You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS.Tags: Papers Research On Applied TheologyTeamwork CourseworkCritical Thinking ProjectsAp Language And Composition Argumentative Essay PromptsThesis Statement Comparison PaperWinning Law Day EssaysArguing A Position Essay
It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field.
Scientists commonly use reviews to communicate with each other and the general public.
The emphasis of a review paper is interpreting the primary literature on the subject.
You need to read several original research articles on the same topic and make your own conclusions about the meanings of those papers.There are a wide variety of review styles from ones aimed at a general audience (e.g., Scientific American) to those directed at biologists within a particular subdiscipline (e.g., Annual Review of Physiology). Thus, a large focus of your paper should be a description of the data that support or refute that point of view.In addition, you should inform the reader of the experimental techniques that were used to generate the data.To improve this situation, a small group of editors and I developed a peer-review workflow to guide reviewers in delivering useful and thorough analyses that can really help authors to improve their papers.We suggest that you perform three readings of a paper, concentrating on a different element each time.Take particular note of the parts of the paper that your expertise speaks best to.Editors do not expect you to be an expert in absolutely every aspect of the paper, although they also don’t want you to be a novice.The first reading is to get an overall impression of the paper and its aims. Make sure the paper is within the scope of the journal.It’s unlikely that it won’t be, but answering this question forces you to better understand the research and think about the paper’s mission: what it’s trying to achieve.Forget minor or major flaws: a fatal flaw is one that stops the review process dead in its tracks. If you don’t find a fatal flaw, continue to the second reading. The second reading allows you to concentrate on the scientific nuts and bolts of the research: the method, analysis and conclusions.There’s not much point in continuing the process if the method is fatally flawed, if an entire section is missing or if the paper is utterly unreadable. Depending on the journal, you might have the option to ‘reject, but resubmit’. Remember to distinguish between major and minor issues, and to read the paper in chronological order.