then you must alleviate those parts from your writing. Much like other assignments, an article review must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Thus, you might consider dividing your outline according to these sections as well as subheadings within the body. If you find yourself troubled with the pre-writing and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.

Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:

Pre-Title Page - Before diving into your review, start with essential details: article type, publication title, and author names with affiliations (position, department, institution, location, and email). Include corresponding author info if needed.
Running Head - In APA format, use a concise title (under 40 characters) to ensure consistent formatting.
Summary Page - Optional but useful. Summarize the article in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology, avoiding verbatim text or references.
Title Page - Include the full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
Introduction - Set the stage with an engaging overview of the article.
Body - Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
Works Cited/References - Properly cite all sources used in your review.
Optional Suggested Reading Page - If permitted, suggest further readings for in-depth exploration.
Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor) - Include visuals when requested by your professor for clarity.

Example of an Article Review

You might wonder why we've dedicated a section of this article to discuss an article review sample. Not everyone may realize it, but examining multiple well-constructed examples of review articles is a crucial step in the writing process. In the following section, our essay writing service experts will explain why.

Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:

To get you introduced to the key works of experts in your field.
To help you identify the key people engaged in a particular field of science.
To help you define what significant discoveries and advances were made in your field.
To help you unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of your field—which contributes to finding fresh solutions.
To help you find solid references and arguments for your own review.
To help you generate some ideas about any further field of research.
To help you gain a better understanding of the area and become an expert in this specific field.
To get a clear idea of how to write a good review.

View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!

Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?

Steps for Writing an Article Review

Here is a guide with critique paper format on how to write a review paper:

Step 1: Write the Title

First of all, you need to write a title that reflects the main focus of your work. Respectively, the title can be either interrogative, descriptive, or declarative.

Step 2: Cite the Article

Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper. For example, an article citation in the MLA style should look as follows:

Author's last and first name. "The title of the article." Journal's title and issue(publication date): page(s). Print

Abraham John. "The World of Dreams." Virginia Quarterly 60.2(1991): 125-67. Print.

Step 3: Article Identification

After your citation, you need to include the identification of your reviewed article:

Title of the article
Title of the journal
Year of publication

All of this information should be included in the first paragraph of your paper.

The report "Poverty increases school drop-outs" was written by Brian Faith – a Health officer – in 2000.

Step 4: Introduction

Your organization in an assignment like this is of the utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you should outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts coherently.

If you are wondering how to start an article review, begin with an introduction that mentions the article and your thesis for the review.
Follow up with a summary of the main points of the article.
Highlight the positive aspects and facts presented in the publication.
Critique the publication by identifying gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions.

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Make a summary of the article by revisiting what the author has written about. Note any relevant facts and findings from the article. Include the author's conclusions in this section.

Step 6: Critique It

Present the strengths and weaknesses you have found in the publication. Highlight the knowledge that the author has contributed to the field. Also, write about any gaps and/or contradictions you have found in the article. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge. Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article.

Step 7: Craft a Conclusion

In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study. Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:

As you read the article, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they used to support that argument.
While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point. This is best done using direct quotations.
Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly. Take time to analyze the article adequately.
Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation, use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article.
Re-read your piece a day after you finish writing it. This will help you to spot grammar mistakes and to notice any flaws in your organization.
Use a spell-checker and get a second opinion on your paper.

The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work

Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.

To proofread your paper properly, start by reading it fully and checking the following points:

Punctuation
Other mistakes

Afterward, take a moment to check for any unnecessary information in your paper and, if found, consider removing it to streamline your content. Finally, double-check that you've covered at least 3-4 key points in your discussion.

And remember, if you ever need help with proofreading, rewriting your essay, or even want to buy essay , our friendly team is always here to assist you.

Need an Article REVIEW WRITTEN?

Just send us the requirements to your paper and watch one of our writers crafting an original paper for you.

Family Essay: How to Write, Topics and Examples

We want to hear from you! Fill out the Library's User Survey and enter to win.

Pharmacy : Types of Review Articles (Literature, Scoping and Systematic)

Pharmacy Library (Lower Level, Room 0013)
Creating a Search Strategy
Databases (PubMed, Embase, +more)
Grey Literature Sources (Websites, theses, clinical trials +more)
Electronic Journals (Browse journals, or look for a place to publish)
Types of Review Articles (Literature, Scoping and Systematic)
Research Methods (Designing your own research; calculating statistics)
Indigenous Research and Resources
Patents - Where to Search
Finding Published Market Research
Critical Appraisal
Cite Using the AMA Style
Reference (Citation) Management Programs - Zotero, RefWorks, Mendeley
Writing Tips
Research Data Management

Their Uniqueness, Characteristics and Differences

Types of Review Articles

The above slides explore:

The purpose of each type of review article
Their methodology
Practical examples for each article type
Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and other Knowledge Syntheses (McGill University) Learn about the different types of knowledge syntheses and how to conduct them.
Knowledge syntheses: Systematic & Scoping Reviews, and other review types (University of Toronto) Useful information and resources on the process of conducting various types of reviews or knowledge syntheses.
Review Types (Temple University) Outlines other types of reviews like rapid reviews, mixed methods reviews, overview of reviews, etc. For each review, includes: definition, process, timeframe, limitations, + links to useful resources for conducting the review.
Review Comparison Chart (Unity Health Toronto/St. Michael's Health Sciences Library) Compares the key elements of major knowledge synthesis methodologies in an infographic.
Knowledge Synthesis Decision Tool (Unity Health Toronto/St. Michael's Health Sciences Library) This tool assists in making a decision about what type of review is right for you based on your research question(s) and the required parameters of each type of review. It is meant to be used with the comparison chart.

Systematic Review Management Software

Covidence - a systematic review software tool Web-based software to support systematic screening and data abstraction for systematic and scoping reviews. Free for Waterloo students, faculty and researchers.
Distiller Subscription-based, but student pricing available.
Rayyan A free web-tool designed to manage the stages of systematic reviews and other knowledge synthesis projects.

What is the Project's Goal?

Always ask yourself:

Do I want to systematically/comprehensively search the literature?
Or, do I want to conduct a systematic review?

Conducting a comprehensive search of the literature involves very different methods than a systematic review. If you are unsure as to which project best meets your needs, consult the Pharmacy Liaison Librarian, Caitlin Carter at [email protected]

Writing the Protocol (Plan)

What information should be provided in a protocol? (University of Toronto)
JBI Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (see 11.2, "Development of a Scoping Review Protocol")
Template for a systematic literature review protocol (Durham University)
Knowledge Synthesis Protocol Template (Unity Health Toronto/St. Michael's Health Sciences Library)

Avoid duplication: register your scoping or systematic review protocol (plan)

Where to prospectively register a systematic review? A short article describing the differences between the various available registration options.
PROSPERO Protocol registry for systematic reviews. Does not accept scoping reviews or literature reviews. Research topic must be health or social care related.
Joanna Briggs Institute Registry Register scoping and systematic reviews (must be JBI-affiliated).
Research Registry Register reviews, randomized controlled trials, case reports, cohort studies, etc.
Center for Open Science Register any research type.
Protocols.io Register any research type.
Nature's Protocol Exchange Protocols from all areas of the natural sciences.

Literature (Narrative) Reviews

These resources offer practical insight into literature reviews:

The literature review: A few tips on conducting it
Literature reviews: An overview for graduate students (video)
Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method
Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide
Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade
The four-part literature review process: breaking it down for students
Advanced Research Skills: Conducting Literature and Systematic Reviews (free, online short course)

Scoping Reviews

These resources offer practical insight into scoping reviews:

Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework
Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework
Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology
The Joanna Briggs Institute - Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews
Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews

Systematic Reviews

These resources offer practical insight into systematic reviews:

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions
Systematic Reviews: The Process (Duke University)
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) Find out if reviews and economic evaluations have already been done before embarking on new projects. Last batch of records was added in 2015.
PRISMA - what to report in a systematic review
Doing a systematic review: A student's guide Available in PRINT in Pharmacy Library, Call number: R853.S94 D65 2017
Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews Click on "download free PDF"
Systematic Reviews (University of Ottawa) Systematic Reviews explained using the PIECES Model: planning, identifying, evaluating, collecting and combining, explaining and summarizing.

Library Support for Systematic Reviews

UW Library Systematic Review Support Overview of the types of UW Library support for systematic/scoping review projects.
UW Library Systematic Review Protocol Use the "UW Library Systematic Review Protocol" to identify the various aspects of your systematic review (SR) project. This protocol will help minimize the likelihood of bias throughout the SR process, which is vital to a SR.
<< Previous: Electronic Journals (Browse journals, or look for a place to publish)
Next: Research Methods (Designing your own research; calculating statistics) >>
Last Updated: Mar 19, 2024 4:18 PM
URL: https://subjectguides.uwaterloo.ca/pharmacy

Research guides by subject

Course reserves

My library account

Book a study room

News and events

Work for the library

Support the library

We want to hear from you. You're viewing the newest version of the Library's website. Please send us your feedback !

