easy research articles to critique

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

• 1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
• 2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
• 3 Article Critique Outline
• 4 Article Critique Formatting
• 5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
• 6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
• 7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
• 8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

• A brief summary of the article .
• A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
• A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

• Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
• Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
• Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
• Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
• Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
• Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
• Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

• The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
• The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
• The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

• Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
• Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
• Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

• Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
• Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
• Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
• Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
• The purpose of the study
• The research question or questions
• The methods used
• The outcomes
• The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
• Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

• Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
• Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
• Use evidence from to support your points.
• Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY
• Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

• Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
• What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
• Was the sample too small to generalize from?
• Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
• How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
• How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
• Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
• Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
• How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
• What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

• << Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland.
• PMID: 16114192
• DOI: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38

Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.

Publication types

• Data Interpretation, Statistical
• Research Design
• Review Literature as Topic

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Published: 01 October 2023

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

• Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
• Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
• Hypothesis or aims of the study
• Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

• What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
• What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
• Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
• Were there any obvious biases?
• If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

• There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
• Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
• The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

• Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Sarah Vogel View profile

Help and feedback, publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• ScientificWorldJournal
• v.2024; 2024
• PMC10807936

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Ayodeji amobonye.

1 Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

2 Writing Centre, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334 KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

Japareng Lalung

3 School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Santhosh Pillai

Associated data.

The data and materials that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable as both students and researchers rely on these articles as the starting point for their research. Interestingly, many postgraduate students are expected to write review articles for journal publications as a way of demonstrating their ability to contribute to new knowledge in their respective fields. However, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide them on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. The dearth of ample guidance or explicit training results in students having to learn all by themselves, usually by trial and error, which often leads to high rejection rates from publishing houses. Therefore, this article seeks to identify these challenges from a beginner's perspective and strives to plug the identified gaps and discrepancies. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a systematic guide for emerging scientists and to summarise the most important information on how to write and structure a publishable review article.

1. Introduction

Early scientists, spanning from the Ancient Egyptian civilization to the Scientific Revolution of the 16 th /17 th century, based their research on intuitions, personal observations, and personal insights. Thus, less time was spent on background reading as there was not much literature to refer to. This is well illustrated in the case of Sir Isaac Newton's apple tree and the theory of gravity, as well as Gregor Mendel's pea plants and the theory of inheritance. However, with the astronomical expansion in scientific knowledge and the emergence of the information age in the last century, new ideas are now being built on previously published works, thus the periodic need to appraise the huge amount of already published literature [ 1 ]. According to Birkle et al. [ 2 ], the Web of Science—an authoritative database of research publications and citations—covered more than 80 million scholarly materials. Hence, a critical review of prior and relevant literature is indispensable for any research endeavour as it provides the necessary framework needed for synthesising new knowledge and for highlighting new insights and perspectives [ 3 ].

Review papers are generally considered secondary research publications that sum up already existing works on a particular research topic or question and relate them to the current status of the topic. This makes review articles distinctly different from scientific research papers. While the primary aim of the latter is to develop new arguments by reporting original research, the former is focused on summarising and synthesising previous ideas, studies, and arguments, without adding new experimental contributions. Review articles basically describe the content and quality of knowledge that are currently available, with a special focus on the significance of the previous works. To this end, a review article cannot simply reiterate a subject matter, but it must contribute to the field of knowledge by synthesising available materials and offering a scholarly critique of theory [ 4 ]. Typically, these articles critically analyse both quantitative and qualitative studies by scrutinising experimental results, the discussion of the experimental data, and in some instances, previous review articles to propose new working theories. Thus, a review article is more than a mere exhaustive compilation of all that has been published on a topic; it must be a balanced, informative, perspective, and unbiased compendium of previous studies which may also include contrasting findings, inconsistencies, and conventional and current views on the subject [ 5 ].

Hence, the essence of a review article is measured by what is achieved, what is discovered, and how information is communicated to the reader [ 6 ]. According to Steward [ 7 ], a good literature review should be analytical, critical, comprehensive, selective, relevant, synthetic, and fully referenced. On the other hand, a review article is considered to be inadequate if it is lacking in focus or outcome, overgeneralised, opinionated, unbalanced, and uncritical [ 7 ]. Most review papers fail to meet these standards and thus can be viewed as mere summaries of previous works in a particular field of study. In one of the few studies that assessed the quality of review articles, none of the 50 papers that were analysed met the predefined criteria for a good review [ 8 ]. However, beginners must also realise that there is no bad writing in the true sense; there is only writing in evolution and under refinement. Literally, every piece of writing can be improved upon, right from the first draft until the final published manuscript. Hence, a paper can only be referred to as bad and unfixable when the author is not open to corrections or when the writer gives up on it.

According to Peat et al. [ 9 ], “everything is easy when you know how,” a maxim which applies to scientific writing in general and review writing in particular. In this regard, the authors emphasized that the writer should be open to learning and should also follow established rules instead of following a blind trial-and-error approach. In contrast to the popular belief that review articles should only be written by experienced scientists and researchers, recent trends have shown that many early-career scientists, especially postgraduate students, are currently expected to write review articles during the course of their studies. However, these scholars have little or no access to formal training on how to analyse and synthesise the research literature in their respective fields [ 10 ]. Consequently, students seeking guidance on how to write or improve their literature reviews are less likely to find published works on the subject, particularly in the science fields. Although various publications have dealt with the challenges of searching for literature, or writing literature reviews for dissertation/thesis purposes, there is little or no information on how to write a comprehensive review article for publication. In addition to the paucity of published information to guide the potential author, the lack of understanding of what constitutes a review paper compounds their challenges. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a guide for writing review papers for journal publishing. This work draws on the experience of the authors to assist early-career scientists/researchers in the “hard skill” of authoring review articles. Even though there is no single path to writing scientifically, or to writing reviews in particular, this paper attempts to simplify the process by looking at this subject from a beginner's perspective. Hence, this paper highlights the differences between the types of review articles in the sciences while also explaining the needs and purpose of writing review articles. Furthermore, it presents details on how to search for the literature as well as how to structure the manuscript to produce logical and coherent outputs. It is hoped that this work will ease prospective scientific writers into the challenging but rewarding art of writing review articles.

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

Analysing literature gives an overview of the “WHs”: WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [ 11 ]. For new or aspiring researchers in a particular field, it can be quite challenging to get a comprehensive overview of their respective fields, especially the historical trends and what has been studied previously. As such, the importance of review articles to knowledge appraisal and contribution cannot be overemphasised, which is reflected in the constant demand for such articles in the research community. However, it is also important for the author, especially the first-time author, to recognise the importance of his/her investing time and effort into writing a quality review article.

Generally, literature reviews are undertaken for many reasons, mainly for publication and for dissertation purposes. The major purpose of literature reviews is to provide direction and information for the improvement of scientific knowledge. They also form a significant component in the research process and in academic assessment [ 12 ]. There may be, however, a thin line between a dissertation literature review and a published review article, given that with some modifications, a literature review can be transformed into a legitimate and publishable scholarly document. According to Gülpınar and Güçlü [ 6 ], the basic motivation for writing a review article is to make a comprehensive synthesis of the most appropriate literature on a specific research inquiry or topic. Thus, conducting a literature review assists in demonstrating the author's knowledge about a particular field of study, which may include but not be limited to its history, theories, key variables, vocabulary, phenomena, and methodologies [ 10 ]. Furthermore, publishing reviews is beneficial as it permits the researchers to examine different questions and, as a result, enhances the depth and diversity of their scientific reasoning [ 1 ]. In addition, writing review articles allows researchers to share insights with the scientific community while identifying knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research. The review writing process can also be a useful tool in training early-career scientists in leadership, coordination, project management, and other important soft skills necessary for success in the research world [ 13 ]. Another important reason for authoring reviews is that such publications have been observed to be remarkably influential, extending the reach of an author in multiple folds of what can be achieved by primary research papers [ 1 ]. The trend in science is for authors to receive more citations from their review articles than from their original research articles. According to Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero [ 14 ], review articles are, on average, three times more frequently cited than original research articles; they also asserted that a 20% increase in review authorship could result in a 40–80% increase in citations of the author. As a result, writing reviews can significantly impact a researcher's citation output and serve as a valuable channel to reach a wider scientific audience. In addition, the references cited in a review article also provide the reader with an opportunity to dig deeper into the topic of interest. Thus, review articles can serve as a valuable repository for consultation, increasing the visibility of the authors and resulting in more citations.

3. Types of Review Articles

The first step in writing a good literature review is to decide on the particular type of review to be written; hence, it is important to distinguish and understand the various types of review articles. Although scientific review articles have been classified according to various schemes, however, they are broadly categorised into narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses [ 15 ]. It was observed that more authors—as well as publishers—were leaning towards systematic reviews and meta-analysis while downplaying narrative reviews; however, the three serve different aims and should all be considered equally important in science [ 1 ]. Bibliometric reviews and patent reviews, which are closely related to meta-analysis, have also gained significant attention recently. However, from another angle, a review could also be of two types. In the first class, authors could deal with a widely studied topic where there is already an accumulated body of knowledge that requires analysis and synthesis [ 3 ]. At the other end of the spectrum, the authors may have to address an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations; hence, their contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model [ 3 ].

3.1. Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviewers are mainly focused on providing clarification and critical analysis on a particular topic or body of literature through interpretative synthesis, creativity, and expert judgement. According to Green et al. [ 16 ], a narrative review can be in the form of editorials, commentaries, and narrative overviews. However, editorials and commentaries are usually expert opinions; hence, a beginner is more likely to write a narrative overview, which is more general and is also referred to as an unsystematic narrative review. Similarly, the literature review section of most dissertations and empirical papers is typically narrative in nature. Typically, narrative reviews combine results from studies that may have different methodologies to address different questions or to formulate a broad theoretical formulation [ 1 ]. They are largely integrative as strong focus is placed on the assimilation and synthesis of various aspects in the review, which may involve comparing and contrasting research findings or deriving structured implications [ 17 ]. In addition, they are also qualitative studies because they do not follow strict selection processes; hence, choosing publications is relatively more subjective and unsystematic [ 18 ]. However, despite their popularity, there are concerns about their inherent subjectivity. In many instances, when the supporting data for narrative reviews are examined more closely, the evaluations provided by the author(s) become quite questionable [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, if the goal of the author is to formulate a new theory that connects diverse strands of research, a narrative method is most appropriate.

3.2. Systematic Reviews

In contrast to narrative reviews, which are generally descriptive, systematic reviews employ a systematic approach to summarise evidence on research questions. Hence, systematic reviews make use of precise and rigorous criteria to identify, evaluate, and subsequently synthesise all relevant literature on a particular topic [ 12 , 20 ]. As a result, systematic reviews are more likely to inspire research ideas by identifying knowledge gaps or inconsistencies, thus helping the researcher to clearly define the research hypotheses or questions [ 21 ]. Furthermore, systematic reviews may serve as independent research projects in their own right, as they follow a defined methodology to search and combine reliable results to synthesise a new database that can be used for a variety of purposes [ 22 ]. Typically, the peculiarities of the individual reviewer, different search engines, and information databases used all ensure that no two searches will yield the same systematic results even if the searches are conducted simultaneously and under identical criteria [ 11 ]. Hence, attempts are made at standardising the exercise via specific methods that would limit bias and chance effects, prevent duplications, and provide more accurate results upon which conclusions and decisions can be made.

The most established of these methods is the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines which objectively defined statements, guidelines, reporting checklists, and flowcharts for undertaking systematic reviews as well as meta-analysis [ 23 ]. Though mainly designed for research in medical sciences, the PRISMA approach has gained wide acceptance in other fields of science and is based on eight fundamental propositions. These include the explicit definition of the review question, an unambiguous outline of the study protocol, an objective and exhaustive systematic review of reputable literature, and an unambiguous identification of included literature based on defined selection criteria [ 24 ]. Other considerations include an unbiased appraisal of the quality of the selected studies (literature), organic synthesis of the evidence of the study, preparation of the manuscript based on the reporting guidelines, and periodic update of the review as new data emerge [ 24 ]. Other methods such as PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols), MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) have since been developed for systematic reviews (and meta-analysis), with most of them being derived from PRISMA.

Consequently, systematic reviews—unlike narrative reviews—must contain a methodology section which in addition to all that was highlighted above must fully describe the precise criteria used in formulating the research question and setting the inclusion or exclusion criteria used in selecting/accessing the literature. Similarly, the criteria for evaluating the quality of the literature included in the review as well as for analysing, synthesising, and disseminating the findings must be fully described in the methodology section.

3.3. Meta-Analysis

Meta-analyses are considered as more specialised forms of systematic reviews. Generally, they combine the results of many studies that use similar or closely related methods to address the same question or share a common quantitative evaluation method [ 25 ]. However, meta-analyses are also a step higher than other systematic reviews as they are focused on numerical data and involve the use of statistics in evaluating different studies and synthesising new knowledge. The major advantage of this type of review is the increased statistical power leading to more reliable results for inferring modest associations and a more comprehensive understanding of the true impact of a research study [ 26 ]. Unlike in traditional systematic reviews, research topics covered in meta-analyses must be mature enough to allow the inclusion of sufficient homogeneous empirical research in terms of subjects, interventions, and outcomes [ 27 , 28 ].

