I found that once I had made a table, the narrative of that particular research topic almost wrote itself. I would really encourage other scientists to take up peer-review opportunities whenever possible. In the end, I finished by the deadline well, plus one two-week extension the editor agreed to grant me and was very happy with the product and with all I had learned about caspase substrates, about the scientific literature and about the review-writing process.
Overall, I try to make comments that would make the paper stronger.
When I undertook the task of writing a scientific literature review article last year, I had hoped that a Google search would reveal a handful of how-to pages thoughtfully created by veterans of this particular writing process.
Finally, there are occasions where you get extremely exciting papers that you might be tempted to share with your colleagues, but you have to resist the urge and maintain strict confidentiality. To be honest, I was excited to have this opportunity to examine the literature in depth and to create something useful out of it.
I developed a strategy for each research topic that I wanted to review including the broad survey section in the first half and the vignette sections in the second half.
I then delve into the Methods and Results sections. Then, right in the Introduction, you can often recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic. Find places to write where you can concentrate, and take breaks often to stretch, get a snack or even step outside for a few minutes.
Is the presentation of results clear and accessible? Yes, I sometimes wrote things that were wrong or at least imperfect when constructing a section from memory. Afternoons I often spent writing at my apartment or at the library on campus.
Next, I combined those summaries into a single table. I would have to assess the limits imposed by the journal 30 pages, six months as well as my own limits and the necessity to balance the writing project with lab work that was essential to finishing my Ph.
I believe it improves the transparency of the review process, and it also helps me police the quality of my own assessments by making me personally accountable. Moreover, a good review not only summarizes information but also provides interpretative analysis and sometimes a historical perspective.
I look for specific indicators of research quality, asking myself questions such as: Research Reports are published in a format we are very familiar with, the IMRD, that plays nicely with an idealized version of the scientific method. Then I follow a routine that will help me evaluate this.
I tried to reassure myself by remembering that I had been rather good at writing term papers in college; but this was a larger task and one with the potential for having an impact on someone, somewhere, sometime who wanted to learn about caspase substrates.
And if you identify a paper that you think has a substantial error that is not easily fixed, then the authors of this paper will find it hard to not hold a grudge.
However, I am keenly aware of other cases that did not work out nearly as congenially.
I usually pay close attention to the use—and misuse—of frequentist statistics. Sloppiness anywhere makes me worry. Your paper should consist of four general sections: This is done all the time, to varying degrees.
This often requires doing some background reading, sometimes including some of the cited literature, about the theory presented in the manuscript. Finally, there are occasions where you get extremely exciting papers that you might be tempted to share with your colleagues, but you have to resist the urge and maintain strict confidentiality.
In addition, you should inform the reader of the experimental techniques that were used to generate the data. You can better highlight the major issues that need to be dealt with by restructuring the review, summarizing the important issues upfront, or adding asterisks.
I always read the paper sequentially, from start to finish, making comments on the PDF as I go along. I solved it by making the decision to review one journal article per week, putting a slot in my calendar for it, and promptly declining subsequent requests after the weekly slot is filled—or offering the next available opening to the editor.
Many reviewers are not polite enough. I then delve into the Methods and Results sections. It is also very important that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme.
However, we are so used to writing this way that it may not be possible to just start at the beginning. On days when I struggled with concentration, I often used a timer to structure my day.
If I feel there is some good material in the paper but it needs a lot of work, I will write a pretty long and specific review pointing out what the authors need to do.
Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? The first image below identifies the article to be a review by examining the outline -- it consists of topical subheadings, so we know we are not reading experimental research.For Peer Review Week, researchers from across the spectrum offer advice and insights about how to review research manuscripts.
Being familiar with the structure and purpose of reviews will help you navigate scientific literature more confidently, but remember that it is not likely you will be writing a review for publication in a journal until well into your career.
Sometimes, journal editors will invite scientists to write a review for their journal. Key steps and resources for publishing research articles in Science areas. Learn about the structure and purpose of scientific literature reviews as you prepare to write your own.
This page features a discussion of each of the following components of writing a scientific review article: Choosing a topic and finding articles; If you need.
5. Impose some structure on the mess that is the scientific literature. I developed a strategy for each research topic that I wanted to review (including the broad survey section in the first half and the vignette sections in the second half).
Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the.
In contrast to research papers, conference presentations, and proposals, a review paper is a journal article that synthesizes work by many independent researchers on a particular subject or scientific .Download