Contact Waterloo
Maps & Directions
Accessibility

About Covidence and systematic reviews

What are the different types of review?

Systematic literature reviews (slrs).

SLR’s attempt to collate all empirical evidence that fit pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific clearly-formulated research question. A SLR uses explicit and reproducible systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made.

The process starts with a research question and a protocol or research plan. A review team searches for studies to answer the question using a highly sensitive search strategy. The retrieved studies are then screened for eligibility using pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria (this is done by at least two people working independently). Next, the reviewers extract the relevant data and assess the quality of the included studies. Finally, the review team synthesizes the extracted study data and presents the results.

A SLR may contain meta-analyses (statistical analysis). A SLR which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available is often known as a living SLR.

Rapid reviews

Rapid reviews aim to produce a rigorous synthesis quickly (due to time constraints/urgency), based on a pre-defined research question. The review process for rapid reviews is the same as for a more traditional systematic review: the emphasis is on a replicable pre-specified search, and screening methods that minimize the risk of bias, although potentially isn’t as stringent as a formal systematic review.

The process operates within pre-specified limits (for example, by restricting searches to articles published during a specific timeframe) and is usually run by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in systematic review methods.

Umbrella reviews or Overview of reviews

An umbrella review is a review of multiple systematic reviews. The process uses explicit and systematic methods to search for, and identify, systematic reviews on related research questions in the same topic area. The purpose of an umbrella review is to synthesize the results of the systematic reviews across important outcomes.

Scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are exploratory and they typically address a broad question, compared to a systematic review that typically has a more targeted question.

Researchers conduct scoping reviews to assess the extent of the available evidence, to organize it into groups and to highlight gaps. If a scoping review finds no studies, this might help researchers to decide that a systematic review is likely to be of limited value and that resources could be better directed elsewhere.

Literature reviews or narrative reviews

Literature, or narrative, reviews provide an overview of what is known about a particular topic. They evaluate the material, rather than simply restating it, but the methods used to do this are not usually prespecified and they are not described in detail in the review. The search might be comprehensive but it does not aim to be exhaustive. Literature reviews are often topic based and can take the form of a discussion. Literature reviews lack precision and replicability and can present their findings in the context of what has come before. Often, this sort of synthesis does not attempt to control for the author’s own bias. The results or conclusion of a literature review is likely to be presented in a narrative format rather than statistical methods.

Take a look at the articles about the different types of review on the Covidence blog:

Systematic review types: meet the family
The difference between a systematic review and a literature review
The difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

Published: 02 October 2017
Volume 46 , pages 1–5, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

Robert W. Palmatier 1 ,
Mark B. Houston 2 &
John Hulland 3

227k Accesses

427 Citations

63 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ).

In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ).

Purpose of review papers

In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS.

The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to

Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic.

Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge.

Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).

Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.

Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.

Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions.

Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate.

The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas.

This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization.

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.

As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target.

Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS .

The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published.

Domain-based review papers

Domain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings.

Theory-based review papers

Theory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory.

Method-based review papers

Method-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective.

Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal.

Process and structure for review papers

In this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here.

Systematic literature review process

Some review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact.

In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review.

Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work.

Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan.

Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2.

Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing.

Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice.

A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis.

Structure of systematic review papers

There is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute.

Depth and rigor

Systematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention.

Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant).

Replicability

Processes for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail.

We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field.

Helpful format

Because such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table.

In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers.

Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.

Article Google Scholar

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.

Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615.

Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y .

Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.

Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.

Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217.

Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

Robert W. Palmatier

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Mark B. Houston

Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

John Hulland

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Palmatier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2017

Issue Date : January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

University of Texas Libraries
UT Libraries

Systematic Reviews & Evidence Synthesis Methods

Types of reviews.

Formulate Question
Find Existing Reviews & Protocols
Register a Protocol
Searching Systematically
Supplementary Searching
Managing Results
Deduplication
Critical Appraisal
Glossary of terms
Librarian Support
Video tutorials This link opens in a new window
Systematic Review & Evidence Synthesis Boot Camp

Not sure what type of review you want to conduct?

There are many types of reviews --- narrative reviews , scoping reviews , systematic reviews, integrative reviews, umbrella reviews, rapid reviews and others --- and it's not always straightforward to choose which type of review to conduct. These Review Navigator tools (see below) ask a series of questions to guide you through the various kinds of reviews and to help you determine the best choice for your research needs.

Which review is right for you? (Univ. of Manitoba)
What type of review is right for you? (Cornell)
Review Ready Reckoner - Assessment Tool (RRRsAT)
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. by Grant & Booth
Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements | Health Info Libr J, 2019

Reproduced from Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Last Updated: Feb 27, 2024 12:53 PM
URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/systematicreviews

How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

An article review is an academic assignment that invites you to study a piece of academic research closely. Then, you should present its summary and critically evaluate it using the knowledge you’ve gained in class and during your independent study. If you get such a task at college or university, you shouldn’t confuse it with a response paper, which is a distinct assignment with other purposes (we’ll talk about it in detail below).

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

In this article, prepared by Custom-Writing experts, you’ll find:

the intricacies of article review writing;
the difference between an article review and similar assignments;
a step-by-step algorithm for review composition;
a couple of samples to guide you throughout the writing process.

So, if you wish to study our article review example and discover helpful writing tips, keep reading.

❓ What Is an Article Review?

✍️ Writing Steps

📑 Article Review Format

🔗 references.

An article review is an academic paper that summarizes and critically evaluates the information presented in your selected article.

This image shows what an article review is.

The first thing you should note when approaching the task of an article review is that not every article is suitable for this assignment. Let’s have a look at the variety of articles to understand what you can choose from.

Popular Vs. Scholarly Articles

In most cases, you’ll be required to review a scholarly, peer-reviewed article – one composed in compliance with rigorous academic standards. Yet, the Web is also full of popular articles that don’t present original scientific value and shouldn’t be selected for a review.

Just in 1 hour! We will write you a plagiarism-free paper in hardly more than 1 hour

Not sure how to distinguish these two types? Here is a comparative table to help you out.

Article Review vs. Response Paper

Now, let’s consider the difference between an article review and a response paper:

If you’re assigned to critique a scholarly article , you will need to compose an article review .
If your subject of analysis is a popular article , you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper .

The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of these two article types. Peer-reviewed, scholarly articles have clear-cut quality criteria, allowing you to conduct and present a structured assessment of the assigned material. Popular magazines have loose or non-existent quality criteria and don’t offer an opportunity for structured evaluation. So, they are only fit for a subjective response, in which you can summarize your reactions and emotions related to the reading material.

All in all, you can structure your response assignments as outlined in the tips below.

✍️ How to Write an Article Review: Step by Step

Here is a tried and tested algorithm for article review writing from our experts. We’ll consider only the critical review variety of this academic assignment. So, let’s get down to the stages you need to cover to get a stellar review.

Receive a plagiarism-free paper tailored to your instructions. Cut 20% off your first order!

Read the Article

As with any reviews, reports, and critiques, you must first familiarize yourself with the assigned material. It’s impossible to review something you haven’t read, so set some time for close, careful reading of the article to identify:

Its topic.
Its type.
The author’s main points and message.
The arguments they use to prove their points.
The methodology they use to approach the subject.

In terms of research type , your article will usually belong to one of three types explained below.

Summarize the Article

Now that you’ve read the text and have a general impression of the content, it’s time to summarize it for your readers. Look into the article’s text closely to determine:

The thesis statement , or general message of the author.
Research question, purpose, and context of research.
Supporting points for the author’s assumptions and claims.
Major findings and supporting evidence.

As you study the article thoroughly, make notes on the margins or write these elements out on a sheet of paper. You can also apply a different technique: read the text section by section and formulate its gist in one phrase or sentence. Once you’re done, you’ll have a summary skeleton in front of you.

Evaluate the Article

The next step of review is content evaluation. Keep in mind that various research types will require a different set of review questions. Here is a complete list of evaluation points you can include.

Get an originally-written paper according to your instructions!

Write the Text

After completing the critical review stage, it’s time to compose your article review.

The format of this assignment is standard – you will have an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The introduction should present your article and summarize its content. The body will contain a structured review according to all four dimensions covered in the previous section. The concluding part will typically recap all the main points you’ve identified during your assessment.