Being an advanced form of systematic review, meta-analyses must also have a distinct methodology section; hence, the standard procedures involved in the traditional systematic review (especially PRISMA) also apply in meta-analyses [ 23 ]. In addition to the common steps in formulating systematic reviews, meta-analyses are required to describe how nested and missing data are handled, the effect observed in each study, the confidence interval associated with each synthesised effect, and any potential for bias presented within the sample(s) [ 17 ]. According to Paul and Barari [ 28 ], a meta-analysis must also detail the final sample, the meta-analytic model, and the overall analysis, moderator analysis, and software employed. While the overall analysis involves the statistical characterization of the relationships between variables in the meta-analytic framework and their significance, the moderator analysis defines the different variables that may affect variations in the original studies [ 28 , 29 ]. It must also be noted that the accuracy and reliability of meta-analyses have both been significantly enhanced by the incorporation of statistical approaches such as Bayesian analysis [ 30 ], network analysis [ 31 ], and more recently, machine learning [ 32 ].

3.4. Bibliometric Review

A bibliometric review, commonly referred to as bibliometric analysis, is a systematic evaluation of published works within a specific field or discipline [ 33 ]. This bibliometric methodology involves the use of quantitative methods to analyse bibliometric data such as the characteristics and numbers of publications, units of citations, authorship, co-authorship, and journal impact factors [ 34 ]. Academics use bibliometric analysis with different objectives in mind, which includes uncovering emerging trends in article and journal performance, elaborating collaboration patterns and research constituents, evaluating the impact and influence of particular authors, publications, or research groups, and highlighting the intellectual framework of a certain field [ 35 ]. It is also used to inform policy and decision-making. Similarly to meta-analysis, bibliometric reviews rely upon quantitative techniques, thus avoiding the interpretation bias that could arise from the qualitative techniques of other types of reviews [ 36 ]. However, while bibliometric analysis synthesises the bibliometric and intellectual structure of a field by examining the social and structural linkages between various research parts, meta-analysis focuses on summarising empirical evidence by probing the direction and strength of effects and relationships among variables, especially in open research questions [ 37 , 38 ]. However, similarly to systematic review and meta-analysis, a bibliometric review also requires a well-detailed methodology section. The amount of data to be analysed in bibliometric analysis is quite massive, running to hundreds and tens of thousands in some cases. Although the data are objective in nature (e.g., number of citations and publications and occurrences of keywords and topics), the interpretation is usually carried out through both objective (e.g., performance analysis) and subjective (e.g., thematic analysis) evaluations [ 35 ]. However, the invention and availability of bibliometric software such as BibExcel, Gephi, Leximancer, and VOSviewer and scientific databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus have made this type of analysis more feasible.

3.5. Patent Review

Patent reviews provide a comprehensive analysis and critique of a specific patent or a group of related patents, thus presenting a concise understanding of the technology or innovation that is covered by the patent [ 39 ]. This type of article is useful for researchers as it also enhances their understanding of the legal, technical, and commercial aspects of an intellectual property/innovation; in addition, it is also important for stakeholders outside the research community including IP (intellectual property) specialists, legal professionals, and technology-transfer officers [ 40 ]. Typically, patent reviews encompass the scope, background, claims, legal implications, technical specifications, and potential commercial applications of the patent(s). The article may also include a discussion of the patent's strengths and weaknesses, as well as its potential impact on the industry or field in which it operates. Most times, reviews are time specified, they may be regionalised, and the data are usually retrieved via patent searches on databases such as that of the European Patent Office ( https://www.epo.org/searching.html ), United States Patent and Trademark Office ( https://patft.uspto.gov/ ), the World Intellectual Property Organization's PATENTSCOPE ( https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf ), Google Patent ( https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts ), and China National Intellectual Property Administration ( https://pss-system.cponline.cnipa.gov.cn/conventionalSearch ). According to Cerimi et al. [ 41 ], the retrieved data and analysed may include the patent number, patent status, filing date, application date, grant dates, inventor, assignee, and pending applications. While data analysis is usually carried out by general data software such as Microsoft Excel, an intelligence software solely dedicated to patent research and analysis, Orbit Intelligence has been found to be more efficient [ 39 ]. It is also mandatory to include a methodology section in a patent review, and this should be explicit, thorough, and precise to allow a clear understanding of how the analysis was carried out and how the conclusions were arrived at.

4. Searching Literature

One of the most challenging tasks in writing a review article on a subject is the search for relevant literature to populate the manuscript as the author is required to garner information from an endless number of sources. This is even more challenging as research outputs have been increasing astronomically, especially in the last decade, with thousands of new articles published annually in various fields. It is therefore imperative that the author must not only be aware of the overall trajectory in a field of investigation but must also be cognizant of recent studies so as not to publish outdated research or review articles. Basically, the search for the literature involves a coherent conceptual structuring of the topic itself and a thorough collation of evidence under the common themes which might reflect the histories, conflicts, standoffs, revolutions, and/or evolutions in the field [ 7 ]. To start the search process, the author must carefully identify and select broad keywords relevant to the subject; subsequently, the keywords should be developed to refine the search into specific subheadings that would facilitate the structure of the review.

Two main tactics have been identified for searching the literature, namely, systematic and snowballing [ 42 ]. The systematic approach involves searching literature with specific keywords (for example, cancer, antioxidant, and nanoparticles), which leads to an almost unmanageable and overwhelming list of possible sources [ 43 ]. The snowballing approach, however, involves the identification of a particular publication, followed by the compilation of a bibliography of articles based on the reference list of the identified publication [ 44 ]. Many times, it might be necessary to combine both approaches, but irrespective, the author must keep an accurate track and record of papers cited in the search. A simple and efficient strategy for populating the bibliography of review articles is to go through the abstract (and sometimes the conclusion) of a paper; if the abstract is related to the topic of discourse, the author might go ahead and read the entire article; otherwise, he/she is advised to move on [ 45 ]. Winchester and Salji [ 5 ] noted that to learn the background of the subject/topic to be reviewed, starting literature searches with academic textbooks or published review articles is imperative, especially for beginners. Furthermore, it would also assist in compiling the list of keywords, identifying areas of further exploration, and providing a glimpse of the current state of the research. However, past reviews ideally are not to serve as the foundation of a new review as they are written from someone else's viewpoint, which might have been tainted with some bias. Fortunately, the accessibility and search for the literature have been made relatively easier than they were a few decades ago as the current information age has placed an enormous volume of knowledge right at our fingertips [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, when gathering the literature from the Internet, authors should exercise utmost caution as much of the information may not be verified or peer-reviewed and thus may be unregulated and unreliable. For instance, Wikipedia, despite being a large repository of information with more than 6.7 million articles in the English language alone, is considered unreliable for scientific literature reviews, due to its openness to public editing [ 47 ]. However, in addition to peer-reviewed journal publications—which are most ideal—reviews can also be drawn from a wide range of other sources such as technical documents, in-house reports, conference abstracts, and conference proceedings. Similarly, “Google Scholar”—as against “Google” and other general search engines—is more appropriate as its searches are restricted to only academic articles produced by scholarly societies or/and publishers [ 48 ]. Furthermore, the various electronic databases, such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, many of which focus on specific fields of research, are also ideal options [ 49 ]. Advancement in computer indexing has remarkably expanded the ease and ability to search large databases for every potentially relevant article. In addition to searching by topic, literature search can be modified by time; however, there must be a balance between old papers and recent ones. The general consensus in science is that publications less than five years old are considered recent.

It is important, especially in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, that the specific method of running the computer searches be properly documented as there is the need to include this in the method (methodology) section of such papers. Typically, the method details the keywords, databases explored, search terms used, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied in the selection of data and any other specific decision/criteria. All of these will ensure the reproducibility and thoroughness of the search and the selection procedure. However, Randolph [ 10 ] noted that Internet searches might not give the exhaustive list of articles needed for a review article; hence, it is advised that authors search through the reference lists of articles that were obtained initially from the Internet search. After determining the relevant articles from the list, the author should read through the references of these articles and repeat the cycle until saturation is reached [ 10 ]. After populating the articles needed for the literature review, the next step is to analyse them individually and in their whole entirety. A systematic approach to this is to identify the key information within the papers, examine them in depth, and synthesise original perspectives by integrating the information and making inferences based on the findings. In this regard, it is imperative to link one source to the other in a logical manner, for instance, taking note of studies with similar methodologies, papers that agree, or results that are contradictory [ 42 ].

5. Structuring the Review Article

The title and abstract are the main selling points of a review article, as most readers will only peruse these two elements and usually go on to read the full paper if they are drawn in by either or both of the two. Tullu [ 50 ] recommends that the title of a scientific paper “should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and not be misleading.” In addition to providing “just enough details” to entice the reader, words in the titles are also used by electronic databases, journal websites, and search engines to index and retrieve a particular paper during a search [ 51 ]. Titles are of different types and must be chosen according to the topic under review. They are generally classified as descriptive, declarative, or interrogative and can also be grouped into compound, nominal, or full-sentence titles [ 50 ]. The subject of these categorisations has been extensively discussed in many articles; however, the reader must also be aware of the compound titles, which usually contain a main title and a subtitle. Typically, subtitles provide additional context—to the main title—and they may specify the geographic scope of the research, research methodology, or sample size [ 52 ].

Just like primary research articles, there are many debates about the optimum length of a review article's title. However, the general consensus is to keep the title as brief as possible while not being too general. A title length between 10 and 15 words is recommended, since longer titles can be more challenging to comprehend. Paiva et al. [ 53 ] observed that articles which contain 95 characters or less get more views and citations. However, emphasis must be placed on conciseness as the audience will be more satisfied if they can understand what exactly the review has contributed to the field, rather than just a hint about the general topic area. Authors should also endeavour to stick to the journal's specific requirements, especially regarding the length of the title and what they should or should not contain [ 9 ]. Thus, avoidance of filler words such as “a review on/of,” “an observation of,” or “a study of” is a very simple way to limit title length. In addition, abbreviations or acronyms should be avoided in the title, except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as AIDS, DNA, HIV, and RNA. In summary, to write an effective title, the authors should consider the following points. What is the paper about? What was the methodology used? What were the highlights and major conclusions? Subsequently, the author should list all the keywords from these answers, construct a sentence from these keywords, and finally delete all redundant words from the sentence title. It is also possible to gain some ideas by scanning indices and article titles in major journals in the field. It is important to emphasise that a title is not chosen and set in stone, and the title is most likely to be continually revised and adjusted until the end of the writing process.

5.2. Abstract

The abstract, also referred to as the synopsis, is a summary of the full research paper; it is typically independent and can stand alone. For most readers, a publication does not exist beyond the abstract, partly because abstracts are often the only section of a paper that is made available to the readers at no cost, whereas the full paper may attract a payment or subscription [ 54 ]. Thus, the abstract is supposed to set the tone for the few readers who wish to read the rest of the paper. It has also been noted that the abstract gives the first impression of a research work to journal editors, conference scientific committees, or referees, who might outright reject the paper if the abstract is poorly written or inadequate [ 50 ]. Hence, it is imperative that the abstract succinctly represents the entire paper and projects it positively. Just like the title, abstracts have to be balanced, comprehensive, concise, functional, independent, precise, scholarly, and unbiased and not be misleading [ 55 ]. Basically, the abstract should be formulated using keywords from all the sections of the main manuscript. Thus, it is pertinent that the abstract conveys the focus, key message, rationale, and novelty of the paper without any compromise or exaggeration. Furthermore, the abstract must be consistent with the rest of the paper; as basic as this instruction might sound, it is not to be taken for granted. For example, a study by Vrijhoef and Steuten [ 56 ] revealed that 18–68% of 264 abstracts from some scientific journals contained information that was inconsistent with the main body of the publications.

Abstracts can either be structured or unstructured; in addition, they can further be classified as either descriptive or informative. Unstructured abstracts, which are used by many scientific journals, are free flowing with no predefined subheadings, while structured abstracts have specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed. Structured abstracts have been noted to be more informative and are usually divided into subsections which include the study background/introduction, objectives, methodology design, results, and conclusions [ 57 ]. No matter the style chosen, the author must carefully conform to the instructions provided by the potential journal of submission, which may include but are not limited to the format, font size/style, word limit, and subheadings [ 58 ]. The word limit for abstracts in most scientific journals is typically between 150 and 300 words. It is also a general rule that abstracts do not contain any references whatsoever.

