how to write a scientific review paper pdf

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

Publication types

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• CME Reviews
• Best of 2021 collection
• Abbreviated Breast MRI Virtual Collection
• Contrast-enhanced Mammography Collection
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Accepted Papers Resource Guide
• About Journal of Breast Imaging
• About the Society of Breast Imaging
• Guidelines for Reviewers
• Resources for Reviewers and Authors
• Editorial Board
• Advertising Disclaimer
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, selection of a topic, scientific literature search and analysis, structure of a scientific review article, tips for success, acknowledgments, conflict of interest statement.

• < Previous

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Manisha Bahl, MD, MPH, FSBI, A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article, Journal of Breast Imaging , Volume 5, Issue 4, July/August 2023, Pages 480–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

Scientific review articles provide a focused and comprehensive review of the available evidence about a subject, explain the current state of knowledge, and identify gaps that could be topics for potential future research.

Detailed tables reviewing the relevant scientific literature are important components of high-quality scientific review articles.

Tips for success include selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance, avoiding tedious data presentation, providing a critical analysis rather than only a description of the literature, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

The process of researching and writing a scientific review article can be a seemingly daunting task but can be made manageable, and even enjoyable, if an organized approach is used and a reasonable timeline is given. Scientific review articles provide authors with an opportunity to synthesize the available evidence about a specific subject, contribute their insights to the field, and identify opportunities for future research. The authors, in turn, gain recognition as subject matter experts and thought leaders in the field. An additional benefit to the authors is that high-quality review articles can often be cited many years after publication ( 1 , 2 ). The reader of a scientific review article should gain an understanding of the current state of knowledge on the subject, points of controversy, and research questions that have yet to be answered ( 3 ).

There are two types of review articles, narrative or traditional literature reviews and systematic reviews, which may or may not be accompanied by a meta-analysis ( 4 ). This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. It is geared toward breast imaging radiologists who are preparing to write a scientific review article for the Journal of Breast Imaging but can also be used by any writer, reviewer, or reader. In the narrative or traditional literature review, the available scientific literature is synthesized and no new data are presented. This article first discusses the process of selecting an appropriate topic. Then, practical tips for conducting a literature search and analyzing the literature are provided. The structure of a scientific review article is outlined and tips for success are described.

Scientific review articles are often solicited by journal editors and written by experts in the field. For solicited or invited articles, a senior expert in the field may be contacted and, in turn, may ask junior faculty or trainees to help with the literature search and writing process. Most journals also consider proposals for review article topics. The journal’s editorial office can be contacted via e-mail with a topic proposal, ideally with an accompanying outline or an extended abstract to help explain the proposal.

When selecting a topic for a scientific review article, the following considerations should be taken into account: The authors should be knowledgeable about and interested in the topic; the journal’s audience should be interested in the topic; and the topic should be focused, with a sufficient number of current research studies ( Figure 1 ). For the Journal of Breast Imaging , a scientific review article on breast MRI would be too broad in scope. Examples of more focused topics include abbreviated breast MRI ( 5 ), concerns about gadolinium deposition in the setting of screening MRI ( 6 ), Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3 assessments on MRI ( 7 , 8 ), the science of background parenchymal enhancement ( 9 ), and screening MRI in women at intermediate risk ( 10 ).

Summary of the factors to consider when selecting a topic for a scientific review article. Adapted with permission from Dhillon et al ( 2 ).

Once a well-defined topic is selected, the next step is to conduct a literature search. There are multiple indexing databases that can be used for a literature search, including PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science ( 11–13 ). A list of databases with links can be found on the National Institutes of Health website ( 14 ). It is advised to keep track of the search terms that are used so that the search could be replicated if needed.

While reading articles, taking notes and keeping track of findings in a spreadsheet or database can be helpful. The following points should be considered for each article: What is the purpose of the article, and is it relevant to the review article topic? What was the study design (eg, retrospective analysis, randomized controlled trial)? Are the conclusions that are drawn based on the presented data valid and reasonable? What are the strengths and limitations of the study? In the discussion section, do the authors discuss other literature that both supports and contradicts their findings? It can also be helpful to read accompanying editorials, if available, that are written by experts to explain the importance of the original scientific article in the context of other work in the field.