It is essential to note that an article review is, first of all, an academic assignment. Therefore, it should follow all rules and conventions of academic composition, such as:

No contractions . Don’t use short forms, such as “don’t,” “can’t,” “I’ll,” etc. in academic writing. You need to spell out all those words.
Formal language and style . Avoid conversational phrasing and words that you would naturally use in blog posts or informal communication. For example, don’t use words like “pretty,” “kind of,” and “like.”
Third-person narrative . Academic reviews should be written from the third-person point of view, avoiding statements like “I think,” “in my opinion,” and so on.
No conversational forms . You shouldn’t turn to your readers directly in the text by addressing them with the pronoun “you.” It’s vital to keep the narrative neutral and impersonal.
Proper abbreviation use . Consult the list of correct abbreviations , like “e.g.” or “i.e.,” for use in your academic writing. If you use informal abbreviations like “FYA” or “f.i.,” your professor will reduce the grade.
Complete sentences . Make sure your sentences contain the subject and the predicate; avoid shortened or sketch-form phrases suitable for a draft only.
No conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence . Remember the FANBOYS rule – don’t start a sentence with words like “and” or “but.” They often seem the right way to build a coherent narrative, but academic writing rules disfavor such usage.
No abbreviations or figures at the beginning of a sentence . Never start a sentence with a number — spell it out if you need to use it anyway. Besides, sentences should never begin with abbreviations like “e.g.”

Finally, a vital rule for an article review is properly formatting the citations. We’ll discuss the correct use of citation styles in the following section.

When composing an article review, keep these points in mind:

Start with a full reference to the reviewed article so the reader can locate it quickly.
Ensure correct formatting of in-text references.
Provide a complete list of used external sources on the last page of the review – your bibliographical entries .

You’ll need to understand the rules of your chosen citation style to meet all these requirements. Below, we’ll discuss the two most common referencing styles – APA and MLA.

Article Review in APA

When you need to compose an article review in the APA format , here is the general bibliographical entry format you should use for journal articles on your reference page:

Author’s last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year of Publication). Name of the article. Name of the Journal, volume (number), pp. #-#. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy

Horigian, V. E., Schmidt, R. D., & Feaster, D. J. (2021). Loneliness, mental health, and substance use among US young adults during COVID-19. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 53 (1), pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2020.1836435

Your in-text citations should follow the author-date format like this:

If you paraphrase the source and mention the author in the text: According to Horigian et al. (2021), young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic.
If you paraphrase the source and don’t mention the author in the text: Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al., 2021).
If you quote the source: As Horigian et al. (2021) point out, there were “elevated levels of loneliness, depression, anxiety, alcohol use, and drug use among young adults during COVID-19” (p. 6).

Note that your in-text citations should include “et al.,” as in the examples above, if your article has 3 or more authors. If you have one or two authors, your in-text citations would look like this:

One author: “According to Smith (2020), depression is…” or “Depression is … (Smith, 2020).”
Two authors: “According to Smith and Brown (2020), anxiety means…” or “Anxiety means (Smith & Brown, 2020).”

Finally, in case you have to review a book or a website article, here are the general formats for citing these source types on your APA reference list.

Article Review in MLA

If your assignment requires MLA-format referencing, here’s the general format you should use for citing journal articles on your Works Cited page:

Author’s last name, First name. “Title of an Article.” Title of the Journal , vol. #, no. #, year, pp. #-#.

Horigian, Viviana E., et al. “Loneliness, Mental Health, and Substance Use Among US Young Adults During COVID-19.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , vol. 53, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-9.

In-text citations in the MLA format follow the author-page citation format and look like this:

According to Horigian et al., young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (6).
Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al. 6).

Like in APA, the abbreviation “et al.” is only needed in MLA if your article has 3 or more authors.

If you need to cite a book or a website page, here are the general MLA formats for these types of sources.

✅ Article Review Template

Here is a handy, universal article review template to help you move on with any review assignment. We’ve tried to make it as generic as possible to guide you in the academic process.

📝 Article Review Examples

The theory is good, but practice is even better. Thus, we’ve created three brief examples to show you how to write an article review. You can study the full-text samples by following the links.

📃 Men, Women, & Money

This article review examines a famous piece, “Men, Women & Money – How the Sexes Differ with Their Finances,” published by Amy Livingston in 2020. The author of this article claims that men generally spend more money than women. She makes this conclusion from a close analysis of gender-specific expenditures across five main categories: food, clothing, cars, entertainment, and general spending patterns. Livingston also looks at men’s approach to saving to argue that counter to the common perception of women’s light-hearted attitude to money, men are those who spend more on average.

📃 When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism

This is a review of Jonathan Heidt’s 2016 article titled “When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism,” written as an advocacy of right-wing populism rising in many Western states. The author illustrates the case with the election of Donald Trump as the US President and the rise of right-wing rhetoric in many Western countries. These examples show how nationalist sentiment represents a reaction to global immigration and a failure of globalization.

📃 Sleep Deprivation

This is a review of the American Heart Association’s article titled “The Dangers of Sleep Deprivation.” It discusses how the national organization concerned with the American population’s cardiovascular health links the lack of high-quality sleep to far-reaching health consequences. The organization’s experts reveal how a consistent lack of sleep leads to Alzheimer’s disease development, obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc.

✏️ Article Review FAQ

A high-quality article review should summarize the assigned article’s content and offer data-backed reactions and evaluations of its quality in terms of the article’s purpose, methodology, and data used to argue the main points. It should be detailed, comprehensive, objective, and evidence-based.

The purpose of writing a review is to allow students to reflect on research quality and showcase their critical thinking and evaluation skills. Students should exhibit their mastery of close reading of research publications and their unbiased assessment.

The content of your article review will be the same in any format, with the only difference in the assignment’s formatting before submission. Ensure you have a separate title page made according to APA standards and cite sources using the parenthetical author-date referencing format.

You need to take a closer look at various dimensions of an assigned article to compose a valuable review. Study the author’s object of analysis, the purpose of their research, the chosen method, data, and findings. Evaluate all these dimensions critically to see whether the author has achieved the initial goals. Finally, offer improvement recommendations to add a critique aspect to your paper.

Scientific Article Review: Duke University
Book and Article Reviews: William & Mary, Writing Resources Center
Sample Format for Reviewing a Journal Article: Boonshoft School of Medicine
Research Paper Review – Structure and Format Guidelines: New Jersey Institute of Technology
Article Review: University of Waterloo
Article Review: University of South Australia
How to Write a Journal Article Review: University of Newcastle Library Guides
Writing Help: The Article Review: Central Michigan University Libraries
Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article: McLaughlin Library
Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to LinkedIn
Share to email

How to Write a Short Essay: Format & Examples

Short essays answer a specific question on the subject. They usually are anywhere between 250 words and 750 words long. A paper with less than 250 words isn’t considered a finished text, so it doesn’t fall under the category of a short essay. Essays of such format are required for...

Compare and Contrast Essay Outline: Template and Example

High school and college students often face challenges when crafting a compare-and-contrast essay. A well-written paper of this kind needs to be structured appropriately to earn you good grades. Knowing how to organize your ideas allows you to present your ideas in a coherent and logical manner This article by...

How to Write a Formal Essay: Format, Rules, & Example

If you’re a student, you’ve heard about a formal essay: a factual, research-based paper written in 3rd person. Most students have to produce dozens of them during their educational career.  Writing a formal essay may not be the easiest task. But fear not: our custom-writing team is here to guide...

How to Write a Narrative Essay Outline: Template & Examples

Narrative essays are unlike anything you wrote throughout your academic career. Instead of writing a formal paper, you need to tell a story. Familiar elements such as evidence and arguments are replaced with exposition and character development. The importance of writing an outline for an essay like this is hard...

How to Write a Precis: Definition, Guide, & Examples

A précis is a brief synopsis of a written piece. It is used to summarize and analyze a text’s main points. If you need to write a précis for a research paper or the AP Lang exam, you’ve come to the right place. In this comprehensive guide by Custom-Writing.org, you’ll...

How to Write a Synthesis Essay: Examples, Topics, & Outline

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

How to Write a Catchy Hook: Examples & Techniques

Do you know how to make your essay stand out? One of the easiest ways is to start your introduction with a catchy hook. A hook is a phrase or a sentence that helps to grab the reader’s attention. After reading this article by Custom-Writing.org, you will be able to...

How to Write a Critical Thinking Essay: Examples & Outline

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information. People who use it in everyday life are open to different opinions. They rely on reason and logic when making conclusions about certain issues. A critical thinking essay shows how your thoughts change as you research your topic. This type...

How to Write a Process Analysis Essay: Examples & Outline

Process analysis is an explanation of how something works or happens. Want to know more? Read the following article prepared by our custom writing specialists and learn about: process analysis and its typesa process analysis outline tipsfree examples and other tips that might be helpful for your college assignment So,...

How to Write a Visual Analysis Essay: Examples & Template

A visual analysis essay is an academic paper type that history and art students often deal with. It consists of a detailed description of an image or object. It can also include an interpretation or an argument that is supported by visual evidence. In this article, our custom writing experts...

How to Write a Reflection Paper: Example & Tips

Want to know how to write a reflection paper for college or school? To do that, you need to connect your personal experiences with theoretical knowledge. Usually, students are asked to reflect on a documentary, a text, or their experience. Sometimes one needs to write a paper about a lesson...