Typically, an abstract should be written in the active voice, and there is no such thing as a perfect abstract as it could always be improved on. It is advised that the author first makes an initial draft which would contain all the essential parts of the paper, which could then be polished subsequently. The draft should begin with a brief background which would lead to the research questions. It might also include a general overview of the methodology used (if applicable) and importantly, the major results/observations/highlights of the review paper. The abstract should end with one or few sentences about any implications, perspectives, or future research that may be developed from the review exercise. Finally, the authors should eliminate redundant words and edit the abstract to the correct word count permitted by the journal [ 59 ]. It is always beneficial to read previous abstracts published in the intended journal, related topics/subjects from other journals, and other reputable sources. Furthermore, the author should endeavour to get feedback on the abstract especially from peers and co-authors. As the abstract is the face of the whole paper, it is best that it is the last section to be finalised, as by this time, the author would have developed a clearer understanding of the findings and conclusions of the entire paper.

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

Since the mid-2000s, an increasing number of journals now require authors to provide a graphical abstract (GA) in addition to the traditional written abstract, to increase the accessibility of scientific publications to readers [ 60 ]. A study showed that publications with GA performed better than those without it, when the abstract views, total citations, and downloads were compared [ 61 ]. However, the GA should provide “a single, concise pictorial, and visual summary of the main findings of an article” [ 62 ]. Although they are meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole paper, it has been noted that they are not so easily comprehensible without having read through the traditionally written abstract [ 63 ]. It is important to note that, like traditional abstracts, many reputable journals require GAs to adhere to certain specifications such as colour, dimension, quality, file size, and file format (usually JPEG/JPG, PDF, PNG, or TIFF). In addition, it is imperative to use engaging and accurate figures, all of which must be synthesised in order to accurately reflect the key message of the paper. Currently, there are various online or downloadable graphical tools that can be used for creating GAs, such as Microsoft Paint or PowerPoint, Mindthegraph, ChemDraw, CorelDraw, and BioRender.

5.4. Keywords

As a standard practice, journals require authors to select 4–8 keywords (or phrases), which are typically listed below the abstract. A good set of keywords will enable indexers and search engines to find relevant papers more easily and can be considered as a very concise abstract [ 64 ]. According to Dewan and Gupta [ 51 ], the selection of appropriate keywords will significantly enhance the retrieval, accession, and consequently, the citation of the review paper. Ideally, keywords can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, the abstract, and the main text, but they should ideally not be the exact words in the main title. Choosing the most appropriate keywords for a review article involves listing down the key terms and phrases in the article, including abbreviations. Subsequently, a quick review of the glossary/vocabulary/term list or indexing standard in the specific discipline will assist in selecting the best and most precise keywords that match those used in the databases from the list drawn. In addition, the keywords should not be broad or general terms (e.g., DNA, biology, and enzymes) but must be specific to the field or subfield of study as well as to the particular paper [ 65 ].

5.5. Introduction

The introduction of an article is the first major section of the manuscript, and it presents basic information to the reader without compelling them to study past publications. In addition, the introduction directs the reader to the main arguments and points developed in the main body of the article while clarifying the current state of knowledge in that particular area of research [ 12 ]. The introduction part of a review article is usually sectionalised into background information, a description of the main topic and finally a statement of the main purpose of the review [ 66 ]. Authors may begin the introduction with brief general statements—which provide background knowledge on the subject matter—that lead to more specific ones [ 67 ]. It is at this point that the reader's attention must be caught as the background knowledge must highlight the importance and justification for the subject being discussed, while also identifying the major problem to be addressed [ 68 ]. In addition, the background should be broad enough to attract even nonspecialists in the field to maximise the impact and widen the reach of the article. All of these should be done in the light of current literature; however, old references may also be used for historical purposes. A very important aspect of the introduction is clearly stating and establishing the research problem(s) and how a review of the particular topic contributes to those problem(s). Thus, the research gap which the paper intends to fill, the limitations of previous works and past reviews, if available, and the new knowledge to be contributed must all be highlighted. Inadequate information and the inability to clarify the problem will keep readers (who have the desire to obtain new information) from reading beyond the introduction [ 69 ]. It is also pertinent that the author establishes the purpose of reviewing the literature and defines the scope as well as the major synthesised point of view. Furthermore, a brief insight into the criteria used to select, evaluate, and analyse the literature, as well as the outline or sequence of the review, should be provided in the introduction. Subsequently, the specific objectives of the review article must be presented. The last part of the “introduction” section should focus on the solution, the way forward, the recommendations, and the further areas of research as deduced from the whole review process. According to DeMaria [ 70 ], clearly expressed or recommended solutions to an explicitly revealed problem are very important for the wholesomeness of the “introduction” section. It is believed that following these steps will give readers the opportunity to track the problems and the corresponding solution from their own perspective in the light of current literature. As against some suggestions that the introduction should be written only in present tenses, it is also believed that it could be done with other tenses in addition to the present tense. In this regard, general facts should be written in the present tense, specific research/work should be in the past tense, while the concluding statement should be in the past perfect or simple past. Furthermore, many of the abbreviations to be used in the rest of the manuscript and their explanations should be defined in this section.

5.6. Methodology

Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [ 71 ], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary. Hence, the methodological section of a review paper (which can also be referred to as the review protocol) details how the relevant literature was selected and how it was analysed as well as summarised. The selection details may include, but are not limited to, the database consulted and the specific search terms used together with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. As earlier highlighted in Section 3 , a description of the methodology is required for all types of reviews except for narrative reviews. This is partly because unlike narrative reviews, all other review articles follow systematic approaches which must ensure significant reproducibility [ 72 ]. Therefore, where necessary, the methods of data extraction from the literature and data synthesis must also be highlighted as well. In some cases, it is important to show how data were combined by highlighting the statistical methods used, measures of effect, and tests performed, as well as demonstrating heterogeneity and publication bias [ 73 ].

The methodology should also detail the major databases consulted during the literature search, e.g., Dimensions, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. For meta-analysis, it is imperative to highlight the software and/or package used, which could include Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, OpenMEE, Review Manager (RevMan), Stata, SAS, and R Studio. It is also necessary to state the mathematical methods used for the analysis; examples of these include the Bayesian analysis, the Mantel–Haenszel method, and the inverse variance method. The methodology should also state the number of authors that carried out the initial review stage of the study, as it has been recommended that at least two reviews should be done blindly and in parallel, especially when it comes to the acquisition and synthesis of data [ 74 ]. Finally, the quality and validity assessment of the publication used in the review must be stated and well clarified [ 73 ].

5.7. Main Body of the Review

Ideally, the main body of a publishable review should answer these questions: What is new (contribution)? Why so (logic)? So what (impact)? How well it is done (thoroughness)? The flow of the main body of a review article must be well organised to adequately maintain the attention of the readers as well as guide them through the section. It is recommended that the author should consider drawing a conceptual scheme of the main body first, using methods such as mind-mapping. This will help create a logical flow of thought and presentation, while also linking the various sections of the manuscript together. According to Moreira [ 75 ], “reports do not simply yield their findings, rather reviewers make them yield,” and thus, it is the author's responsibility to transform “resistant” texts into “docile” texts. Hence, after the search for the literature, the essential themes and key concepts of the review paper must be identified and synthesised together. This synthesis primarily involves creating hypotheses about the relationships between the concepts with the aim of increasing the understanding of the topic being reviewed. The important information from the various sources should not only be summarised, but the significance of studies must be related back to the initial question(s) posed by the review article. Furthermore, MacLure [ 76 ] stated that data are not just to be plainly “extracted intact” and “used exactly as extracted,” but must be modified, reconfigured, transformed, transposed, converted, tabulated, graphed, or manipulated to enable synthesis, combination, and comparison. Therefore, different pieces of information must be extracted from the reports in which they were previously deposited and then refined into the body of the new article [ 75 ]. To this end, adequate comparison and combination might require that “qualitative data be quantified” or/and “quantitative data may be qualitized” [ 77 ]. In order to accomplish all of these goals, the author may have to transform, paraphrase, generalize, specify, and reorder the text [ 78 ]. For comprehensiveness, the body paragraphs should be arranged in a similar order as it was initially stated in the abstract or/and introduction. Thus, the main body could be divided into thematic areas, each of which could be independently comprehensive and treated as a mini review. Similarly, the sections can also be arranged chronologically depending on the focus of the review. Furthermore, the abstractions should proceed from a wider general view of the literature being reviewed and then be narrowed down to the specifics. In the process, deep insights should also be provided between the topic of the review and the wider subject area, e.g., fungal enzymes and enzymes in general. The abstractions must also be discussed in more detail by presenting more specific information from the identified sources (with proper citations of course!). For example, it is important to identify and highlight contrary findings and rival interpretations as well as to point out areas of agreement or debate among different bodies of literature. Often, there are previous reviews on the same topic/concept; however, this does not prevent a new author from writing one on the same topic, especially if the previous reviews were written many years ago. However, it is important that the body of the new manuscript be written from a new angle that was not adequately covered in the past reviews and should also incorporate new studies that have accumulated since the last review(s). In addition, the new review might also highlight the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of the past studies. But the authors must not be excessively critical of the past reviews as this is regarded by many authors as a sign of poor professionalism [ 3 , 79 ]. Daft [ 79 ] emphasized that it is more important for a reviewer to state how their research builds on previous work instead of outright claiming that previous works are incompetent and inadequate. However, if a series of related papers on one topic have a common error or research flaw that needs rectification, the reviewer must point this out with the aim of moving the field forward [ 3 ]. Like every other scientific paper, the main body of a review article also needs to be consistent in style, for example, in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense. It is also important to note that tables and figures can serve as a powerful tool for highlighting key points in the body of the review, and they are now considered core elements of reviews. For more guidance and insights into what should make up the contents of a good review article, readers are also advised to get familiarised with the Boote and Beile [ 80 ] literature review scoring rubric as well as the review article checklist of Short [ 81 ].

5.8. Tables and Figures

An ideal review article should be logically structured and efficiently utilise illustrations, in the form of tables and figures, to convey the key findings and relationships in the study. According to Tay [ 13 ], illustrations often take a secondary role in review papers when compared to primary research papers which are focused on illustrations. However, illustrations are very important in review articles as they can serve as succinct means of communicating major findings and insights. Franzblau and Chung [ 82 ] pointed out that illustrations serve three major purposes in a scientific article: they simplify complex data and relationships for better understanding, they minimise reading time by summarising and bringing to focus on the key findings (or trends), and last, they help to reduce the overall word count. Hence, inserting and constructing illustrations in a review article is as meticulous as it is important. However, important decisions should be made on whether the charts, figures, or tables to be potentially inserted in the manuscript are indeed needed and how best to design them [ 83 ]. Illustrations should enhance the text while providing necessary information; thus, the information described in illustrations should not contradict that in the main text and should also not be a repetition of texts [ 84 ]. Furthermore, illustrations must be autonomous, meaning they ought to be intelligible without having to read the text portion of the manuscript; thus, the reader does not have to flip back and forth between the illustration and the main text in order to understand it [ 85 ]. It should be noted that tables or figures that directly reiterate the main text or contain extraneous information will only make a mess of the manuscript and discourage readers [ 86 ].

Kotz and Cals [ 87 ] recommend that the layout of tables and figures should be carefully designed in a clear manner with suitable layouts, which will allow them to be referred to logically and chronologically in the text. In addition, illustrations should only contain simple text, as lengthy details would contradict their initial objective, which was to provide simple examples or an overview. Furthermore, the use of abbreviations in illustrations, especially tables, should be avoided if possible. If not, the abbreviations should be defined explicitly in the footnotes or legends of the illustration [ 88 ]. Similarly, numerical values in tables and graphs should also be correctly approximated [ 84 ]. It is recommended that the number of tables and figures in the manuscript should not exceed the target journal's specification. According to Saver [ 89 ], they ideally should not account for more than one-third of the manuscript. Finally, the author(s) must seek permission and give credits for using an already published illustration when necessary. However, none of these are needed if the graphic is originally created by the author, but if it is a reproduced or an adapted illustration, the author must obtain permission from the copyright owner and include the necessary credit. One of the very important tools for designing illustrations is Creative Commons, a platform that provides a wide range of creative works which are available to the public for use and modification.

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

It has been observed that many reviews end abruptly with a short conclusion; however, a lot more can be included in this section in addition to what has been said in the major sections of the paper. Basically, the conclusion section of a review article should provide a summary of key findings from the main body of the manuscript. In this section, the author needs to revisit the critical points of the paper as well as highlight the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the inferences drawn in the article review. A good conclusion should highlight the relationship between the major points and the author's hypothesis as well as the relationship between the hypothesis and the broader discussion to demonstrate the significance of the review article in a larger context. In addition to giving a concise summary of the important findings that describe current knowledge, the conclusion must also offer a rationale for conducting future research [ 12 ]. Knowledge gaps should be identified, and themes should be logically developed in order to construct conceptual frameworks as well as present a way forward for future research in the field of study [ 11 ].