If previous review articles on the same topic are discovered during the literature search, then the following strategies could be considered: discussing approaches used and limitations of past reviews, identifying a new angle that has not been previously covered, and/or focusing on new research that has been published since the most recent reviews on the topic ( 3 ). It is highly encouraged to create an outline and solicit feedback from co-authors before writing begins.

Writing a high-quality scientific review article is “a balancing act between the scientific rigor needed to select and critically appraise original studies, and the art of telling a story by providing context, exploring the known and the unknown, and pointing the way forward” ( 15 ). The ideal scientific review article is balanced and authoritative and serves as a definitive reference on the topic. Review articles tend to be 4000 to 5000 words in length, with 80% to 90% devoted to the body.

When preparing a scientific review article, writers can consider using the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles, which has been proposed as a critical appraisal tool to help editors, reviewers, and readers assess non–systematic review articles ( 16 ). It is composed of the following six items, which are rated from 0 to 2 (with 0 being low quality and 2 being high quality): explanation of why the article is important, statement of aims or questions to be addressed, description of the literature search strategy, inclusion of appropriate references, scientific reasoning, and appropriate data presentation. In a study with three raters each reviewing 30 articles, the scale was felt to be feasible in daily editorial work and had high inter-rater reliability.

The components of a scientific review article include the abstract, introduction, body, conclusion, references, tables, and figures, which are described below.

Abstracts are typically structured as a single paragraph, ranging from 200 to 250 words in length. The abstract briefly explains why the topic is important, provides a summary of the main conclusions that are being drawn based on the research studies that were included and analyzed in the review article, and describes how the article is organized ( 17 ). Because the abstract should provide a summary of the main conclusions being drawn, it is often written last, after the other sections of the article have been completed. It does not include references.

The introduction provides detailed background about the topic and outlines the objectives of the review article. It is important to explain why the literature on that topic should be reviewed (eg, no prior reviews, different angle from prior reviews, new published research). The problem-gap-hook approach can be used, in which the topic is introduced, the gap is explained (eg, lack of published synthesis), and the hook (or why it matters) is provided ( 18 ). If there are prior review articles on the topic, particularly recent ones, then the authors are encouraged to justify how their review contributes to the existing literature. The content in the introduction section should be supported with references, but specific findings from recent research studies are typically not described, instead being discussed in depth in the body.

In a traditional or narrative review article, a methods section is optional. The methods section should include a list of the databases and years that were searched, search terms that were used, and a summary of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles ( 17 , 19 ).

The body can take different forms depending on the topic but should be organized into sections with subheadings, with each subsection having an independent introduction and conclusion. In the body, published studies should be reviewed in detail and in an organized fashion. In general, each paragraph should begin with a thesis statement or main point, and the sentences that follow it should consist of supporting evidence drawn from the literature. Research studies need not be discussed in chronological order, and the results from one research study may be discussed in different sections of the body. For example, if writing a scientific review article on screening digital breast tomosynthesis, cancer detection rates reported in one study may be discussed in a separate paragraph from the false-positive rates that were reported in the same study.

Emphasis should be placed on the significance of the study results in the broader context of the subject. The strengths and weaknesses of individual studies should be discussed. An example of this type of discussion is as follows: “Smith et al found no differences in re-excision rates among breast cancer patients who did and did not undergo preoperative MRI. However, there were several important limitations of this study. The radiologists were not required to have breast MRI interpretation experience, nor was it required that MRI-detected findings undergo biopsy prior to surgery.” Other examples of phrases that can be used for constructive criticism are available online ( 20 ).

The conclusion section ties everything together and clearly states the conclusions that are being drawn based on the research studies included and analyzed in the article. The authors are also encouraged to provide their views on future research, important challenges, and unanswered questions.

Scientific review articles tend to have a large number of supporting references (up to 100). When possible, referencing the original article (rather than a review article referring to the original article) is preferred. The use of a reference manager, such as EndNote (Clarivate, London, UK) ( 21 ), Mendeley Desktop (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) ( 22 ), Paperpile (Paperpile LLC, Cambridge, MA) ( 23 ), RefWorks (ProQuest, Ann Arbor, MI) ( 24 ), or Zotero (Corporation for Digital Scholarship, Fairfax, VA) ( 25 ), is highly encouraged, as it ensures appropriate reference ordering even when text is moved or added and can facilitate the switching of formats based on journal requirements ( 26 ).