How to Write a Character Analysis Essay: Examples & Outline

A character analysis is an examination of the personalities and actions of protagonists and antagonists that make up a story. It discusses their role in the story, evaluates their traits, and looks at their conflicts and experiences. You might need to write this assignment in school or college. Like any...

SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

Share full article

Long sheets in varying shades of brown hang from silver overhead beams in a white gallery space.

Dozens of Artists, 3 Critics: Who’s Afraid of the Whitney Biennial 2024?

“Even Better Than the Real Thing” is as a well-intentioned edition of the perpetually debated show. Will it go down as a notable one?

Lotus L. Kang, “In Cascades,” 2023-24. Long, broad sheets of exposed film, still light-sensitive, will evolve over the run of the Whitney Biennial, thanks to the glare and humidity of the museum. Credit... Charlie Rubin for The New York Times

Supported by

By Jason Farago , Travis Diehl and Martha Schwendener

Published March 13, 2024 Updated March 14, 2024

The Whitney Biennial, New York’s most prominent showcase of new American (or American-ish) art, thrives on argument: in print, in comment threads, in barrooms and sometimes in the galleries themselves. Its 81st edition opens Thursday to museum members and to the public on March 20, and it introduces a “ dissonant chorus ” — in the phrase of Ligia Lewis, a participating artist and choreographer — of young talents and veteran practitioners. We sent a dissonant chorus of our own to the Whitney Museum of American Art: three critics, each writing separately, on the highs and lows of the exhibition everyone will have an opinion about.

Jason Farago | Travis Diehl | Martha Schwendener

Jason Farago

The Beauty and the Cynicism

What can the Whitney Biennial be, now, so late after the end of modernism? Is it a grand intellectual battle, or just an insiders’ chinwag? A polemic, or a party? A get-’em-while-they’re-young (or while-they’re-old-but-underpriced) market showcase, the cultural equivalent of the N.B.A. draft? An atavistic society ritual, a debutante’s ball for the M.F.A. debtset?

Choose your own metaphor, but one thing it cannot be is a summation of where art stands in the United States in 2024. When the larger culture is rudderless , and an avant-garde will not come again, the best you can offer — or so this year’s curators, Chrissie Iles and Meg Onli, seem to say — is a cross-section with a point of view. Their biennial is small, with just 44 artists and collectives across four floors of the museum and its outdoor spaces; another two dozen will screen films in the Whitney’s theater and, for the first time, on its website. Indeed, the show is small in other ways: resolutely low-risk, visually polite, and never letting the wrong image get in the way of the right position.

Inside a red-curtained room, a video shows a young woman dressed in military fatigues, holding a rifle.

If nothing else, the show does pinpoint some fashions. Autobiography and self-disclosure are out (and stay out!). The celebratory portraiture that has gummed up our galleries over the last five years is out, too. In place of the portrait, the hottest trend is landscape, though usually as harbinger of ecological collapse (in Dionne Lee ’s silent black-and-white video “Challenger Deep,” the artist’s hands hold dowsing rods in search of water) or living record of colonial ravages (in Ligia Lewis ’s short film “A Plot, a Scandal,” she and Corey Scott-Gilbert wear 17th-century wigs and dance among Italian cypresses).

Love the earth, says the 2024 Whitney Biennial, and decorate accordingly. When Iles, a veteran Whitney curator, co-organized the 2006 edition of this show, every other room had shimmering surfaces of silver and gray. Two decades on, the millennial glisten has given way to organic austerity; the dominant tones are now ocher and umber, turmeric and coffee. Dala Nasser drapes two-by-fours with bedsheets “dyed with iron-rich clay from the banks of the Abraham River” to create a makeshift temple. (The classical tradition remade from dregs and debris is a decades-old biennial staple.) Clarissa Tossin , in an overlong film shot partly in Guatemala, presents to us hand-spun brown and beige cotton whose natural dyes reflect, so its Maya weaver informs us, “the energies of the land.”

Hard not to make the obvious diagnosis: Artists emerging today are intelligent but terrified. Exhausted by culture’s surrender to the market, badly outmatched by Silicon Valley’s image regimes, they conclude that small-scale (and museum-compliant) acts of demonstration and recalcitrance are the safest bet. This is a strategy of “cynical reason” that the art historian Hal Foster identified almost 30 years ago — a tactical ambiguity to “retain the social status of art and entertain the moral purity of critique.” We have all the answers already: Cannupa Hanska Luger abstracts a tipi from recycled fabrics and hangs it upside down, a distress signal from the world colonialism made (and you, if you find it obvious, are a bullheaded settler). Carmen Winant pastes to the wall snapshots of physicians and volunteers at abortion providers and women’s health clinics (and you, if you find the accumulation as formless as a social feed, are guilty of minimizing threats to women’s health).

Just compare these to the art of — oh, how about Josh Kline , Ruth Asawa , Henry Taylor and Jaune Quick-to-See Smith , who all exhibited in the Whitney’s galleries in the last 12 months? Each made works of great beauty, great surprise, great political and social consequence, as well as a share of failures and nonstarters. But each of them got there because they risked something, forgoing the comfort of cynical reason for the danger of making something new.

In that vein, the most compelling works in this year’s show come from two women, both in their 30s, who do not purport to have all the answers: who face the challenge of form head-on, and who embrace the freedom of art as the true act of rebellion. One is the Canadian-born New Yorker Lotus L. Kang , an artist of rare precision, whose installation “In Cascades” comprises long, broad sheets of exposed film untreated by fixing chemicals. Subtly strewed aluminum casts of leaves, roots and even anchovies lie on the floor, or else on tatami mats sheathed in sheets of pale silicone. The draped, bruised film, still light-sensitive, will streak and fog over the show’s run from the glare and humidity of the museum, while magnets and further small casts of glass tie everything together into a richly sedimented, beautifully vulnerable installation in a perpetual state of becoming.

The other is Diane Severin Nguyen , an incisive young photographer and video artist, whose 67-minute film “In Her Time (Iris’s Version)” proposes a vibrant case study of digital-political bafflement and the hazards of projecting the present onto the past. Shot on a gigantic Chinese backlot usually used for nationalist epics, this profound, sometimes darkly comic work centers on a young actress struggling with her role in a (fictional) movie about the Nanjing Massacre, one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century; Nguyen also intercuts behind-the-scenes phone footage of the actress-playing-the-actress, until history, cinema, propaganda and selfie opportunities are just a hall of mirrors. She understands that to work through past crimes and present inequities takes much more than sloganeering, and that our speculative visions of resistance and renewal might serve the dominant order quite fine.

Travis Diehl

Is This Biennial a Mirror, or a Window?

Does art show you what you want to see, or frame what you don’t? Is it a mirror or a window? Three flickering neon signs on metal stands in the latest edition of the Whitney Biennial, poised at the west end of the museum’s fifth floor, crystallize this question.

The title of the 2024 piece, by Demian DinéYazhi’ — a Navajo artist, poet and activist — summarizes their imperative text: “we must stop imagining apocalypse/genocide + we must imagine liberation.” The sentences face the Hudson piers through the building’s tall windows; you see the letters mirrored in the glass, you can walk around the signs and read them, but it seems like the work’s intended audience is waiting at a stoplight on 11th Avenue or jogging along the waterfront: the world out there.

From the ground, though, looking up, the work is a glowing, cherry smudge — the idea of a sign, but illegible. And what could be the most incendiary political declaration in this biennial — pertinent to what the artist, on the wall text, calls “Indigenous resistance movements” as well as human crises around the globe — feels buffered and small. A huge statement in tiny letters. It’s emblematic of a show that can’t seem to decide who or where its audience is, who needs to hear its message, or whether it should have a message at all.

[ Update: An official at the Whitney initially said in response to questions about the artist’s intent that the work had been conceived in 2023, before the current conflict in Gaza, and was a reflection on “Indigenous resistance movements” cited in the wall text. After publication, it emerged that a handful of the flickering letters across all three signs can be discerned to spell out “Free Palestine.” The Whitney said Wednesday evening that officials had not known about the hidden message when the work was installed. ]

The Whitney Biennial once showcased the current state of art. Now, the internet does that. But as recent biennials’ knack for controversy proves, the show still registers the cultural and civil mood of its self-selecting audience. This year, with political strife crackling in the air (but was there ever a peacetime biennial?), the art feels mostly riskless. It’s careful. It’s quiet, often delicate. The artists and collectives have lots of space, and many have their own rooms. The world outside is combative and chaotic — if art is your refuge, this biennial is for you.

It will also appeal to those who want to hear from marginalized voices, an area where museums are making up for lost time. (Even including the film program, there will be far more white men reviewing this biennial than are in it.)

And, if you like, it will affirm your beliefs about the evils of racism and colonialism. This speaks to our antagonistic culture of book bans, anti-queer legislation and fearmongering politicians — no wonder folks withdraw into insular conversations with like minds. Past biennials used art like a window. This show tends to be a mirror.