Furthermore, the author may have to justify the propositions made earlier in the manuscript, demonstrate how the paper extends past research works, and also suggest ways that the expounded theories can be empirically examined [ 3 ]. Unlike experimental studies which can only draw either a positive conclusion or ambiguous failure to reject the null hypothesis, four possible conclusions can be drawn from review articles [ 1 ]. First, the theory/hypothesis propounded may be correct after being proven from current evidence; second, the hypothesis may not be explicitly proven but is most probably the best guess. The third conclusion is that the currently available evidence does not permit a confident conclusion or a best guess, while the last conclusion is that the theory or hypothesis is false [ 1 ]. It is important not to present new information in the conclusion section which has link whatsoever with the rest of the manuscript. According to Harris et al. [ 90 ], the conclusions should, in essence, answer the question: if a reader were to remember one thing about the review, what would it be?

5.10. References

As it has been noted in different parts of this paper, authors must give the required credit to any work or source(s) of information that was included in the review article. This must include the in-text citations in the main body of the paper and the corresponding entries in the reference list. Ideally, this full bibliographical list is the last part of the review article, and it should contain all the books, book chapters, journal articles, reports, and other media, which were utilised in the manuscript. It has been noted that most journals and publishers have their own specific referencing styles which are all derived from the more popular styles such as the American Psychological Association (APA), Chicago, Harvard, Modern Language Association (MLA), and Vancouver styles. However, all these styles may be categorised into either the parenthetical or numerical referencing style. Although a few journals do not have strict referencing rules, it is the responsibility of the author to reference according to the style and instructions of the journal. Omissions and errors must be avoided at all costs, and this can be easily achieved by going over the references many times for due diligence [ 11 ]. According to Cronin et al. [ 12 ], a separate file for references can be created, and any work used in the manuscript can be added to this list immediately after being cited in the text [ 12 ]. In recent times, the emergence of various referencing management software applications such as Endnote, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero has even made referencing easier. The majority of these software applications require little technical expertise, and many of them are free to use, while others may require a subscription. It is imperative, however, that even after using these software packages, the author must manually curate the references during the final draft, in order to avoid any errors, since these programs are not impervious to errors, particularly formatting errors.

6. Concluding Remarks

Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. Thus, the reviewer must develop the ability to think critically, spot patterns in a large volume of information, and must be invested in writing without tiring. The prospective author must also be inspired and dedicated to the successful completion of the article while also ensuring that the review article is not just a mere list or summary of previous research. It is also important that the review process must be focused on the literature and not on the authors; thus, overt criticism of existing research and personal aspersions must be avoided at all costs. All ideas, sentences, words, and illustrations should be constructed in a way to avoid plagiarism; basically, this can be achieved by paraphrasing, summarising, and giving the necessary acknowledgments. Currently, there are many tools to track and detect plagiarism in manuscripts, ensuring that they fall within a reasonable similarity index (which is typically 15% or lower for most journals). Although the more popular of these tools, such as Turnitin and iThenticate, are subscription-based, there are many freely available web-based options as well. An ideal review article is supposed to motivate the research topic and describe its key concepts while delineating the boundaries of research. In this regard, experience-based information on how to methodologically develop acceptable and impactful review articles has been detailed in this paper. Furthermore, for a beginner, this guide has detailed “the why” and “the how” of authoring a good scientific review article. However, the information in this paper may as a whole or in parts be also applicable to other fields of research and to other writing endeavours such as writing literature review in theses, dissertations, and primary research articles. Finally, the intending authors must put all the basic rules of scientific writing and writing in general into cognizance. A comprehensive study of the articles cited within this paper and other related articles focused on scientific writing will further enhance the ability of the motivated beginner to deliver a good review article.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa under grant number UID 138097. The authors would like to thank the Durban University of Technology for funding the postdoctoral fellowship of the first author, Dr. Ayodeji Amobonye.

Data Availability

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

How to Critique an Article: Mastering the Article Evaluation Process

Did you know that approximately 4.6 billion pieces of content are produced every day? From news articles and blog posts to scholarly papers and social media updates, the digital landscape is flooded with information at an unprecedented rate. In this age of information overload, honing the skill of articles critique has never been more crucial. Whether you're seeking to bolster your academic prowess, stay well-informed, or improve your writing, mastering the art of article critique is a powerful tool to navigate the vast sea of information and discern the pearls of wisdom.

How to Critique an Article: Short Description

In this article, we will equip you with valuable tips and techniques to become an insightful evaluator of written content. We present a real-life article critique example to guide your learning process and help you develop your unique critique style. Additionally, we explore the key differences between critiquing scientific articles and journals. Whether you're a student, researcher, or avid reader, this guide will empower you to navigate the vast ocean of information with confidence and discernment. Still, have questions? Don't worry! We've got you covered with a helpful FAQ section to address any lingering doubts. Get ready to unleash your analytical prowess and uncover the true potential of every article that comes your way!

What Is an Article Critique: Understanding The Power of Evaluation

An article critique is a valuable skill that involves carefully analyzing and evaluating a written piece, such as a journal article, blog post, or news article. It goes beyond mere summarization and delves into the deeper layers of the content, examining its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. Think of it as an engaging conversation with the author, where you provide constructive feedback and insights.

For instance, let's consider a scenario where you're critiquing a research paper on climate change. Instead of simply summarizing the findings, you would scrutinize the methodology, data interpretation, and potential biases, offering thoughtful observations to enrich the discussion. Through the process of writing an article critique, you develop a critical eye, honing your ability to appreciate well-crafted work while also identifying areas for improvement.

In the following sections, our ' write my paper ' experts will uncover valuable tips on and key points on how to write a stellar critique, so let's explore more!

Unveiling the Key Aims of Writing an Article Critique

Writing an article critique serves several essential purposes that go beyond a simple review or summary. When engaging in the art of critique, as when you learn how to write a review article , you embark on a journey of in-depth analysis, sharpening your critical thinking skills and contributing to the academic and intellectual discourse. Primarily, an article critique allows you to:

• Evaluate the Content : By critiquing an article, you delve into its content, structure, and arguments, assessing its credibility and relevance.
• Strengthen Your Critical Thinking : This practice hones your ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in written works, fostering a deeper understanding of complex topics and critical evaluation skills.
• Engage in Scholarly Dialogue : Your critique contributes to the ongoing academic conversation, offering valuable insights and thoughtful observations to the existing body of knowledge.
• Enhance Writing Skills : By analyzing and providing feedback, you develop a keen eye for effective writing techniques, benefiting your own writing endeavors.
• Promote Continuous Learning : Through the writing process, you continually refine your analytical abilities, becoming an avid and astute learner in the pursuit of knowledge.

How to Critique an Article: Steps to Follow

The process of crafting an article critique may seem overwhelming, especially when dealing with intricate academic writing. However, fear not, for it is more straightforward than it appears! To excel in this art, all you require is a clear starting point and the skill to align your critique with the complexities of the content. To help you on your journey, follow these 3 simple steps and unlock the potential to provide insightful evaluations:

Step 1: Read the Article

The first and most crucial step when wondering how to do an article critique is to thoroughly read and absorb its content. As you delve into the written piece, consider these valuable tips from our custom essay writer to make your reading process more effective:

• Take Notes : Keep a notebook or digital document handy while reading. Jot down key points, noteworthy arguments, and any questions or observations that arise.
• Annotate the Text : Underline or highlight significant passages, quotes, or sections that stand out to you. Use different colors to differentiate between positive aspects and areas that may need improvement.
• Consider the Author's Purpose : Reflect on the author's main critical point and the intended audience. Much like an explanatory essay , evaluate how effectively the article conveys its message to the target readership.

Now, let's say you are writing an article critique on climate change. While reading, you come across a compelling quote from a renowned environmental scientist highlighting the urgency of addressing global warming. By taking notes and underlining this impactful quote, you can later incorporate it into your critique as evidence of the article's effectiveness in conveying the severity of the issue.

Step 2: Take Notes/ Make sketches

Once you've thoroughly read the article, it's time to capture your thoughts and observations by taking comprehensive notes or creating sketches. This step plays a crucial role in organizing your critique and ensuring you don't miss any critical points. Here's how to make the most out of this process:

• Highlight Key Arguments : Identify the main arguments presented by the author and highlight them in your notes. This will help you focus on the core ideas that shape the article.
• Record Supporting Evidence : Take note of any evidence, examples, or data the author uses to support their arguments. Assess the credibility and effectiveness of this evidence in bolstering their claims.
• Examine Structure and Flow : Pay attention to the article's structure and how each section flows into the next. Analyze how well the author transitions between ideas and whether the organization enhances or hinders the reader's understanding.
• Create Visual Aids : If you're a visual learner, consider using sketches or diagrams to map out the article's key points and their relationships. Visual representations can aid in better grasping the content's structure and complexities.

Step 3: Format Your Paper

Once you've gathered your notes and insights, it's time to give structure to your article critique. Proper formatting ensures your critique is organized, coherent, and easy to follow. Here are essential tips for formatting an article critique effectively:

• Introduction : Begin with a clear and engaging introduction that provides context for the article you are critiquing. Include the article's title, author's name, publication details, and a brief overview of the main theme or thesis.
• Thesis Statement : Present a strong and concise thesis statement that conveys your overall assessment of the article. Your thesis should reflect whether you found the article compelling, convincing, or in need of improvement.
• Body Paragraphs : Organize your critique into well-structured body paragraphs. Each paragraph should address a specific point or aspect of the article, supported by evidence and examples from your notes.
• Use Evidence : Back up your critique with evidence from the article itself. Quote relevant passages, cite examples, and reference data to strengthen your analysis and demonstrate your understanding of the article's content.
• Conclusion : Conclude your critique by summarizing your main points and reiterating your overall evaluation. Avoid introducing new arguments in the conclusion and instead provide a concise and compelling closing statement.
• Citation Style : If required, adhere to the specific citation style guidelines (e.g., APA, MLA) for in-text citations and the reference list. Properly crediting the original article and any additional sources you use in your critique is essential.

How to Critique a Journal Article: Mastering the Steps

So, you've been assigned the task of critiquing a journal article, and not sure where to start? Worry not, as we've prepared a comprehensive guide with different steps to help you navigate this process with confidence. Journal articles are esteemed sources of scholarly knowledge, and effectively critiquing them requires a systematic approach. Let's dive into the steps to expertly evaluate and analyze a journal article:

Step 1: Understanding the Research Context

Begin by familiarizing yourself with the broader research context in which the journal article is situated. Learn about the field, the topic's significance, and any previous relevant research. This foundational knowledge will provide a valuable backdrop for your journal article critique example.

Step 2: Evaluating the Article's Structure

Assess the article's overall structure and organization. Examine how the introduction sets the stage for the research and how the discussion flows logically from the methodology and results. A well-structured article enhances readability and comprehension.

Step 3: Analyzing the Research Methodology

Dive into the research methodology section, which outlines the approach used to gather and analyze data. Scrutinize the study's design, data collection methods, sample size, and any potential biases or limitations. Understanding the research process will enable you to gauge the article's reliability.

Step 4: Assessing the Data and Results

Examine the presentation of data and results in the article. Are the findings clear and effectively communicated? Look for any discrepancies between the data presented and the interpretations made by the authors.

Step 5: Analyzing the Discussion and Conclusions

Evaluate the discussion section, where the authors interpret their findings and place them in the broader context. Assess the soundness of their conclusions, considering whether they are adequately supported by the data.

Step 6: Considering Ethical Considerations

Reflect on any ethical considerations raised by the research. Assess whether the study respects the rights and privacy of participants and adheres to ethical guidelines.

Step 7: Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses

Identify the article's strengths, such as well-designed experiments, comprehensive, relevant literature reviews, or innovative approaches. Also, pinpoint any weaknesses, like gaps in the research, unclear explanations, or insufficient evidence.

Step 8: Offering Constructive Feedback

Provide constructive feedback to the authors, highlighting both positive aspects and areas for improvement for future research. Suggest ways to enhance the research methods, data analysis, or discussion to bolster its overall quality.

Step 9: Presenting Your Critique

Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.

By following these steps on how to critique a journal article, you'll be well-equipped to craft a thoughtful and insightful piece, contributing to the scholarly discourse in your field of study!

Got an Article that Needs Some Serious Critiquing?

Don't sweat it! Our critique maestros are armed with wit, wisdom, and a dash of magic to whip that piece into shape.

An Article Critique: Journal Vs. Research

In the realm of academic writing, the terms 'journal article' and 'research paper' are often used interchangeably, which can lead to confusion about their differences. Understanding the distinctions between critiquing a research article and a journal piece is essential. Let's delve into the key characteristics that set apart a journal article from a research paper and explore how the critique process may differ for each:

Publication Scope:

• Journal Article: Presents focused and concise research findings or new insights within a specific subject area.
• Research Paper: Explores a broader range of topics and can cover extensive research on a particular subject.