Tables and Figures

The inclusion of tables and figures can improve the readability of the review. Detailed tables that review the scientific literature are expected ( Table 1 ). A table listing gaps in knowledge as potential areas for future research may also be included ( 17 ). Although scientific review articles are not expected to be as figure-rich as educational review articles, figures can be beneficial to illustrate complex concepts and summarize or synthesize relevant data ( Figure 2 ). Of note, if nonoriginal figures are used, permission from the copyright owner must be obtained.

Example of an Effective Table From a Scientific Review Article About Screening MRI in Women at Intermediate Risk of Breast Cancer.

Abbreviations: ADH, atypical ductal hyperplasia; ALH, atypical lobular hyperplasia; CDR, cancer detection rate; LCIS, lobular carcinoma in situ; NR, not reported; PPV, positive predictive value. NOTE: The Detailed Table Provides a Summary of the Relevant Scientific Literature on Screening MRI in women with lobular neoplasia or ADH. Adapted with permission from Bahl ( 10 ).

a The reported CDR is an incremental CDR in the studies by Friedlander et al and Chikarmane et al. In all studies, some, but not all, included patients had a prior MRI examination, so the reported CDR represents a combination of both the prevalent and incident CDRs.

b This study included 455 patients with LCIS (some of whom had concurrent ALH or ADH). Twenty-nine cancers were MRI-detected, and 115 benign biopsies were prompted by MRI findings.

Example of an effective figure from a scientific review article about breast cancer risk assessment. The figure provides a risk assessment algorithm for breast cancer. Reprinted with permission from Kim et al ( 28 ).

Select a Focused but Broad Enough Topic

A common pitfall is to be too ambitious in scope, resulting in a very time-consuming literature search and superficial coverage of some aspects of the topic. The ideal topic should be focused enough to be manageable but with a large enough body of available research to justify the need for a review article. One article on the topic of scientific reviews suggests that at least 15 to 20 relevant research papers published within the previous five years should be easily identifiable to warrant writing a review article ( 2 ).

Provide a Summary of Main Conclusions in the Abstract

Another common pitfall is to only introduce the topic and provide a roadmap for the article in the abstract. The abstract should also provide a summary of the main conclusions that are being drawn based on the research studies that were included and analyzed in the review article.

Be Objective

The content and key points of the article should be based on the published scientific literature and not biased toward one’s personal opinion.

Avoid Tedious Data Presentation

Extensive lists of statements about the findings of other authors (eg, author A found Z, author B found Y, while author C found X, etc) make it difficult for the reader to understand and follow the article. It is best for the writing to be thematic based on research findings rather than author-centered ( 27 ). Each paragraph in the body should begin with a thesis statement or main point, and the sentences that follow should consist of supporting evidence drawn from the literature. For example, in a scientific review article about artificial intelligence (AI) for screening mammography, one approach would be to write that article A found a higher cancer detection rate, higher efficiency, and a lower false-positive rate with use of the AI algorithm and article B found a similar cancer detection rate and higher efficiency, while article C found a higher cancer detection rate and higher false-positive rate. Rather, a better approach would be to write one or more paragraphs summarizing the literature on cancer detection rates, one or more paragraphs on false-positive rates, and one or more paragraphs on efficiency. The results from one study (eg, article A) need not all be discussed in the same paragraph.

Move from Description (Summary) to Analysis

A common pitfall is to describe and summarize the published literature without providing a critical analysis. The purpose of the narrative or traditional review article is not only to summarize relevant discoveries but also to synthesize the literature, discuss its limitations and implications, and speculate on the future.

Avoid Simplistic Conclusions

The scientific review article’s conclusions should consider the complexity of the topic and the quality of the evidence. When describing a study’s findings, it is best to use language that reflects the quality of the evidence rather than making definitive statements. For example, rather than stating that “The use of preoperative breast MRI leads to a reduction in re-excision rates,” the following comments could be made: “Two single-institution retrospective studies found that preoperative MRI was associated with lower rates of positive surgical margins, which suggests that preoperative MRI may lead to reduced re-excision rates. Larger studies with randomization of patients are needed to validate these findings.”

Budget Time for Researching, Synthesizing, and Writing

The amount of time necessary to write a high-quality scientific review article can easily be underestimated. The process of searching for and synthesizing the scientific literature on a topic can take weeks to months to complete depending on the number of authors involved in this process.