Should art comfort? A tense installation by the Los Angeles artist P. Staff, directly off the sixth-floor elevators, ensnares visitors beneath toxic yellow light , an orange net and a sizzling electrified strip (a safe distance above their heads). Nearby, a sculpture by the MacArthur fellow Carolyn Lazard , of Philadelphia, in their second biennial appearance, consists of actual mirrors: a small maze of chrome medicine cabinets standing on the floor. The piece addresses you, the viewer, as someone with a body — probably one too tall to see your face in it. These works ask, “Are you comfortable?” and don’t expect you to say yes.

Should art entertain? Nikita Gale , of Los Angeles, contributes a modified baby grand player piano, centered in a carpeted gallery, whose hammers don’t strike the strings. The keys, stripped of ivory, jerk up and down with rhythmic thumps and taps, plonking out the jaunty rhythms of (I think) Scott Joplin’s “The Entertainer.” Spotlights in the room dim and brighten out of sync with the song. It’s a somber instrument — coy and elegiac, an eerie portrait of the musician or artist, conspicuous because of their absence.

Should art confront? It can be powerful for a work to imply the presence of you, the viewer, abstractly — through common experiences like physical space, rather than relatable imagery. Charisse Pearlina Weston of New York offers a sculpture consisting of six thick sheets of smoked glass suspended from the rafters with steel cable, an austere plane angling over visitors’ heads. The sculpture suggests transparency and solidity, filtering both sight and movement — the material, corporate and slick, is a boundary you’re not meant to cross.

You will have a much different, even politically charged, experience of these works if you study the wall labels. You’ll learn that Gale’s piano piece means to question the limits of intellectual property, and that Lazard makes work about illness and accessibility. According to the Whitney’s text, Weston’s gray panes were inspired by a planned protest by C.O.R.E. to block access to the New York World’s Fair in 1964 — an abstraction of Black refusal. I like the piece because it feels like it could squish me, the way the world could — because it’s both human-made and unrelatable. The museum’s attempts to help viewers orient themselves according to the works’ intentions, or social causes, feel belittling.

Other moments in the show find more aesthetic ways of framing the world outside: Lotus L. Kang ’s installation of slowly fogging sheets of light-sensitive film drape from the ceiling, reacting to the ambient light, space and time of the exhibition. Eddie Rodolfo Aparicio ’s crumbling wall of tree resin mixed with plant and animal debris absorbs gravity and sun, and is already sagging; Holly Herndon and her partner Mat Dryhurst ’s A.I. project generates figures with versions of Herndon’s signature orange braids and bangs, a pleasantly weird experiment in narcissism.

For a moment of reflection, though — in the meditative sense — I recommend the east end of the fifth floor. There, a mesmerizing video projection by Dionne Lee , of Columbus, Ohio, in which two hands pilot dowsing rods through tall grass, has a luxurious amount of floor space (and two sofas) to itself. The city stirs outside the high windows, the rich piano and deep vocals from a nearby installation bleed through the wall, and the pointers in the video twist and roll like antennae. Here, at least, artists are tired of making declarations. They’re searching, yearning for a new language.

Martha Schwendener

It Could Be Weirder Than the Real Thing

When the artists and collectives selected for the Whitney Biennial were announced in January, next to most of the artists’ names, in parentheses, were gender pronouns. I started reading the list — and immediately got distracted. (Remember when it was the medium that was paraded: “sculptor,” “painter,” “performance artist”?) This, of course, is among the most fraught topics of the moment. In a stroke of perfect cosmic fate, Judith Butler’s new book, “Who’s Afraid of Gender?,” which details authoritarian responses to current gender debates around the globe, even drops the day before the biennial opens to the public.

I was prepared, then, for a biennial in which identity was showcased, and the curators have indeed set out to celebrate the work of Black, L.G.B.T.Q., Indigenous, disabled, marginalized and overlooked artists. The results are mixed. But first, the art.

The best works here, for me, are film and video, followed by sculpture and trailed significantly by painting. Some of the standouts in the video category are Tourmaline ’s six-minute elegiac and playful meditation memorializing the transgender activist Marsha P. Johnson . You step off the fifth-floor elevator and the first thing you see is an arch leading to Tourmaline’s video.

Nearby is the Brazilian artist Clarissa Tossin ’s wonderful video installation with people playing 3-D-printed replicas of Maya wind instruments and the terracotta-colored instruments themselves displayed on the wall to this space. The juxtaposition of instruments with life and music in them, compared to those in nearby cases, treated as static objects and artifacts, is a great illustration for how colonized bodies and cultures themselves are treated.

The Mapuche artist Seba Calfuqueo has made a watery, poetic exploration of Indigenous cosmologies, while Dominican-born Ligia Lewis ’s video, shot in Rimini, Italy, is more hard-hitting. The camera gazes up at the cypress trees in that town, but the video considers how place and philosophical humanism are connected — particularly, in her words in the wall text, “Eurocentric ideas of (white) Man’s dominion over the land.”

Isaac Julien ’s masterful video and sculpture installation is a highlight of the show. It remakes the dialogue between the Harlem Renaissance philosopher Alain Locke and the collector-philanthropist Albert C. Barnes , and there is an absorbing discussion of how Europeans and Americans viewed African sculpture — and the responses of Black versus white artists and collectors to such objects.

Sculpture here tends toward monumentality and is often relegated to the outskirts of the exhibition. Some of the best works include Eddie Rodolfo Aparicio ’s block of shifting, pre-fossilized amber, embedded with plants and even typewritten documents, suggesting both natural and cultural elements in an unstable state. Torkwase Dyson has taken over an outside terrace on the fifth floor with two arching black behemoths you can climb and sit on. Dyson has been working in a late-minimalist vein for a couple of decades, and her ideas of Blackness and abstraction in physical spaces, including the vast city stretching out before you on the terrace, resonate through this work.

On a smaller scale, Jes Fan ’s upright sculpture remakes Isamu Noguchi’s modern biomorphism — using fiberglass and CT scans of his own body. Holes are also burrowed for viewers to peek into the gallery wall, suggesting art as a living organism and providing a weird element in an exhibition that is largely lacking in weirdness. Meanwhile, Rose B. Simpson ’s totemic figures made with ceramics and even animal hides hark back to Pueblo pottery and matrilineal Indigenous culture.

Where the show falls short, in my estimation, is painting — ironically one of the most robust areas of contemporary art. Nonetheless, some standouts are here, including Takako Yamaguchi ’s curious and colorful graphic abstractions, as well as Mary Lovelace O’Neal ’s large canvases, which mix the Black figure and animals with drippy gestural abstraction, and Suzanne Jackson ’s painterly skins, made with gel medium, suspended from the ceiling.

After the rise of installation art in the ’80s and ’90s, large-scale installations have become a mainstay. The best one here, for me, is Pippa Garner ’s layout of photographs, photocopies and other ephemera tacked onto wood paneling, which stretches along most of the third floor. Here, she tracks, with sly humor and intelligence, her gender transition in the midst of post-World War II consumerist culture and the idea that the body is “just another product.”

So how does the identity focus play out? The catalog names a lot of exemplary thinkers around this nexus — including Saidiya Hartman , whose idea of Black enslaved bodies as “abstract” chattel obviously ripples back toward art and its obsessions — and the curators say they are aiming toward “destabilized identities.”

That’s not always what’s happening in the galleries, though. There is a bit too much predictability — the A.I. transfer prints of work by Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst pale in comparison to the wild inventions you see any day on social media — and I would like to see identity scrambled a lot more. For instance, what if the curators had invited an Indigenous person making A.I. works instead of the stereotypical references to tribal arts? What if a feminist’s vaginal allusions were ditched for neon signage?

The message conveyed is that you have to conform to distinct identity stereotypes rather than subvert them to succeed in the art world, which artists have railed against for decades.

Don’t get me wrong: This is a well-researched, well-intentioned, beautifully installed, if sedate, edition of the biennial. We all need a rest in this moment of upheaval and change, when being a person can feel as complex as creating an artwork. But as the trans activist and legal adviser Stephen Whittle has pointed out, we’re moving “into a new world in which any identity can be imagined, performed, and named.” The next step, of course, is a world in which no demarcating “identities” are needed at all.

Whitney Biennial 2024: Even Better Than the Real Thing Member previews, March 14-18. Open to the public, March 20-Aug. 11. Whitney Museum of American Art, 99 Gansevoort Street, Manhattan; 212-570-3600; whitney.org .

Jason Farago , a critic at large for The Times, writes about art and culture in the U.S. and abroad. More about Jason Farago

Art and Museums in New York City

A guide to the shows, exhibitions and artists shaping the city’s cultural landscape..

A new installation at the New-York Historical Society acknowledges a notorious purchase 400 years ago — and lets the Lenape tell their side.

The Whitney Biennial, New York’s most prominent showcase of new American (or American-ish) art, is currently underway. Will this year’s edition go down as a notable one ?