Format and Structure:

• Journal Article: Follows a standardized format with sections such as abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Research Paper: May not adhere to a specific format and allows flexibility in organizing content based on the research scope.

Depth of Analysis:

• Journal Article: Provides a more concise and targeted analysis of the research topic or findings.
• Research Paper: Offers a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis, often including extensive literature reviews and data analyses.
• Journal Article: Typically shorter in length, ranging from a few pages to around 10-15 pages.
• Research Paper: Tends to be longer, spanning from 20 to several hundred pages, depending on the research complexity.

Publication Type:

• Journal Article: Published in academic journals after undergoing rigorous peer review.
• Research Paper: May be published as a standalone work or as part of a thesis, dissertation, or academic report.
• Journal Article: Targeted at academics, researchers, and professionals within the specific field of study.
• Research Paper: Can cater to a broader audience, including students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public.
• Journal Article: Primarily aimed at sharing new research findings, contributing to academic discourse, and advancing knowledge in the field.
• Research Paper: Focuses on comprehensive exploration and analysis of a research topic, aiming to make a substantial contribution to the body of knowledge.

Appreciating these differences becomes paramount when engaging in the critique of these two forms of scholarly publications, as they each demand a unique approach and thoughtful consideration of their distinctive attributes. And if you find yourself desiring a flawlessly crafted research article critique example, entrusting the task to professional writers is always an excellent option – you can easily order essay that meets your needs.

Article Critique Example

Our collection of essay samples offers a comprehensive and practical illustration of the critique process, granting you access to valuable insights.

Tips on How to Critique an Article

Critiquing an article requires a keen eye, critical thinking, and a thoughtful approach to evaluating its content. To enhance your article critique skills and provide insightful analyses, consider incorporating these five original and practical tips into your process:

1. Analyze the Author's Bias : Be mindful of potential biases in the article, whether they are political, cultural, or personal. Consider how these biases may influence the author's perspective and the presentation of information. Evaluating the presence of bias enables you to discern the objectivity and credibility of the article's arguments.

2. Examine the Supporting Evidence : Scrutinize the quality and relevance of the evidence used to support the article's claims. Look for well-researched data, credible sources, and up-to-date statistics. Assess how effectively the author integrates evidence to build a compelling case for their arguments.

3. Consider the Audience's Perspective : Put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience and assess how well the article communicates its ideas. Consider whether the language, tone, and level of complexity are appropriate for the target readership. A well-tailored article is more likely to engage and resonate with its audience.

4. Investigate the Research Methodology : If the article involves research or empirical data, delve into the methodology used to gather and analyze the information. Evaluate the soundness of the study design, sample size, and data collection methods. Understanding the research process adds depth to your critique.

5. Discuss the Implications and Application : Consider the broader implications of the article's findings or arguments. Discuss how the insights presented in the article could impact the field of study or have practical applications in real-world scenarios. Identifying the potential consequences of the article's content strengthens your critique's depth and relevance.

Wrapping Up

In a nutshell, article critique is an essential skill that helps us grow as critical thinkers and active participants in academia. Embrace the opportunity to analyze and offer constructive feedback, contributing to a brighter future of knowledge and understanding. Remember, each critique is a chance to engage with new ideas and expand our horizons. So, keep honing your critique skills and enjoy the journey of discovery in the world of academic exploration!

Tired of Ordinary Critiques?

Brace yourself for an extraordinary experience! Our critique geniuses are on standby, ready to unleash their extraordinary skills on your article!

What Steps Need to Be Taken in Writing an Article Critique?

What is the recommended length for an article critique, related articles.

How to write an article critique- Steps and example

Writing an article critique paper helps students convey their understanding of any given research article. In addition, the paper allows you to identify dependent and independent variables and discuss how authors did their analyses. You’ll also refine your research methodologies to help you create an effective paper.

However, an article critique paper can be a challenge to most people. If you have a job, it means you will lack time to handle your paper. On the other hand, inadequate research and writing skills will make you craft a poor, low-scoring critic article. This guide offers invaluable tips to help you learn how to critique a research article successfully.

What is an article critique?

There are different definition versions of an article critique, but it is an expansion of the summary in simple terms. We can also say it is an exclusive evaluation of a research article. An article critique analyzes both positive and negative contexts. The paper critique helps learners highlight their evaluation of a statement, text, or book.

In critique writing, you are expected to indicate if the author has enough argument to support their point of view. Although your writing style will make things flow, what is more, important is your ability to analyze. Moreover, your research skills will play a critical role in perfecting how to write a critique of an article.

What is the difference between article critique and summary?

A summary condenses the research article critique and informs the reader of the most important points and ideas. But to write a good summary, you must read the text carefully. After reading, you can chunk the primary ideas. Then, break the text into large blocks, starting with the introduction and the conclusion.

The main points form the basis of a summary. A good summary:

• Should be short and precise
• You paraphrase the original text and write in your own words
• It conveys the author’s crucial message

A summary includes essential information like the title, main ideas and argument, author’s name, and supporting evidence. Avoid extended quotations and illustrations, and use an active voice like, “The author states that.”

When you agree or disagree with the main ideas, make a judgment or discuss opinions, you critique. Unlike a summary, you only convey straightforward and shortened facts in a text. You should learn how to write a critique paper on a research article without relying on unsubstantiated information or anecdotes. Critique allows you to share your opinions, judgments, and feelings as long as you back them up evidence.

How to critique an article- Steps to writing an article critique?

Apart from the usual challenges such as lack of time and trying to live a balanced life, writing an article critique is quite technical. It is not a surprise that many students find it challenging. Fortunately, you can quickly learn how to critique an article. To get you started:

Ensure you read the article thoroughly

There are no two ways to do this! First, you can only critique an article you have read. So, it is ideal to read the text thoroughly to get the message the author is trying to portray. By being thorough, we mean you read and re-read the article and analyze it. Then, as you read through, get to know the target audience, the argument the author wants to prove, and the text’s purpose.

Gather evidence

After reading the article carefully, you will form your judgment or opinion about the given article critique assignment. The next phase is to gather evidence to make your ideas, judgment, or opinions hold water. Finally, examine and compare the author’s rationality and argument with other literature.

Give your opinion

Cite the article results, but be careful of the steps you take towards the opinions. If you are unsure about it, seek help from experienced students. Alternatively, seek professional help to save yourself from general blunders.

The conclusion is the final step of an article critique. The last part shouldn’t be lengthy. Keep it short, sweet, and clear.

What is included in an article critique?

A critic paper follows the same structure as other academic assignments. A good piece should be segmented into four main parts. Your article critique must have an introduction, summary, critique, and conclusion.

How to format your article critique paper

Formatting your paper helps you tabulate your ideas systematically. As discussed before, an article critique format has four major parts. Let us explore how to do an article critique in detail.

Introduction

The article critique example APA has an introductory paragraph, which should be captivating. Besides, it should contain the author’s name, the article’s title, main point, and a thesis statement. So keep your introduction precise and make it intriguing.

The summary should discuss the main points and ideas of the article. Then, convey the finding of the text and bring out the arguments presented. Remember, you should not give your opinion or judgment in the summary segment.

Now that you have chucked the main ideas and points, it is time to critique the article. Discuss the positive and negative contexts of the article. In addition, state informed judgment with relevancy, accuracy, and clarity. Be sure to give examples and support your statements with substantiated evidence.

How to critique a research article

Title of research/study.

After succinctly reading the article, create a title that will stimulate the reader’s interest.

The introductory paragraph should contain:

• Evidence that is recent and relevant, critically valuing other works.
• Detailed background information on the research article.
• The rationale of research to justify its need.

Methods and Materials

Methods and materials should justify and contain the exact specification of any statistic or response rate used. Consider things like:

• What sort of sampling size and strategy was used?
• Was the technique case-controlled, double-blinded, or randomized?

Give your perspectives about the significance and meaning of the research findings. For example, use previous research work in which the new study can be interpreted. More so, evaluate whether the author has analyzed the study clearly or the results can be interpreted differently.

Conclusion and references

This is where you learn how to summarize and critique an article objectively. Be sure to conclude your assignment and recommendations for further research. In addition, use recent and relevant references.

How to critique a journal article

The journal critique example should contain the author’s name, article title, date, the title of a journal, volume number, and page numbers. In addition, there should also be a statement to the issue or problem discussed.

Upon reviewing the article, decide your position by creating a thesis statement. Next, find sources to support your argument and justify your thesis statement. More so, take a stand and prove your point in a persuasive, logical manner. Finally, be thorough with the sources to defend your thesis.

Article critique example

An article critique sample gives students a hint and simplifies the writing process. The illustrations offer help in formatting, structuring, and using the required styles. With the help of a research article critique example, you will save time and get better grades.

At AcademiaExp we have an array of article critique samples to help learners perfect their writing. You can download such samples from our website to get the overall view of what an article critique should look like. But if you still feel confused, we can render our professional essay writing services for better grades.

Get your paper now

We complete all papers from scratch. you can get a plagiarism report..

How Essay Writing Service Works

Place an Order & Choose a Writer

You need to fill out a short order form and specify all the needed requirements. Then writers will start bidding your order and it’s up to you which one to choose as each of them is a professional. Ask our manager to help you out if you have any doubts.

Chat with a Writer & Review a Paper

You can chat with your writer directly and clarify all the points in the process of writing. Once you received an email with a notification, you will then have an unlimited number of revisions. Ask your writer to make adjustments to your paper or switch things up to fit your taste.

Post-Satisfaction Payment

You need to deposit ⅓ of the sum in the beginning to make the writer begin working on your order. After you’re certain that the paper is done correctly, thank your writer for the good job and release the funds.

Get Started

How to Critique a Research Article – Complete Guide

• Fred Waititu
• June 13, 2022
• How To's

Here's What We'll Cover

If you are here, it means you have been tasked with writing a research article critique. Are you wondering how to get started and what to include? Don’t worry! In this blog post, we’ll walk you through how to critique a research article effectively and provide you with an outline you can use. However, if you feel inadequate to undertake the writing yourself after reading through this article, we would be happy to offer our affordable and professional writing services .

What is a Research Article Critique? 

A research critique is an evaluation of a piece of research. The evaluation should identify and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the article. 

Your task is to identify whether the piece is wrong or good, assess how well it interprets sources, and build its argument using valid reasoning supported by the prevailing evidence. 

Purpose of Research Article Critique 

A research critique aims to evaluate a research article’s content critically. Your critique should be constructive. This means that you should not simply point out what is wrong with the article but also offer suggestions for improving it. Keeping this in mind, let’s look at a purpose of a research article.

Describing is the standard method used to identify the article’s main idea and what the author desires to express. When describing a research article, it is essential to remember that your goal is to carefully study and develop information from the article that will be truthful, reliable, and useful. 

Analyzing is the process of inspecting/examining the content of the research article and restructuring each valid point to develop an explanation of the article. It is important to analyze because it creates a deeper understanding of the content in a research article.

Interpreting is giving observation on the writer’s intention. It is an opportunity for you to discuss your understanding of the writer’s words and make sense of the results you have complied from the content of the research article.

Assessing is collecting and reviewing the relevant and valuable information you have provided. It further provides helpful feedback on the research article. 

Difference Between Critique and Summary of a Research Article.

A critique is different from a summary in the following key ways:

• A critique evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of a research article. In contrast, a summary provides an overview of the article’s main points.
• A critique offers your analysis and interpretation of the research, whereas a summary reports what the article says.
• A critique is usually shorter than a summary, as they focus on specific aspects of the article rather than providing a comprehensive overview.

Similarities Between a Critique and Summary of a Research Article.

Here are a few similarities;

• Both are written in the present tense participle.
• Both should have the title of the piece you are writing and the author’s name.
• Both should be carefully proofread, written, and edited to their respective format.

Now that you know the difference between a critique and a summary, you’re one step closer to being able to write one! 

What To Look For In a Research Article.

There are several vital points to consider when critiquing a research article . Here is a clear step-by-step guide for you:

The Target Audience

Is a specific group of people the target of the article’s appeal? No, a general audience should be the primary target for a research article. For example, You can use understandable language to the audience, void of jargon or unnecessary verbiage.

Research Approach (Paradigm)

Ensure the research approach is quantitative or qualitative. 

•  A quantitative research article uses collected and analyzed data using statistical methods.
•  A qualitative research article utilizes data collected and analyzed through descriptive methods.

The Author and Their Qualifications 

When looking for a research article to critique, ensure that the author is considered an expert in the specific topic. 

• Are they knowledgeable about the topic?
• Are the opinions of the author valid?
• Does academic praise cover the author?

When Was The Article Published?

Look for a recently published research article when wanting to critique one. It is vital as you want to ensure that the article’s information is current and not outdated.

Relevancy 

The article should be relevant to your field’s current issues and debates. It is vital as you want to be able to relate the information in the article to your research.

The Sources Used 

The sources should be credible and cited correctly , void of links to untrustworthy sources. It’s crucial as you want the article’s information to be accurate. The best way to check the sources’ credibility is to look them up in a database such as EBSCO or PubMed. 