Scientific review articles are common in the medical literature and can serve as definitive references on the topic for other scientists, clinicians, and trainees. The first step in the process of preparing a scientific review article is to select a focused topic. This step is followed by a literature search and critical analysis of the published data. The components of the article include an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with the majority devoted to the body, in which the relevant literature is reviewed in detail. The article should be objective and balanced, with summaries and critical analysis of the available evidence. Budgeting time for researching, synthesizing, and writing; taking advantage of the resources listed in this article and available online; and soliciting feedback from co-authors at various stages of the process (eg, after an outline is created) can help new writers produce high-quality scientific review articles.

The author thanks Susanne L. Loomis (Medical and Scientific Communications, Strategic Communications, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA) for creating Figure 1 in this article.

None declared.

M.B. is a consultant for Lunit (medical AI software company) and an expert panelist for 2nd.MD (a digital health company). She also receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (K08CA241365). M.B. is an associate editor of the Journal of Breast Imaging . As such, she was excluded from the editorial process.

Ketcham CM , Crawford JM. The impact of review articles . Lab Invest 2007 ; 87 ( 12 ): 1174 – 1185 .

Google Scholar

Dhillon P. How to write a good scientific review article . FEBS J 2022 ; 289 ( 13 ): 3592 – 3602 .

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol 2013 ; 9 ( 7 ): e1003149 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149 .

Gregory AT , Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews—tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors . Heart Lung Circ 2018 ; 27 ( 7 ): 893 – 898 .

Heacock L , Reig B , Lewin AA , Toth HK , Moy L , Lee CS. Abbreviated breast MRI: road to clinical implementation . J Breast Imag 2020 ; 2 ( 3 ): 201 – 214 .

Neal CH. Screening breast MRI and gadolinium deposition: cause for concern ? J Breast Imag 2022 ; 4 ( 1 ): 10 – 18 .

Morris EA , Comstock CE , Lee CH , et al.  ACR BI-RADS ® Magnetic Resonance Imaging . In: ACR BI-RADS ® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System . Reston, VA : American College of Radiology ; 2013 .

Google Preview

Nguyen DL , Myers KS , Oluyemi E , et al.  BI-RADS 3 assessment on MRI: a lesion-based review for breast radiologists . J Breast Imag 2022 ; 4 ( 5 ): 460 – 473 .

Vong S , Ronco AJ , Najafpour E , Aminololama-Shakeri S. Screening breast MRI and the science of premenopausal background parenchymal enhancement . J Breast Imag 2021 ; 3 ( 4 ): 407 – 415 .

Bahl M. Screening MRI in women at intermediate breast cancer risk: an update of the recent literature . J Breast Imag 2022 ; 4 ( 3 ): 231 – 240 .

National Library of Medicine . PubMed . Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ . Accessed October 5, 2022 .

Elsevier . Scopus . Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/ . Accessed October 5, 2022 .

Clarivate . Web of Science . Available at: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/ . Accessed October 5, 2022 .

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Management . NIH Library . Available at: https://www.nihlibrary.nih.gov/services/systematic-review-service/literature-search-databases-and-gray-literature/ . Accessed October 5, 2022 .

Vidal EIO , Fukushima FB. The art and science of writing a scientific review article . Cad Saude Publica 2021 ; 37 ( 4 ): e00063121 . doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00063121 .

Baethge C , Goldbeck-Wood S , Mertens S. SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles . Res Integr Peer Rev 2019 ; 4 : 5 . doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8 .

Sanders DA. How to write (and how not to write) a scientific review article . Clin Biochem 2020 ; 81 : 65 – 68 .

Lingard L , Colquhoun H. The story behind the synthesis: writing an effective introduction to your scoping review . Perspect Med Educ 2022 ; 11 ( 5 ): 289 – 294 .

Murphy CM. Writing an effective review article . J Med Toxicol 2012 ; 8 ( 2 ): 89 – 90 .

The University of Manchester Academic Phrasebank . Being critical. Available at: https://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/being-critical/ . Accessed October 5, 2022 .

Clarivate . EndNote . Available at: https://endnote.com/ . Accessed October 5, 2022 .

Mendeley . Getting started with Mendeley Desktop . Available at: https://www.mendeley.com/guides/desktop/ . Accessed October 5, 2022 .