You’ve seen Dawn Baillie’s posters for thrillers, comedies and dramas outside cineplexes. Now her work is being exhibited at Poster House in Manhattan.

An engrossing exhibition at the Neue Galerie in Manhattan offers a small number of fabled lush paintings by Gustav Klimt — and plenty of other treasures .

The artist Roy Nachum says Mercer Labs, an Instagram-ready immersive museum, was designed to be inclusive. But some advocates for blind people say his use of Braille can feel exploitative.

Looking for more art in the city? Here are the gallery shows not to miss in March .

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
Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Cover of Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
searching the extant literature,
screening for inclusion,
assessing the quality of primary studies,
extracting data, and
analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel .aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent .cgi?article =1221&context =ecis2011 .
Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
PDF version of this title (4.5M)
Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

Introduction
Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
Concluding Remarks

Related information

PMC PubMed Central citations
PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Flood of support, calls for privacy after Princess Catherine’s cancer news

LONDON — Catherine, Princess of Wales, has been greeted with an outpouring of support and sympathy after she revealed Friday she had been diagnosed with cancer and was in the early stages of chemotherapy treatment.

King Charles III said in a statement he was “so proud of Catherine for her courage in speaking as she did,” and that he had “remained in the closest contact with his beloved daughter-in-law throughout the past weeks.”

Last month, Charles postponed public duties as Buckingham Palace revealed he had been diagnosed with cancer. Neither Charles, 75, nor Catherine, 42, have disclosed the type of cancer they have.

However, Catherine, in particular, faced weeks of intense speculation about her health and whereabouts after she took time away from the public eye following major abdominal surgery in January.

On Saturday, Britain’s newspaper front-pages were inked with support and well-wishes for the princess, while leaders across the globe also made statements of support.

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak commended Catherine’s “tremendous bravery” and said she had “the love and support of the whole country as she continues her recovery.”

President Biden said, “Jill and I join millions around the world in praying for your full recovery.” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said , “On behalf of Canadians, I’m sending my support as she undergoes treatment. We’re all wishing her a swift recovery.”

Catherine’s younger brother, James Middleton, posted a childhood photo online of the siblings hiking, with a message: “Over the years, we have climbed many mountains together. As a family, we will climb this one with you too.”

Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, released a statement wishing “health and healing for Kate and the family,” adding that they hoped their sister-in-law could heal “privately and in peace.”

In her prerecorded video released Friday, Catherine said, “it has been an incredibly tough couple of months for our entire family.” She said tests after her abdominal surgery had revealed cancer and that she was in the early stages of “preventative chemotherapy.”

While she was “well and getting stronger every day,” the news had been a “huge shock,” Catherine said, adding that she and her husband, Prince William, had been “doing everything we can to process and manage this privately for the sake of our young family.”

Following Catherine’s announcement, there has been growing criticism about the swirl of media scrutiny and online conspiracy theories she has faced. British and international outlets had covered the speculation extensively, while the subject was even joked about on-air by late-night host Stephen Colbert .

On Saturday, the Sun tabloid wrote on its front page: “Kate, you are not alone,” while a Daily Mail front page op-ed wondered, “How do all those vile online trolls feel now?” Both newspapers , along with most other news outlets, had covered her whereabouts — and lack thereof — extensively in recent weeks.

Many online commentators have expressed regret at the jokes they had made at Catherine’s expense — while noting that the palace was widely seen to have bungled its communications of the whole affair, including by releasing a photo of the princess and her children that had been edited .

British publicist Mark Borkowski said in an interview Saturday it had been a “roller coaster” for royal PR, but the video was proof the royal family remains “a very powerful institution, it has an ability to regain control.”

Borkowski said the carefully made video released by Catherine was “extraordinary” and a “tidal wave” sweeping away all of the conspiracy theorists and doubters. “One has to praise the poor woman for showing so much dignity and grace.”

He noted that Catherine and other female members of the royal family, including “Margaret, Fergie, Diana,” traditionally contended with more “misogynistic treatment by the media” than their male counterparts. Borkowski was referring to Princess Margaret; Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York; and Princess Diana, the late mother of Catherine’s husband.

“You have to be part-fashion model, part-soft politician to be a woman in the royal family,” Borkowski said. “They have to work harder … and Kate is box-office royal family on the front page of every tabloid in the world.”

While Charles was able to tell the nation about his cancer diagnosis in February via a statement from Buckingham Palace, Borkowski noted that Catherine had to be seen.

“If it had been a statement, no one would have believed it and maybe all the crazy rumors would have carried on percolating. Now, there’s a massive full stop … and a clear call for privacy.”

There is some online debate over whether Harry and Meghan, who stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and moved to the United States, should return or take up more responsibilities amid a slimmed down senior royal family. Borkowski said he thought it was “very, very unlikely” the couple would return from California. “The wedge is too deep,” he said. “That would just generate so much negative publicity.”

Britons on Saturday expressed sympathy for Catherine and her family, and they stressed her right to privacy.

“I feel sad for her and sorry for her, as I would anybody who’s been diagnosed with cancer — especially when they’re so young and have children,” Veronica Wasilwa, 68, said.

Wasilwa added that Catherine was “entitled to privacy,” although she noted the run of bad health news for the royal family had also humanized them, as she saw “they’re going through what normal families go through.”

Ange Anderson, 65, said: “I felt that she must have felt pressurized to share it with the public, which is a shame.”

Anderson, whose sister-in-law recovered from breast cancer a few years ago, admitted “a small part of me wants to know what type of cancer she has, but I don’t think it’s my entitlement know.”

Michelle Mitchell, head of British charity Cancer Research UK, said in a statement that nearly one in two Britons will develop cancer in their lifetime, and “many more are affected when someone they love is diagnosed with cancer.”

She added that “high profile cancer cases often act as a prompt to encourage people to find out more or think about their own health.” Mitchell wished Catherine “a full, swift recovery and return to good health.”

Amid the spate of difficult health news from the palace in recent weeks, Borkowski said, Catherine’s video would also serve to remind the public that behind the pomp and pageantry of the British monarchy, there was a family with real people.

“At the heart of it, it’s very, very human what they’re going through,” he said. Now, “I think the royals will be looking for sunnier days.”

Princess Catherine

Catherine, Princess of Wales, announced in a personal video message on March 22 that she has been diagnosed with cancer. Here’s a timeline of the months preceding the announcement , during which Catherine stayed out of the public eye and health issues repeatedly put the royal family in the spotlight.

The diagnosis: The cancer diagnosis for Catherine comes amid rising rates of certain cancers among young people globally. Although details of Catherine’s condition remain sparse, here’s what we know about her health.

Reaction: World leaders and everyday Britons on Friday voiced their support for Catherine . After weeks of intense internet rumors as to why Catherine stayed out of the public eye for the past three months, many of those who had been participating in the social media jokes felt a collective chagrin .

Media frenzy: The internet erupted with conspiracy theories and absurd memes regarding Catherine’s public absence, asking: “Where is Kate Middleton?” The questions about her health status and whereabouts only continued after a photo of Catherine and her three children released by Kensington Palace was retracted by global news agencies over concerns that it had been doctored. Catherine later said she had been the one who altered the official photo.

About Vanguard

Overall Rating
Pros and Cons
Ways to Invest

How Vanguard Compares

Why You Should Trust Us

Vanguard Brokerage Account Review 2024

Paid non-client promotion: Affiliate links for the products on this page are from partners that compensate us (see our advertiser disclosure with our list of partners for more details). However, our opinions are our own. See how we rate investing products to write unbiased product reviews.

You can trade stocks without commissions here, and Vanguard offers margin accounts and commission-free options trading for more advanced investors.

$0 ($3,000 for Vanguard Digital Advisor; $50,000 for Vanguard Personal Advisor Services)

0% (0.20% to 0.30% for professionally managed portfolios)

Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Commission-free stocks, ETFs, and options
Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Brokerage, automated, and advisor-managed accounts available
Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Thousands of low-cost mutual funds
Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Multiple resources with expert analysis and market insights
Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Several retirement accounts and services for retirement plan participants
con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Higher options contract fee than other discount brokerages (Vanguard charges $1 per options contract)
con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. No separate trading platforms for advanced traders; no fractional shares
con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. No cryptocurrencies

Vanguard is a reasonable low-cost option for all types of investors. Whether you're an active trader, passive investor, or retirement-focused individual, you should be able to find what you're looking for.

Promotion: None at this time.
App store rating: 4.7 iOS/ 1.8 Android
Consider it if: You're a long-term focused investor looking for access to a variety of account types and investment choices.
Awards: Morningstar gave Vanguard a 'High' assessment in its 2022 Robo-advisor Landscape report, listing it as the #1 platform out of 16 robo-advisors

Vanguard is a popular online brokerage offering just about everything for every type of investor. Its products include brokerage accounts, robo-advisor, advisor-managed accounts, 529 education savings plans , IRAs, and more.