Structure of a Research Article Critique

Let’s move on to the structure and give clear guidance on how to critique a research article. 

The Introduction

The first part is the introduction. You should provide a brief overview of the research article in the introduction. These include;

• Does the author make a statement problem?
• Is research possible for the stated problem?
• Did the author discuss the significance of the problem?

Review of the Literature Comprehensive

• Are all the references appropriately cited?
• Is there a structure in the literature?
• Did the author analyze, critique, compare and contrast the reference and findings in the statements?
• Are all the hypotheses and research questions clear and valid?
• Is the hypothesis statement testable?

The Methods Section 

The methods section of a research article will describe the research conduct. This includes information on the participants, materials used, and procedures followed. The methods section should be clear and concise so that readers can understand how the study was conducted.

The Participants

The following are essential points to consider when critiquing a research article:

• How well did the participants answer the research question?
• Did the participants give informed consent to the researchers? 
• Did they protect their participants’ anonymity? 

Instruments

• The appropriateness of the research methods used
• Were the instruments appropriate?
• Did the author obtain all rights?

Design and Procedures

• How was the collecting and analysis process of the data?
• Are all procedures applied correctly?
• Does the author state all the procedures?

Conclusions or Suggestions

In this section, you should summarize your overall evaluation of the research article. It would be best if you also discussed how the findings from the study contribute to understanding the topic and how firm the conclusions were. 

The Summary

In this section, one discusses the written topic of the research article

• Are all performed procedures specified?
• Did the author shape their suggestions based on their study practical?
• How concise were the conclusions?

Future Research

• Did the author make any suggestions regarding future research?

Steps to Writing a Good Research Article Critique

Now that you know what to look for in a research article, you’re one step closer to being able to write a successful critique!

Here are the steps to follow when writing your research article critique:

Choose an Article

Picking a good research article to critique can be tricky. You want something that is neither easy nor difficult and will allow you to sharpen your critical thinking skills without being so challenging that you get frustrated.

Firstly, make sure the article is from a reputable source. This ensures that it’s well-researched and of high quality.

Secondly, choose an article that is relevant to your field of study. This is important as it will make it easier for you to understand and provide thoughtful feedback.

Thirdly, choose an article that’s not too long or complex. You want to be able to read and digest the entire thing without getting overwhelmed.

Read the Material 

Reading the material is essential for several reasons and should be done methodically and efficiently. They include:

• Thorough reading allows you to understand the research article’s main idea and content.
• Allows you to identify and take notes on the key concepts to critique.
• It helps you to identify the appropriate approach to critiquing the research article.
• Develop a Preliminary Outline

It is a plan for structuring and organizing the element that constitutes the focus of your argument in the research article. Creating an outline helps you construct ideas in a stepwise manner and gives it a  thoughtful flow.

These elements will allow you to pick relevant, helpful information to explain in the research article, so you should give it as much detail as possible. 

• Question the Author’s Main Points

Upon creating your preliminary outline, choosing the strong main points to critique is vital. In critiquing the research article, you can also list your supporting ideas that strengthen your claim. 

Here are some main points you can question:

• Is the article’s title clear and appropriate?
• Is the discussion relevant and valuable?
• Did the author make biased statements?
• How clear are the statements?

Start With a Summary Of the Article.

In your opening paragraph, you should briefly summarize the research article. 

Here are the essential tips to use when summarizing a research article:

• Share critical points of the article to give a clear and concise picture of what the article is about.
• Give support to the main ideas that you have highlighted.
• Express the underlying meaning of the research article.
• Your summary should be shorter than the source.

Evaluate the Content Of the Article

In this body paragraph, you should critically analyze the content of the research article. 

The following are methods used when evaluating a research article:

• What is the purpose of the article? Discuss the main message the author is trying to convey.
• Is the information logical? Bring in your expertise in criticism and give your ideas and thoughts.
• When was the article published? 
• Was the research conducted effectively?
• Were the results valid?

You should also be able to assess the research article’s strengths and weaknesses. Highlight the following;

• What did you like about the article? 
• What didn’t you like? 
• How could the article be improved?

Write the Article Critique.

A research article critique is a detailed analysis and evaluation of a research article. It is important to critically read a research article to determine its validity and usefulness. 

When critiquing a research article, there are a few key things to keep in mind:

You need to identify the central argument of the article. Next, you should assess the quality of the research design and data. Finally, consider the implications of the findings and whether or not the evidence supports them. 

By carefully critiquing a research article, you ensure that you are reading and using only high-quality, reliable research.

Use Evidence From the Article. 

Apply an evidence-based research approach to add valuable justification to your critique of the research article. Using evidence to make your argument will add to the body of knowledge in your field of study.

• Identify Contradictions

You will want to identify any contradictions found in the research article. Obtaining contradicting statements can be between the research article and other sources or within the research article itself. So carefully assess the contradictory claims found and include them in your critique. 

Make Suggestions

You may want to make suggestions for future research based on your evaluation of the research article. These suggestions can be what you think could be improved in the study or areas that need further exploration. 

Conclude Your Paper

In your conclusion, you will want to summarize your main points and restate your thesis statement. You may also like to discuss any research implications for future studies or real-world applications.

Revise 

Finally, be sure to proofread your paper before submitting it. In revising, you ensure that your research article critique is well-received by your instructor or professor.

So there you have it! Now that you know the basics of writing a research article critique, you’re ready to start! By following these steps, you will be well on writing a successful research article critique! Thanks for reading.

What are the mistakes to avoid when writing a critique research article?

• Weak structure/format of the article.
• Unlisted and incomplete references.
• The research questions are not specific and too vague.

What are the five steps in writing a critique?

• Choose an article 
• Read the material 

Words to use when critiquing an article

• Evidence found from the research
• Statics has shown
• Given accurate information

Let Us Help You Get Better Grades

Achieve academic success with Bright Writers

Unlocking A+ Essays

Insider Tips Your Professor Won't Share

Don't leave before you grab this deal!!

Get 20% OFF your first order. Professional essays at $10 a page

Do you need better

Let us handle your essays today

• 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 3,092,970 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

You Might Also Like

• ↑ 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

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

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

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

How to Read and Critique Research A Guide for Nursing and Healthcare Students

• Helen Aveyard - Oxford Brookes University, UK
• Nancy Preston - Lancaster University
• Morag Farquhar - University of East Anglia, UK
• Description

Do you find research challenging to read? Do you struggle to get to grips with a research paper?

Understanding, critiquing and using research is a key requirement of students studying nursing and healthcare. This bookwill equip you with the skills you need to understand research and use it in your practice and academic assignments. The approach used in this book is unique: each chapter focuses on a published research paper – one you might be asked to read for a seminar or include in your academic work. In clear, straightforward language, the authors take you through each paper step by step, using it as a basis for exploring the underpinning research method or design, and how it has been reported.

Key features:

·       Each chapter focuses on a different research method by working through a relevant research paper

·       Identifies the main skills you need for your course: understanding research methods and critiquing articles

·       Written specifically for nursing and healthcare students by experienced nursing and health care lecturers

·       Develops your confidence in understanding research by helping you to apply your knowledge to real research papers.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

This is an ideal text for undergraduate nursing and paramedic students reading and learning to appraise research. This is pitched at the right level and students will find this extremely helpful as they develop these appraisal skills. 

This is a practical textbook for students which does exactly what it says in the title -demonstrates how to read and critique research. Using examples, it leads the student through the process and is an essential textbook for any research module. 

I am excited for this book release, as I find the work by Helen Aveyard incredibly helpful and aligned to teachers/students' requirements. The chapter 3 is very well written, it provides an excellent overview on generic qualitative research. It provides key words, examples and a contemporary approach which will certainly benefit both undergraduate and postgraduate students and lecturers alike. 

This book is an ideal introduction to research and methodologies used for undergraduate healthcare students as it provides clear, systematic discussions throughout, building knowledge and understanding. It is also well placed further develop healthcare professionals understanding of research.

It is really helpful to have this set out by research type, and to be able to direct learners to it when they come across one of these documents.

Relevance to the module descriptor

Adopted for the academic literacy project to develop midwifery students academic skills

Excellent book to accompany our research methods module.

Excellent easy to read textbook for Level 5 and Level 6 students.

Highly recommended resource for students who are looking to develop their research literacy and critique skills. It a provides step by step guide to critically evaluating research studies, focusing on a different research method in each chapter.

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters.

Chapter 1: Getting started with reading research

For instructors

Select a purchasing option.

• How it works
• Pay for essays
• Do my homework
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Do my assignment
• Coursework help
• Our Writers

Essay writing blog on WritePaperFor .me

Evidence Review of the Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination and Intramuscular Vaccine Administration

Vaccines are a public health success story, as they have prevented or lessened the effects of many infectious diseases. To address concerns around potential vaccine injuries, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which provide compensation to those who assert that they were injured by routine vaccines or medical countermeasures, respectively. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have contributed to the scientific basis for VICP compensation decisions for decades.

HRSA asked the National Academies to convene an expert committee to review the epidemiological, clinical, and biological evidence about the relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and specific adverse events, as well as intramuscular administration of vaccines and shoulder injuries. This report outlines the committee findings and conclusions.

Read Full Description

• Digital Resource: Evidence Review of the Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination
• Digital Resource: Evidence Review of Shoulder Injuries from Intramuscular Administration of Vaccines
• Press Release

Recent News

NAS Launches Science and Innovation Fund for Ukraine

Science Academies Issue Statements to Inform G7 Talks

Supporting Family Caregivers in STEMM

A Vision for High-Quality Preschool for All

• Load More...

• Open access
• Published: 20 April 2024

Development and validation of the hospice professional coping scale among Chinese nurses

• Yanting Zhang 1   na1 ,
• Li Zheng 2   na1 ,
• Yanling He 3 ,
• Min Han 3 ,
• Yu Wang 3 ,
• Jinyu Xv 3 ,
• Hui Qiu 3   na2 &
• Liu Yang 3   na2  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  491 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

12 Accesses

Metrics details

Hospice care professionals often experience trauma patient deaths and multiple patient deaths in a short period of time (more so than other nurses). This repeated exposure to the death process and the death of patients leads to greater psychological pressure on hospice care professionals. But at present, people pay more attention to the feelings and care burden of the family members of dying patients but pay less attention to medical staff. Thus, this study aimed to develop a scale on the burden of care for hospice care providers and assess the coping capacity of hospice professionals. Raising awareness of the psychological burden of hospice professionals.

Through a literature review, research group discussion, Delphi method and a pre-survey of professional coping skills among nurses, 200 hospice professionals who had received training in hospice care from pilot institutions engaged in or providing hospice care were selected for investigation. Cronbach’s α coefficient and split-half reliability were used to test the internal consistency of the scale, and content validity and explore factor analysis (EFA) were used to test the construct validity of the scale.

Two rounds of Delphi methods were carried out, and the effective recovery rate was 100%. The expert authority coefficients of the two rounds were 0.838 and 0.833, respectively. The Kendall’s W coefficient of experts in the first round was 0.121 ~ 0.200 ( P  < 0.05), and the Kendall’s W coefficient of the second round was 0.115–0.136 ( P  < 0.05), indicating a good level of expert coordination. The final survey scale for the care burden of hospice professionals included four dimensions—working environment (9 items), professional roles (8 items), clinical nursing (9 items) and psychological burden (7 items)—with a total of 33 items. The total Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was 0.963, and the Cronbach’s α coefficients of the working environment, professional roles, clinical nursing and psychological burden dimensions were 0.920, 0.889, 0.936 and 0.910, respectively. The total split-half reliability of the scale was 0.927, and the split-half reliability of each dimension was 0.846, 0.817, 0.891, and 0.832. The content validity of the scale items ranged from 0.90 to 1.00. Exploratory factor analysis revealed 5 common factors, with a total cumulative contribution rate of 68.878%. The common degree of each item in the scale was > 0.4, and the factor loading of each item was also > 0.4.

The scale is an open-access, short, easy-to-administer scale. And which for assessing hospice care burden among hospice professionals developed in this study demonstrated strong reliability and validity. This tool can serve as a dependable instrument for evaluating the burden of hospice care for terminally ill patients by professionals in the hospice setting.

Peer Review reports

Hospice care refers to providing patients with terminal diseases with physical, psychological, and spiritual care, as well as humanistic care, by controlling the symptoms of pain and discomfort to improve their quality of life and help them die comfortably, calmly, and with dignity [ 1 ]. In June 2020, hospice care was incorporated into Chinese law for the first time. Article 36 of the Law on the Promotion of Basic Medicine and Health clearly stipulates that medical institutions provide hospice care and other medical and health services to citizens [ 2 ]. As early as 2016, the National Health and Family Planning Commission issued the National Nursing Development Plan (2016–2020) [ 3 ], noting the need to strengthen capacity-building for hospice care and improve relevant mechanisms. While the state vigorously promoted the development of hospice care, it also exposed many problems. These problems include the relatively traditional concept of death for our citizens, uneven development in the field of hospice care, and a lack of human resources and teams. The legal provisions on hospice care are relatively broad, and a lack of understanding of hospice care services can easily lead to medical disputes [ 4 , 5 ]. This not only poses numerous obstacles to the practical development of hospice care but also exposes hospice nursing staff to complex clinical situations [ 6 ].