Paperpile . Available at: https://paperpile.com/ . Accessed October 5, 2022 .

RefWorks . Available at: https://www.refworks.com/refworks2/ . Accessed October 5, 2022 .

Zotero . Available at: https://www.zotero.org/ . Accessed October 5, 2022 .

Grimm LJ , Harvey JA. Practical steps to writing a scientific manuscript . J Breast Imag 2022 ; 4 ( 6 ): 640 – 648 .

Gasparyan AY , Ayvazyan L , Blackmore H , Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors . Rheumatol Int 2011 ; 31 ( 11 ): 1409 – 1417 .

Kim G , Bahl M. Assessing risk of breast cancer: a review of risk prediction models . J Breast Imag 2021 ; 3 ( 2 ): 144 – 155 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2631-6129
• Print ISSN 2631-6110
• Copyright © 2023 Society of Breast Imaging
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2023 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Plasmids Topic Overview
• Plasmids 101
• Molecular Biology Protocols and Tips
• Plasmid Cloning
• Plasmid Elements
• Plasmid Tags
• New Plasmids at Addgene
• Other Plasmid Tools
• Download the Plasmids 101 eBook
• CRISPR Topic Overview
• Base Editing
• Cas Proteins
• CRISPR Biosafety
• CRISPR Expression Systems and Delivery Methods
• CRISPR Pooled Libraries
• CRISPR Visualize
• CRISPR gRNAs
• CRISPR Protocols and Tips
• CRISPR Therapeutic Applications
• Other CRISPR Tools
• Download the CRISPR 101 eBook
• Viral Vectors Topic Overview
• Viral Vectors 101
• Addgene’s Viral Service
• Adenoviral Vectors
• Chemogenetics
• Cell Tracing
• Neuroscience Biosensors
• Optogenetics
• Retroviral and Lentiviral Vectors
• Viral Vector Protocols and Tips
• Download the Viral Vector eBook
• Fluorescent Proteins Topic Overview
• Fluorescent Proteins 101
• Fluorescent Biosensors
• Fluorescent Imaging
• Generating Fusions
• Localization with Fluorescent Proteins
• Luminescence
• Non-protein Fluorophores
• Other Fluorescent Protein Tools
• Download the Fluorescent Protein eBook
• Science Career Topic Overview
• Applying for Jobs
• Conferences
• Early Career Researcher
• Management for Scientists
• Mentoring for Scientists
• Professional development
• Science Career Options
• Download the Science Career Guide
• Microbiology
• Neuroscience
• Plant Biology
• Model Organisms
• Scientific Sharing
• Scientific Publishing
• Science Communication
• Using Addgene's Website
• Addgene News

How to Write a Scientific Review Article

By Leila Haery

Choose the topic and outline the organization of the review

Once you start reading, there will be a temptation to include every piece of information that was ever published. Obviously this isn’t possible. So, define your scope from the onset. Perhaps you, a colleague, or your adviser was invited to write on a particular topic. Alternatively, maybe you’re researching a topic for which no relevant or recent review exists. Once you pick a topic, try to be specific about exactly what aspect of the field you plan to review. If it’s a well-researched field, you may need to get specific to make sure your article doesn’t turn into a textbook.

Get the journal’s submission rules for review articles

Whether submitting a review by invitation or by your own accord,  once you have these rules (word limit, formatting guidelines, etc.) you have some criteria to shape the document.

Get and use a reference management program (e.g., EndNote , Papers , Mendeley , etc.)

You’re going to be managing a lot of references. I cite as I write, meaning I use the software to add the citations in real time as I write. Things are going to get a little crazy (meaning you are probably going to cite hundreds of references) and it’s better to keep your references organized from the beginning. I also recommend using the citation style of (Last name, Year) in the document while writing, because it helps you later on to remember where you read particular studies or experiments. Later, you can easily convert the citation style to whatever the journal requires. Using the (Last name, Year) format also has the benefit of exposing you to relevant researchers in the field. Finally, you can sound credible and cool when you casually mention “Haery et al., showed that MYC expression was increased…” when discussing the review topic with your peers.

Start reading!