Vanguard also has an array of websites for different purposes. Its websites cater to personal investors, institutional investors, financial professionals, and global clients. And if you're solely focused on retirement, its expansive mutual fund selection is hard to pass up.

Vanguard Digital Advisor, the platform's robo-advisor, is one of the best robo-advisors for retirement savings accounts. The automated version offers a suite of useful tools, educational resources, and tax-loss harvesting features. It also offers socially responsible investing options.

However, one drawback is that Vanguard doesn't offer separate platforms for more advanced traders. Plus, you'll have to pay $1 for options contracts (most competitor brokerages only charge $0.65 per options contract).

Is Vanguard Right for You?

Vanguard's investing platform suits all kinds of traders, especially retirement-focused individuals, socially conscious investors, and those seeking robo-advice. Experienced investors wanting access to fiduciary advice for account guidance and management should consider a Vanguard Personal Advisor Services account. Keep in mind that there's a high $50,000 minimum deposit requirement.

Vanguard doesn't offer cryptocurrency trading or NFTs.

Vanguard: Overall Rating

Vanguard pros and cons, vanguard: is it trustworthy.

The Better Business Bureau has given Vanguard an F rating. BBB ratings typically range from A+ to F and reflect the bureau's opinions of a company's customer complaint history, business practices, and advertising and licensing information. The BBB states the reason for the low rating is multiple complaints filed against Vanguard and several unresolved complaints.

In 2023, a lawsuit was filed against Vanguard for supposedly mishandling target-date funds and breaching fiduciary duty. Vanguard denies these allegations and is currently under investigation. In November 2023, Vanguard attempted to get the lawsuit tossed out by a federal judge. Although some of the plaintiff's arguments against Vanguard were dismissed, the allegation of possible fiduciary breach will go to trial.

On June 1, 2023, the Financial Industry Authority (FINRA) fined and censured Vanguard for multiple errors found in 8.5 million customer statements. Vanguard paid a $800,000 fine and has since corrected the errors.

June 10, 2023, a whistleblower lawsuit originally filed back in 2013 began mediation. It alleges that the former Vanguard employee was wrongfully terminated after discovering billions of dollars worth of fraudulent tax behavior by Vanguard. David Danon, the employer, was fired less than a month after filing with the SEC. This case is still currently under investigation.

In 2022, Vanguard agreed to a $6.25 million settlement with Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin for allegedly failing to warn investors of large tax bills after investing in target-date funds.

Ways to Invest with Vanguard

Self-directed brokerage accounts.

Vanguard self-directed brokerage accounts are best for active traders who want control over the investments they buy and sell. Available as individual or joint brokerage accounts , this option gives you various investment choices, including stocks, ETFs, options, bonds, mutual funds, and CDs.

Stocks and ETFs are commission-free, but be prepared to pay an additional $1 per options contract (this is higher than brokerages like Charles Schwab and Merrill Edge , which charge $0.65 per contract).

Vanguard offers thousands of mutual funds as investor or admiral shares. Vanguard introduced Admiral shares as a means to make certain investments more affordable for everyone. Here's how it compares to regular investor shares.

Vanguard mutual funds include index , actively managed, target retirement, and ESG funds.

Educational resources for Vanguard investors help users make online trades and manage portfolios. Vanguard also has a "News & Perspectives" hub that keeps you informed on the latest investing trends.

Automated and Advisor-Managed Accounts

Not interested in picking investments on your own? Vanguard offers some options for hands-off investors who prefer automated or advisor-managed accounts. These include the following:

Vanguard Digital Advisor : This is Vanguard's automated investing account. It creates a personalized portfolio for you that's composed of Vanguard ETFs. The account has a $3,000 minimum and 0.20% advisory fee.
Vanguard Personal Advisor Services : This account merges automated management with one-on-one financial advisor support. Though it has higher fees (a $50,000 account minimum and 0.30% balances under $5 million; those with larger balances pay less annual fee), you get to take advantage of professional advice from a Vanguard fiduciary advisor.

Retirement Savings Accounts

Vanguard is also a great resource for those interested in using retirement accounts to build wealth. The brokerage offers several options, including:

Traditional IRAs
IRA rollovers
Individual 401(k)s
SIMPLE IRAs

These retirement accounts give you countless ETFs and Vanguard's All-in-One retirement funds. All Vanguard target retirement funds have at least a $1,000 minimum.

Most retirement savings account options are available through Vanguard's robo-advisor or managed account.

Business Insider's guide to the best retirement plans>>

Education Savings Plans

Low-cost investing with Vanguard Brokerage offers multiple options for investing for a child or dependent. These include its 529 education savings plans, UGMA/UTMA custodial accounts, and trust administration and investment management services.

Vanguard is one of the best 529 plan brokerages, offering its users access to a DIY portfolio or hands-off options. Its individual 529 portfolios (the DIY option) — which let you create your own investment strategy — give you access to several mutual funds and ETFs. These include all-in-one retirement funds, total market ETFs, and environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) funds.

Active investors might enjoy its Target Enrollment portfolios that diversify your money across stocks, bonds , and cash investments. Invest toward a maximum of five education goals in the same account. Vanguard handles all of the legwork for you, and you'll just have to select a portfolio based on which year you expect your dependent to start school.

Investment Options

Investment options available through Vanguard Brokerage include mutual funds, index funds, and ETFs. Vanguard is the way to go if you're looking to invest in a target retirement fund through an IRA or 401(k). You may get access to options trading through a self-directed account only with special permission.

The online brokerage trades stocks, bonds, money market funds, and CDs. It does not offer cryptocurrencies, futures, or direct commodities, largely due to the risk and volatility of these assets.

Vanguard Fees

A self-directed Vanguard brokerage account has a $0 minimum requirement with a 0% fee. Vanguard Digital Advisor requires a $3,000 minimum and charges a 0.20% fee. For Vanguard Personal Advisor Services, you'll need to meet a $50,000 minimum, plus a 0.30% advisory fee for accounts under $5 million.

You'll pay between $1,000 and $50,000 for mutual funds. (You may need more depending on the fund.) Vanguard ETFs cost $1, while non-Vanguard ETFs vary by share price.

Vanguard Brokerage Account — Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

A Vanguard brokerage account includes self-directed, automated, and advisor-managed accounts to trade stocks, bonds, and thousands of low-cost mutual funds and ETFs. As one of the largest investment management companies, investors can access Vanguard's suite of educational features and trading tools for simple portfolio diversification and cost-effective management.

The online brokerage distinguishes itself from other top brokerage firms with Vanguard's unique client-owned structure benefits, expert-crafted target date retirement funds, and advisor services. Known for its extensive selection of low-cost index funds and ETFs, Vanguard is a great brokerage for all kinds of investors looking to minimize costs and maximize returns.

Vanguard is generally a low-cost brokerage affordable for all kinds of investors, especially since users can purchase low-cost Admiral Shares for more costly index and mutual funds. Vanguard doesn't require a minimum deposit to open a standard brokerage account. Moreover, users can trade Vanguard's commission-free ETFs and stocks. That said, some Vanguard account options require a higher minimum deposit, like Vanguard Personal Advisor Services, which has a $500,000 minimum.

Yes. Vanguard's simple interface, copious educational guides and market research resources, and automated investing accounts make it a suitable choice for those just getting into wealth-building. Beginners can still trade on their own, but you can alternatively use Vanguard Digital Advisor or Vanguard Personal Advisor Services if you'd rather leave the investment decisions to the professionals.

Yes. Vanguard brokerage accounts are a great option for all kinds of investors, including advanced investors. Experienced traders can find value in Vanguard's cost-effective investment strategies, retirement fund options, a wide range of index and mutual funds, and customizable dashboard features. However, advanced traders don't have a separate Vanguard trading platform.

Vanguard vs. SoFi

SoFi is another popular online brokerage offering both self-directed brokerage accounts and a robo-advisor option.

Vanguard and SoFi Invest provides various account options for different types of investors. The two investment platforms have self-directed brokerage accounts for active traders, automated accounts for passive investors, and IRAs for retirement-focused individuals.

But unlike Vanguard, SoFi doesn't offer any advisor-managed investing accounts like Vanguard Personal Advisor Services . However, SoFi provides complimentary access to certified financial planners (CFPs), so you can still take advantage of professional advice if you so desire.

SoFi Invest review

Vanguard vs. Fidelity

Fidelity is one of Vanguard's top competitors, offering top-notch investing, banking, and personal finance services. The low-cost brokerage account has a regular self-directed account, multiple IRAs, and a robo-advisor. While Vanguard and Fidelity are mostly neck and neck, Vanguard and Fidelity's fees differ in some areas.

For instance, when it comes to robo-advice, you'll pay less to start at Fidelity Investments. Fidelity's standard automated investing account, Fidelity Go, has a $0 minimum requirement, and it charges $0, $3/month, or 0.35%/year, depending on your account balance. Vanguard's equivalent account, Vanguard Digital Advisor, has a $3,000 minimum requirement. However, its constant 0.20% annual fee may appeal more to those with higher balances.