According to previous studies, hospice care professionals often experience traumatic patient deaths and multiple patient deaths in a short period of time (more so than other nurses) [ 7 , 8 ]. This repeated exposure to the death process and the death of patients leads to greater psychological pressure on hospice care professionals [ 9 , 10 ]. In different groups, social support alleviates many adverse outcomes of hospice care professionals, such as high psychological stress and high emotional burnout [ 11 , 12 ]. In addition, nurses in oncology departments and palliative care departments need to continue to provide empathy and care for patients, not only to bear psychological pressure but also to undertake the emotional work of patients’ families, which easily results in empathy fatigue [ 13 , 14 ]. The psychological stress caused by empathy fatigue seriously affects the mental health and nurse‒patient relationships of nurses and may even lead to their resignation [ 15 ]. The assessment of the care burden of hospice care professionals can provide a reference for the formulation of relevant policies, provide guidance for terminally ill patients and their families to implement better hospice care services, provide comfort and respect for people in the final stages of life, and promote the development of hospice care [ 16 ].

At present, people pay more attention to the feelings and care burden of the family members of dying patients but pay less attention to medical staff. In addition, the related assessment tools in China are mainly aimed at assessing nurses’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to hospice care. For example, the assessment tool used by Zheng is the self-developed hospice care attitude scale [ 17 , 18 ], and few studies have assessed the psychological stress of medical staff. However, due to cultural differences, assessment tools such as the Zarit Nursing Burden Scale (ZBI) [ 19 ] are not applicable in other countries. In recent years, some scholars have developed and verified self-care ability assessment tools for hospice care practitioners, but there is still a lack of assessments of care burden [ 20 , 21 ]. Therefore, this study provides a tool for assessing the care burden level of hospice care professionals by developing a scale for hospice care professionals and testing its reliability and validity. In addition, this study provides a clearer understanding of the current situation and influencing factors of hospice care burden in China and evaluates the effectiveness of interventions to reduce hospice care burden.

Development and procedure

Constructing a scale item pool.

Under the guidance of the Zarit Nursing Burden Scale (ZBI) [ 19 ], which uses hospice care/hospice care/health care personnel/nurses care/stress/empathy/psychological burden/fatigue as the key words, a large number of related studies were consulted through Pubmed/Web of Science/CINAL/China Knowledge Network/Wan Fang and other databases. To form a pool of items in the nursing burden scale for hospice care staff. The scale pool consists of 32 items, including working environment, professional role, clinical nursing and psychological burden. All the items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, and they were all positive.

Delphi method

Expert inclusion criteria.

Bachelor’s degree or above; intermediate or above professional title; engaged in clinical work ≥ 5 years; were familiar with hospice care treatment and highly enthusiastic about this study; and voluntarily participated in and completed multiple rounds of inquiries.

Delphi method expert consultation form

The expert consultation form consisted of four parts: an introduction, basic information from the experts, a nursing burden scale for hospice care professionals, and an expert authority scale. The preface introduces the purpose, significance, and instructions of this survey. The basic expert information table includes age, sex, educational background, professional title, clinical working years, research field, and whether he or she is a graduate tutor. The nursing burden scale of hospice care professionals includes four dimensions: working environment, professional role, clinical nursing, and psychological burden. The importance and relevance of the scale items were evaluated by experts. For items that need to be modified, deleted, or added, experts can write down their comments in the corresponding “modified comments” column. Importance is divided into 5 levels: level 5 is highly important, level 1 is highly unimportant, relevance is divided into 4 levels, level 4 is highly relevant, and level 1 is highly irrelevant.

The expert authority scale includes the degree of experts’ familiarity with hospice care (very familiar = 1, relatively familiar = 0.8, generally familiar = 0.6, unfamiliar = 0.4, very unfamiliar = 0.2) and the influence of judgment basis (work experience judgment/theoretical knowledge analysis/domestic and foreign relevant data) on expert judgment.

Distribution and recycling of scales

During the first round of Delphi, the items of the scale were made into an expert consultation form and sent to all the experts by email. The experts were invited to provide responses within a week and to integrate, analyse and discuss their views. After an interval of 2 weeks, the second round of the credit scale is sent to all the experts via the same process as the first round. The selection criteria for the items were as follows: mean importance ≥ 4, coefficient of variation (CV) ≤ 0.25, and full score ratio > 0.20. Items that met all three criteria were retained. If only 1–2 criteria are met, further confirmation or panel discussion with the expert is required to decide whether to retain the criterion, and if none of the three criteria are met, the criterion is deleted [ 22 ].

Item modification content

After the first round of Delphi method, the items were added or modified according to the experts’ scores on the importance and relevance of the items as well as the expert’s advice. Three items with a coefficient of variation > 0.25 and a full score ratio < 0.2 were excluded (see supplement 1: Tables  1 and 2 for specific results). In the clinical nursing dimension, there is an item that does not meet the above criteria: “Do you think the terminally ill patients or their families you care for will require too much care for you?” After discussion with the working group, this item was retained because of its importance. The languages of 10 items had to be revised. One new item was added to each of the three dimensions of working environment, professional role and clinical nursing, and the new item was “Do you think that hospice care currently lacks the support of social recognition and other social forces?”, “Do you think it is more difficult for hospice workers to gain a sense of professional achievement?”, “Do you think that family members’ recognition and compatibility with hospice care is an important factor in carrying out work?”

After the second round of Delphi method, only one of the items in the clinical nursing dimension was modified: “strong death identity” was replaced by “patients who are pessimistic about death”. Finally, the nursing burden survey scale of hospice care professionals was developed, which included working environment (9 items), professional role (8 items), clinical nursing (9 items) and psychological burden (7 items), for a total of 33 items.

Pre-investigation

Using a convenience sampling method, 50 hospice care professionals who were engaged in or who received hospice care training in pilot hospice care institutions were selected as the research subjects in October 2022. In the course of the survey, the participants were closely observed for difficulty in understanding the scale and their opinions. After the last 2 rounds of Delphi method, all the entries were retained for formal investigation.

Sample size

According to the rough estimation method of sample size proposed by clinical epidemiology, the sample size is 5  ∼  10 times the number of items in the scale [ 23 ], and the final number of items in this scale is 33, so the sample size is 165  ∼  330.

Characteristics of participants

Using a convenience sampling method, 200 hospice care professionals who were engaged in or who received hospice care training in several hospitals or hospice pilot institutions were selected in December 2022, of which 150 were used for supplementary investigation. It should be noted that the supplementary survey objects here are the sample sizes collected after the presurvey. The inclusion criteria for participants were medical staff who participated in hospice care and who had received training, were aged ≥ 18 years, were clearly conscious, had good expression, provided informed consent, and had more than 2 years of work experience. The exclusion criteria were working for ≤ 2 years; not providing informed consent; only professionals who understood but did not participate in the hospice care system; and who had received training in the hospice care system.

Survey tools

① The general and basic conditions of hospice care and nursing staff. ② The scale of care burden of hospice nurses included four dimensions: working environment (9 items), professional role (8 items), clinical nursing (9 items) and psychological burden (7 items). On a 5-point Likert scale, 1 indicates complete lack (very disagree), and 5 indicates proficiency (very much agree).

Investigation procedure

The scale survey method was as follows: To ensure the smooth progress of the study, informed consent was obtained from the respondents before the scale survey, and the purpose and significance of this study were explained to the respondents to obtain cooperation. All the scales distributed in this study were distributed and completed through the scale stars. It can only be submitted after answering the set questions. It can only answer each time to ensure the rigor, authenticity and completeness of the scale. The scale collected must be reviewed by the research team, and if all the answers are the same, it will be determined to be invalid. A total of 250 copies were distributed in this study, and 200 copies were recovered.

Statistical methods

The data were inputted by two people using EpiData 3.0 software, and SPSS 23.0 statistical software was used for descriptive analysis, project analysis, exploratory factor analysis [ 24 ], correlation analysis, reliability and validity testing. The specific contents of the analysis were as follows: the items of the scale were screened by the differentiation method, and the items were sorted according to their scores. The first 27% of the scores are high, and the remaining 27% are low. Then, the average score of each item was calculated for the high score and low score groups. Using the independent sample t test, if the average score of an item has no significant difference between the high score and the low score (0.05), the importance and differentiation of the item are not significant, and the entry is excluded [ 22 ]. Cronbach’s α coefficient and the Spearman Brown method were used to test the reliability. Content validity and construct validity were used to test the validity of the scale, item-level content validity (I-CVI) and average scale-level content validity (S-CVI/Ave) were used as content validity indicators, and exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the number of common factors, cumulative contribution rate and eigenvalues of the scale. The screening criteria for each item were cumulative contribution rate > 60%, eigenvalue > 1, common variance > 0.4, and factor load > 0.4 for each entry.

Ethical considerations

All participants provided signed informed consent when reliability and validity tests were conducted. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University [2,022,119 K].

Basic characteristics of the experts

A total of 20 experts were selected for this study, and the details are shown in Table  1 .

Basic characteristics of the study subjects

Table  2 shows the general characteristics of the hospice care professionals.

Delphi results

A total of 2 rounds of Delphi method were conducted, 20 scales were distributed in each round, and the effective recovery rate was 100%. In the first round, 10 experts put forward their opinions, and in the second round, two experts put forward their opinions, and the experts were highly motivated. The authority coefficients of the two rounds of experts are 0.838 and 0.833 respectively. The expert authority coefficient of Delphi method is 0.75  ∼  1. It is generally believed that an expert authority coefficient greater than 0.7 indicates the degree of expert authority [ 22 ], so the degree of expert authority in this study is greater. The Kendall consistency of the experts in the first round was 0.121  ∼  0.200, and the reliability of the experts in the second round ranged from 0.115 to 0.136 ( P  < 0.05).

Analysis of scale entries

The t values of each item in the high-score group and the low-score group ranged from 5.442 to 10.170 ( P  < 0.05), and there was no item that could be deleted.

Scale reliability

The reliability of the scale is based on Cronbach’s α coefficient and the half-and-half reliability coefficient, which are commonly used to determine the reliability of the index. It is generally believed that Cronbach’s α coefficient and half-and-half reliability coefficient are greater than 0.7, indicating that the scale has good reliability. (Table  3 ).

The Cronbach’s α coefficients of each dimension of the scale were 0.920, 0.889, 0.938 and 0.910 respectively, and the half-and-half reliability coefficients were 0.846, 0.817, 0.891 and 0.832, respectively, while the Cronbach’s α coefficient and half-and-half reliability coefficient of the total scale were 0.963 and 0.927, respectively, all ≥ 0.7, indicating that the scale had good reliability, internal consistency and stability.

Content validity (correlation score 1–4)

The validity of the scale was expressed by the content validity index (CVI), including the content validity index of the item level (I-CVI) and the average content validity index of the scale level (S-CVI) [ 25 ]. When the I-CVI > 0.78, the content validity at the item level is better [ 26 ]. S-CVI/Ave is the average I-CVI for all projects. When the S-CVI/Ave > 0.9, the scale has good content validity at the average level [ 27 ].

The I-CVI was 0.90-1 > 0.78, and the content validity at the item level was good. The S-CVI/Ave was 0.967, and the S-CVI/Ave of each dimension was > 0.90, ranging from 0.964 to 0.980. The content validity of the average scale was good.

Structural validity - exploratory factor analysis

Kmo and bartlett tests (table  4 ).

Table  4 shows that the KMO values are all greater than 0.7, the validity is good, and P  < 0.001. There is a correlation between variables, so exploratory factor analysis can be carried out.

Using principal component maximum variance rotation factor analysis

According to the analysis of the overall structural validity of the scale, the scale has five common factors, and the total cumulative contribution rate is 68.878%. After principal component analysis and maximum orthogonal rotation of variance, the common variance (commensurate) of the scale was more than 0.4, and the factor load of each item was also more than 0.4. Factor 1 is the clinical nursing dimension, factor 2 is the psychological burden dimension, factor 3 and factor 5 are the working environment dimension, and factor 4 is the professional role dimension. It should be noted that the B1 entry in factor 3 is slightly different from the structure of the original scale. However, considering that B1 reflects the content related to professional roles, after expert discussion, the entry remains in the professional role dimension. The specific analysis is shown in Table  5 below. (A is the working environment dimension, B is the professional role dimension, C is the clinical nursing dimension, and D is the psychological burden dimension).

Quality control of scale preparation

In the process of developing the scale, we first consulted a large number of related studies at home and abroad under the guidance of the Zarit Nursing Burden Scale (ZBI) to ensure the standardization, rigor and rationality of the scale. After 2 rounds of Delphi method, the relevant items of the scale were further revised. We selected experts in the fields of clinical nursing, geriatric nursing, nursing management, nursing education, nursing research, oncology clinics, etc., and proposed constructive suggestions for the revision of the contents of the scale to ensure its quality. In the process of sending the scale to the expert, we carefully checked whether there were missing items in each scale to ensure the effectiveness of the scale collection. After 2 rounds of Delphi method, the effective recovery rate of the scale was 100%. In the first round, 10 experts put forward their opinions, and in the second round, 2 experts put forward their opinions. The authority coefficients of the two rounds of experts are 0.838 and 0.833, respectively, indicating a high degree of authority. Kendall’s W coefficient of the first-round expert opinion test was 0.121-0.200 ( P  < 0.05), and Kendall’s W coefficient of the second-round expert opinion test was 0.115–0.136 ( P  < 0.05).

Reliability evaluation of the scale

In terms of reliability, it is generally believed that the reliability of a scale is good when the Cronbach’s α coefficient and Spearman-Brown coefficient are above 0.7. The Cronbach’s α coefficients of each dimension of the scale are 0.920, 0.889, 0.938, 0.910, 0.86, 0.817, 0.891, 0.832 and 0.927, indicating that the reliability, internal consistency and stability of the scale are good.

Validity evaluation of the scale

Content validity.

Content validity, also known as apparent validity or logical validity, refers to whether each item of the scale measures what it wants to measure, that is, whether the object’s understanding and answer to the question is consistent with what the item designer wants to ask [ 28 ]. In this study, the Delphi method was used to invite experts to score the relevance of the scale and evaluate its content validity. When I-CVI/Ave > 0.78 and S-CVI/Ave > 0.9, the content validity of the scale is good. According to the results of expert evaluation, the item-level content validity (I-CVI) is 0.90-1.00, and the average scale-level content validity (S-CVI) of the total scale is 0.967, indicating that the scale has good content validity.

Structural validity

Construct validity, also known as construct validity or feature validity, refers to whether the structure of the scale is consistent with the theoretical hypothesis of tabulation and whether the internal components of the measurement results are consistent with the field that the designer intends to measure; the commonly used statistical method is factor analysis, which reflects the contribution of a project to the field. The greater the factor load value is, the closer the relationship is to the domain [ 29 ]. Five common factors were extracted based on a characteristic root > 1, which explained 68.878% of the total variation. The commonness of 33 items in the scale is ≥ 0.4, and the factor load of each item is also ≥ 0.4, indicating that the construct validity of the scale is good.

The practicality and significance of the scale

On the basis of an extensive literature review and Delphi method, the nursing burden scale of hospice care professionals in China was developed. To clarify the current situation and influencing factors of the care burden of hospice care professionals in China, and to evaluate the effect of intervention measures on the care burden of hospice care professionals. At present, hospice care has received increasing attention, and a series of problems have emerged. One of the problems related to health care staff is the nursing burden. The scale developed in this study is practical and helpful for nursing managers to formulate intervention measures to reduce their nursing burden and improve the efficiency of hospice care.

Limitations and further research

As with any study, this study had several important limitations. In this study, exploratory factor analysis was used to develop and verify the scale, which ensured the scientific nature of the study in terms of methodology. However, in the actual investigation process, because there are many nurses involved in hospice care in the oncology department, most of the population was selected from the oncology department, which may have biased the results. There are 33 items in total. In the future, a short version of the scale will be further developed and verified in multiple centers to ensure the popularization of the scale.

Conclusions

The reliability and validity test showed that the care burden scale of hospice care professionals developed in this study has good reliability and validity and can be used to evaluate the level of care burden of hospice care professionals in China. However, confirmatory factor analysis was not performed for the scale, and the selected samples were mainly medical staff engaged in or carrying out hospice care pilot institutions in Hubei Province. The representativeness of the sample size needs to be studied, and the sample size will be further expanded in multiple centers to improve the content of the scale.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

World Health Organization. WHO definition of palliative care [EB/OL]. [2019-07-10] http://www.who.int/cancer/palliative/definition/e .

Xinhua News Agency Basic Medical and Health Care. and Health Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of China [EB/OL].[2020-06-01]. http://www.xinhuanet.com/legal/2019-12/28/c_1125399629.htm .

National Health and Family Planning Commission. Notice on Issuing the National Nursing Development Plan (2016–2020) [EB/OL].

Li Fangfang. Qualitative research on hospice care experience of medical staff. J Nurs Adm. 2018;18(08):549–53.

Google Scholar  

Liang LJ, Zhang G. Research on the Status of Hospice Care in Chinese Mainland. Practical Geriatr. 2018;32(01):20–2.

Wang, Mengying. Wang Xian.Development status and suggestions of domestic hospice care. J Nurs Adm. 2018;18(12):878–82.

Harris DG, Flowers S, Noble SI. Nurses’ views of the coping and support mechanisms experienced in managing terminal haemorrhage. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2011;17(1):7–13. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijpn.2011.17.1.7 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Abendroth M, Flannery J. Predicting the risk of compassion fatigue: a study of hospice professional. J Hospice Palliat Nurs. 2006;8(6):346–56.

Article   Google Scholar  

Funk LM, Peters S, Roger KS. The emotional labor of personal grief in palliative care: balancing caring and professional identities. Qual Health Res. 2017;27(14):2211–21.

Melvin CS. Professional compassion fatigue: what is the true cost of nurses caring for the dying? Int J Palliat Nurs. 2012;18(12):606–11.

Ferguson M, Carlson D, Zivnuska S, et al. Support at work and home: the path to satisfaction through balance. J Vocat Behav. 2012;80(2):299–307.

Huynh JY, Winefield AH, Xanthopoulou D, et al. Burnout and connectedness in the job demands–resources model: studying palliative care volunteers and their families. Am J Hospice Palliat Medicine®. 2012;29(6):462–75.

Jung M Y,Matthews A. K.Understanding nurses’experi-ences and perceptions of end-of-life care for cancer patients inKorea:a scoping review. J Palliat Care,2 0 2 1,3 6 (4):2 5 5 – 2 6.

Hotchkiss JT. Mindful self-care and secondary traumatic stress mediate a relationship between Compassion satisfaction and burnout risk among Hospice Care professionals. Am J Hospice Palliat Medicine®. 2018;35(8):1099–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091187566 .

Yu H, Qiao A. Gui L. Predictors of compassion fatigue, burn-out, and compassion satisfaction among emergency nurses: a cross-sectional survey. Int Emerg Nurs. 2021, 55:100961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2020.100961 .

National Library of Medicine.Hospice Care[EB. /OL].[2018-08-24] http://medlinePlus.gov/hospicecare . html#summary.

Zheng Yue-ping, Ying-lan LI, Yao-hui WANG, et al. Attitudes of medical staff towards death and hospice care and its influencing factors [J]. Chin J Gerontol. 2011;31(24):4879–81. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-9202.2011.24.061 . (in Chinese).

Zheng Yue-ping, Ying-lan LI, Yang ZHOU. Chin Nurs Manage. 2010;10(4):53–5. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2010.04.019 .

Baugartez M, Hanley JA, Infante- Rivard I. Health of family members caring for elderly persons with dementia: a longitudinal study[J]. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:126–32.

Hotchkiss JT. Mindful self-care and secondary traumatic stress mediate a relationship between Compassion satisfaction and burnout risk among Hospice Care professionals. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(8):1099–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909118756657 .

Duan Qingnan Wang, Ziyu Xue, Yunzhen et al. Research progress on the correlation between mindfulness self-care and professional quality of life in hospice care practitioners. Nurs Res 2023,37(14):2557–63. https://doi.org/10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2023.14.013 .

Wu ML. Scale statistical analysis Practice[M]. Chongqing: Chongqing University; 2010. p. 1.

Wu ML. Statistical application practice of SPSS: Scale analysis and applied statistics. Beijing: Science; 2003. pp. 23–5.

Watkins MW. Exploratory factor analysis: a guide to best practice. J Black Psychol. 2018;44(3):219–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807 .

Li Zheng. Nursing research methods. Beijing: People’s Medical; 2018. p. 1.

Liu Ke. How to test the content validity. J Nurses’ Adv Study. 2010;25(1):37–9.

Kamer RS, Dieck EM, McClung J, et al. Effect of New York State’s donotresus citatelegislation in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation practice[J]. Am J Med. 1990;88(2):108–11.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Polit D F, Beck C. T. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97.

Jiang Xiaohua S, Zhuozhi Z, Nannan L, Hongxiu. Xu Haiyan. Reliability and Validity Analysis of the Scale. Mod Prev Med. 2010;37(03):429–31.

Download references

Acknowledgements

In this study, the participants were medical staff, whose cooperation throughout the study was appreciated.

The study did not receive any funding.

Author information

Yanting Zhang and Li Zheng contributed equally to this work.

Hui Qiu and Liu Yang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Critical Care Medicine, Hubei Clinical Research Center for Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430071, China

Yanting Zhang

Department of Lung Cancer Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430071, China

Department of Gynecological Tumor Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430071, China

Yanling He, Min Han, Yu Wang, Jinyu Xv, Hui Qiu & Liu Yang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All listed authors have contributed substantially to the manuscript in the following ways: Z.Y.T (Conception, Design, Data Collection, Writer, Analysis and Interpretation); Z.L (Design, Data Processing, Writer, Analysis and Interpretation); H.Y.L, H.M, W.Y，X.J.Y， (Analysis and Interpretation, Literature Review); Q.H.(Literature Review, Writer, Critical Review); Y.L (Literature Review, Writer, Critical Review).

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hui Qiu or Liu Yang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate scales. All participants signed informed consent during the reliability and validity tests. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University [2022119 K], and the implementation of all methods in this study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhang, Y., Zheng, L., He, Y. et al. Development and validation of the hospice professional coping scale among Chinese nurses. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 491 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10970-9

Download citation

Received : 25 July 2023

Accepted : 09 April 2024

Published : 20 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10970-9

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

• Hospice care
• End-of-life patients
• Care burden
• Reliability
• Scale research

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Maintenance work is planned for Wednesday 1st May 2024 from 9:00am to 11:00am (BST).

During this time, the performance of our website may be affected - searches may run slowly and some pages may be temporarily unavailable. If this happens, please try refreshing your web browser or try waiting two to three minutes before trying again.

We apologise for any inconvenience this might cause and thank you for your patience.

RSC Advances

Advances in superhydrophobic material research: from preparation to electrified railway protection.

* Corresponding authors

a School of Electrical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

b School of Materials Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China

Freezing is a serious problem that affects the power, transport, and transmission industries and is a major concern for the national economy and safety. Currently, several engineering de-icing methods, such as thermal, mechanical, and chemical de-icing, have shown problems related to energy consumption, efficiency, and the environment. Superhydrophobic materials have high droplet contact and roll angles, which can reduce the droplet residence and ice adhesion on their surfaces and have unique advantages in the self-cleaning and anti-icing fields. This paper introduces the development of infiltration theory and superhydrophobic materials and their principles of anti-icing and de-icing. Herein, the preparation and coating methods of superhydrophobic materials in applications are summarised, the performance and lifetime issues of superhydrophobic materials in applications are clarified, and the research progress on superhydrophobic materials in different fields is reviewed. Prospects for the application of superhydrophobic materials in electrified railways are also presented. A feasibility study was conducted to solve some of the existing problems of electrified railways, providing a theoretical basis for the development of electrified railways.

Transparent peer review

To support increased transparency, we offer authors the option to publish the peer review history alongside their article.

View this article’s peer review history

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

W. Bo, Z. Xueqin, L. Bingkun, L. Yijie, Y. Chenguang, G. Yujun, X. Song, W. Wenfu, G. Guoqiang and W. Guangning, RSC Adv. , 2024,  14 , 12204 DOI: 10.1039/D3RA08180J

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author, advertisements.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

6 Common Leadership Styles — and How to Decide Which to Use When

• Rebecca Knight

Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances call for different approaches.

Research suggests that the most effective leaders adapt their style to different circumstances — be it a change in setting, a shift in organizational dynamics, or a turn in the business cycle. But what if you feel like you’re not equipped to take on a new and different leadership style — let alone more than one? In this article, the author outlines the six leadership styles Daniel Goleman first introduced in his 2000 HBR article, “Leadership That Gets Results,” and explains when to use each one. The good news is that personality is not destiny. Even if you’re naturally introverted or you tend to be driven by data and analysis rather than emotion, you can still learn how to adapt different leadership styles to organize, motivate, and direct your team.

Much has been written about common leadership styles and how to identify the right style for you, whether it’s transactional or transformational, bureaucratic or laissez-faire. But according to Daniel Goleman, a psychologist best known for his work on emotional intelligence, “Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches.”

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center