I started by reading other reviews because, as I mentioned, I wasn’t an expert in the field. To find reviews, I just searched online and found ones that I thought “looked good” by no definitive criteria. I read these articles to get a sense of the themes in the field and to learn what people cared about. I also used reviews to get a list of research papers that I needed to read. Once I had an idea of the themes in the field, I searched for recent research papers on these particular themes, for seminal papers on these themes, and also for articles from the active/well-known researchers in the field. I made sure to find information from genome-wide studies, as well as results from smaller and more specific studies. I also did not limit myself to the well-cited or popular papers, but looked for papers from a wide range of authors.

Just start writing

When I first started I thought I would read a bunch of papers and then feel ready to write. What actually happened was that each paper taught me a few things and also highlighted a few dozen things that I didn’t know about. Instead of reading a paper and getting my bearings, I would read a paper, panic, and then download a bunch of other papers. In mathematics, I think this is represented by factorials. In environmental science and ecology, this can be represented by the tip of the iceberg. For writers, this is probably “a normal day.” The way I broke this cycle was to just start writing.

No really, just start writing!

Don’t worry about grammar or formatting or continuity. Also don’t worry if you feel like you don’t still know enough about the topic. Just get as many words down on the page as possible. This could be in the form of lists, streams of consciousness, or anything else. Like I mentioned, I also added citations in real time as I wrote, so each statement was referenced even in the roughest version of the draft and I didn’t have to worry about having to hunt down sources later on. 

A comment about citing: I wasn’t sure if I should cite reviews or the primary literature or both. I ended up citing both because I used both.

Curate and present some useful data

Typically lists and pictures are the most useful parts of reviews. These could be in the form of figures/schematics or tables. And don’t forget to include citations so that people can go back and read the original reference for the data. For example, we summarized how frequently each member of a class of proteins was mutated, as reported in various studies. We made a table that listed each protein in the class, then for each protein we listed all the studies that reported mutations in that protein (including how frequently a mutation was found and the size of the study). This was useful because you could easily see how frequently each protein was mutated, you could see how big the studies were, and you could find the original paper if you wanted to learn more. Another example: we made a schematic of all the proteins in the class that showed the relative sizes and the conserved domains. This information was available in GenBank, but it was useful to present it all in one place to get a sense of the similarities and differences among proteins in the class.

Offer your perspective

It doesn’t have to be long and it doesn’t have to be revolutionary, but you could include a few comments on where you think the field is going or what areas are worth exploring. 

Edit and rewrite, then repeat

If you’re like me, your rough draft is really rough and so editing is going to be a long process. I was lucky in that my adviser always played an active role in writing and editing, so I always had someone to send drafts back and forth with. That being said, we probably exchanged dozens of drafts of the manuscript. This is the time to transform the document into something cohesive-- change the sentences, make it flow, and start telling the story. Like any editing process, you will need time away from the article to be able to keep editing it effectively. You will also begin to hate the article. This is normal and it means you’re on the right track! 

Get feedback

After you’re done editing, send it to some actual experts in the field for their feedback on the scope and the content.

Submit your article!

Overall, writing a review can be overwhelming and challenging. My best advice is don’t overthink it. And to quote my adviser, "you just gotta do it." At the end of the day, someone has to write the article and that someone is going to be you. So, just do it! I will also paraphrase what I have heard many other creative people say about writing: you don’t know what it’s going to look like when it’s done, but you know what it looks like when it's not done. So, as long as it doesn't look done, just keep working on it. Also bear in mind that this is just a review article and not your life’s work: so remember that done is better than perfect. Good luck!

1. Haery, Leila, Ryan C. Thompson, and Thomas D. Gilmore. "Histone acetyltransferases and histone deacetylases in B-and T-cell development, physiology and malignancy." Genes & cancer 6.5-6 (2015): 184. PubMed PMID: 26124919 . PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4482241 .

Additional Resources on the Addgene Blog

• Writing Scientific Manuscripts: Literature Searching, Reading, & Organizing
• Tips for Improving Your Next Manuscript
• 6 Tips for Grant Writing

Resources on Addgene.org

• Check out Our Hot Plasmids Articles to See Compiled Info on New Plasmids
• Review the CRISPR Field with Our CRISPR Guide Pages

Topics: Scientific Sharing , Scientific Publishing

Leave a Comment

Add Comment

Sharing science just got easier... Subscribe to our blog

Follow addgene on social.

Addgene is a nonprofit repository. We distribute high quality plasmids, virus, antibodies and more from your colleagues.

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• addgene.org