In addition, Fidelity Personalized Planning & Advice also has a lower minimum requirement ($25,000) than Vanguard Personal Advisor Services. But Vanguard charges a lower annual fee (0.30% balances under $5 million; those with larger balances pay less) for its account.

Vanguard vs. Fidelity comparison review

Methodology: How We Reviewed Vanguard Investing

We use Personal Finance Insider's rating methodology for investing platforms to compare and examine pricing for Vanguard's account options, investment availability, and overall customer experience when reviewing investment apps. Each platform receives a rating between 0 and 5.

Online brokerages offer varying assets, financial tools, fees, and other resources. Some brokers are better for more advanced investors or active investors, while others may better suit beginner investors and passive investors. Vanguard was evaluated with a focus on how it serves in each category.

Paid non-client promotion. Insider receives compensation when a reader provides certain personal information to Vanguard after clicking a Digital Advisor enrollment link on this page.

Main content

IMAGES

10 Steps to Write a Systematic Literature Review Paper in 2023
How to Write an Article Review
Excel In Article Review Writing [Useful Tips, & Topics]
College essay: Different types of review articles
What is a Review Article? How to write a Review Article? Purpose and
How to write an review article ? Definition, structure and step wise Tutorials

VIDEO

25- article ||use of the||
Article (A,An,The)
ARTICLE 370 HONEST REVIEW|| #shortfeed #yamigautam #arungovil #viralshort
Definite Article (The)
How To Do a Business Article Review??የቢዝነስ አርቲክል ሪቪው እንዴት ይሰራል??
Presentation for Uni students @Seminar @BotanyAesthetic

COMMENTS

Types of Review Articles
Descriptions of Types of Reviews. Reproduced from: Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148. Review Type
How to Write an Article Review: Types, Format, & Examples
Article reviews come in various forms, each serving a distinct purpose in the realm of academic or professional discourse. Understanding these types is crucial for tailoring your approach. Here are some common types of article reviews: Journal Article Review. A journal article review involves a thorough evaluation of scholarly articles ...
How to Write an Article Review (with Sample Reviews)
Identify the article. Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest. 4.
Types of Reviews
Review Typologies (from LITR-EX) This site explores different review methodologies such as, systematic, scoping, realist, narrative, state of the art, meta-ethnography, critical, and integrative reviews. The LITR-EX site has a health professions education focus, but the advice and information is widely applicable.
How to Write an Article Review
Types of Article Reviews. In college, you might be asked to write different types of review articles, including: Narrative Review. This type of review needs you to look into the author's background and experiences. You have to go through the specialist's theories and practices and compare them. For the success of a narrative review, ensure ...
Types of Review Articles
Types of Literature Reviews: Critically Appraised Topic (CATs) : A critically appraised topic (or CAT) is a short summary of evidence on a topic of interest, usually focused around a clinical question. A CAT is like a shorter and less rigorous version of a systematic review, summarizing the best available research evidence on a topic.
What is a review article?
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
Writing a good review article
A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research. Types of review articles
How to write a superb literature review
The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic. It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the ...
Basics of Writing Review Articles
A well-written review article must summarize key research findings, reference must-read articles, describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, depict unanswered questions, and suggest directions for future research ( 1 ). During the last decades, there has been a great expansion ...
How to Write an Article Review: Types, Format, & Examples
Here are some common types of article reviews: Journal Article Review. ONE journal article review involves a thorough interpretation of scholars articles publicly in academic journals. It requires summarizing the article's lock points, procedure, and findings, emphasizing its contributions until aforementioned intellectual field. ...
How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples
Journal Article Review. Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.
Types of Review Articles (Literature, Scoping and Systematic
The purpose of each type of review article; Their methodology; Practical examples for each article type; Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and other Knowledge Syntheses (McGill University) Learn about the different types of knowledge syntheses and how to conduct them.
How to write a review article?
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. ... To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is ...
What are the different types of review?
Systematic review types: meet the family. The difference between a systematic review and a literature review. The difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis. scoping review. Covidence supports people completing various types of reviews. We've provided a brief description of some of the more common review types below.
Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews
How to write and review a review article. In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are ...
Review articles: purpose, process, and structure
With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS.Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers.
Types of Reviews
There are many types of reviews --- narrative reviews, scoping reviews, systematic reviews, integrative reviews, umbrella reviews, rapid reviews and others --- and it's not always straightforward to choose which type of review to conduct.These Review Navigator tools (see below) ask a series of questions to guide you through the various kinds of reviews and to help you determine the best choice ...
How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples
Article Review vs. Response Paper . Now, let's consider the difference between an article review and a response paper: If you're assigned to critique a scholarly article, you will need to compose an article review.; If your subject of analysis is a popular article, you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper.; The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of ...
6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career
Commentaries are short articles usually around 1000-1,500 words long that draw attention to or present a criticism of a previously published article, book, or report, explaining why it interested them and how it might be illuminating for readers. 6. Book review: Book reviews are published in most academic journals.
Types of journal articles
It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.
MDPI
Article Types. All articles are assigned a type, depending on the content of the article. This is useful to readers, informing them of the style of content to expect (original research, review, communication, etc.) and for indexing services when applying filters to search results. This section details the most common article types, although is ...
Art Review: Three Critics on the Whitney Biennial 2024
A version of this article appears in print on , Section C, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Whitney Biennial: Thriving On Argument. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe 76
Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews
9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations. EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic.
7 Grass Types That Thrive in Oklahoma Yards
With a medium-type texture, St. Augustinegrass is a warm-season grass. ©Xeres Zales/Shutterstock.com. St. Augustinegrass is a perfect type for the typical, dry Oklahoma summer. This is a favorite for Texas lawns and the southern areas of Oklahoma, too. St. Augustinegreass will do well in the hot sun, but also some shade.
Princess Kate's cancer diagnosis spurs flood of support, privacy calls
Share this article Share Borkowski said the carefully made video released by Catherine was "extraordinary" and a "tidal wave" sweeping away all of the conspiracy theorists and doubters.
When Peter Navarro goes to prison, he'll hear the lions roar
Former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro hopes to spend his next few months working in air conditioning and sleeping in a dormitory for "elderly" male inmates at a prison next to a zoo.
Vanguard Brokerage Account Review 2024
Explore our in-depth 2024 review of the Vanguard Brokerage Account. Learn how Vanguard's low-cost, client-focused approach makes it a top choice for trading ETFs and mutual funds.
'Chasing Beauty' Review: Isabella Stewart Gardner in Frame
At the dawn of the 20th century, the wealthy Bostonian Isabella Stewart Gardner (1840-1924) opened a namesake art museum in the Fenway section of the city with one of the world's largest, most ...
3 Body Problem Episode 1 Recap: Did the Universe Just Wink?
What happens when science breaks? 3 Body Problem, the cerebral sci-fi thriller from Game of Thrones creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, and True Blood writer Alexander Woo, traces the path of five young scientists who navigate a fraying world as the laws of the universe begin to crack. But who — or what — is behind it all? The mystery begins during China's Cultural Revolution in the ...

How to Write a Review Article

Further Reading

Article Review Writing: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide with Examples

What is an Article Review?

Types of Article Reviews

Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

Science Article Review

Critical Review

Article Review Format

How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps

Step 1: Understand the Assignment

Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly

Step 3: Create a Summary

Step 4: Identify the Author's Thesis

Step 5: Evaluate the Author's Evidence and Methodology

Step 6: Analyze the Author's Writing Style

Step 7: Consider the Article's Contribution

Step 8: Write the Introduction

Step 9: Develop the Body of the Review

Step 10: Conclude with a Summary and Evaluation

Article Review Outline

Article Review Examples

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

Keep reading

How to Write an Article Review

Things You Should Know

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the Article Review

Sample Article Reviews

Expert Q&A

You Might Also Like

About This Article

Reader Success Stories

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

Conducting Research

Systematic Reviews

Using Databases

Finding & Accessing

Writing & Citing

Meet a Librarian

Search Services

Citation Mgmt

Scholarly Communications

Library Updates

Types of Reviews

Review Typologies

How to Write an Article Review That Stands Out

A Step-by-step Guide on How to Write an Article Review

Step 1: Select the Right Article

Step 2: Read and Understand the Article

Step 3: Structure and Introduction

Step 4: Summarize the Article

Step 5: Critically Analyze and Evaluate

Step 6: Express Your Perspective

Step 7: Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Step 8: Editing and Proofreading

Types of Article Reviews

Narrative Review

Evidence Review

Systematic Review

Tips for Writing a Great Article Review

Outline for Writing a Good Article Review

Review Article Example

Calculate Your Order Price

Literature Reviews, Critiquing, & Synthesizing Literature

Types of Literature Reviews

Writing a good review article

Types of review articles

Tips for writing a good review article

What are Implications in Research?

How to write the results section of a research paper

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods