Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 ,17. Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18]. If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas. the outstanding research questions. the main areas of debate, and 22. Kelleher C, Wagener T (2011) Ten guidelines for effective data visualization in scientific publications. Environ Model Softw 26. 822–827 doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.006 keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ), 19. Carnwell R, Daly W (2001) Strategies for the construction of a critical review of the literature. Nurse Educ Pract 1. 57–63 doi:10.1054/nepr.2001.0008 [PubMed ] 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi:10.1145/1134285.1134500. 25. Logan DW examples of easy essay writing, Sandal M, Gardner PP, Manske M, Bateman A (2010) Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia. PLoS Comput Biol 6. e1000941 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941 [PMC free article ] [PubMed ] 2. Pautasso M (2010) Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics 85. 193–202 doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0233-5 8. Maier HR (2013) What constitutes a good literature review and why does its quality matter? Environ Model Softw 43. 3–4 doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.02.004 Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7]. In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors. Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] –[32]. I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature. interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary) marketing case studies free download, Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9]. but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g. web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g. computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g. computer science, biology an essay on history of computer, etc.). Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11]. but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time. Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto plagiarism free essay writers, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder research proposal for phd, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre apa style example essays, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg college admission essays topic, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft. 12. Khoo CSG, Na JC i need an essay written how much, Jaidka K (2011) Analysis of the macro-level discourse structure of literature reviews. Online Info Rev 35. 255–271 doi:10.1108/14684521111128032 29. Bertamini M, Munafò MR (2012) Bite-size science and its undesired side effects. Perspect Psychol Sci 7. 67–71 doi:10.1177/1745691611429353 [PubMed ] 30. Pautasso M (2012) Publication growth in biological sub-fields: patterns, predictability and sustainability. Sustainability 4. 3234–3247 doi:10.3390/su4123234 Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1]. For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2]. Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3]. Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4]. For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] . 4. Hampton SE, Parker JN (2011) Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. Bioscience 61. 900–910 doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.9 24. May RM (2011) Science as organized scepticism. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 369. 4685–4689 doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0177 [PubMed ] 13. Rosenfeld RM (1996) How to systematically review the medical literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115. 53–63 doi:10.1016/S0194-5998(96)70137-7 [PubMed ] incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance. 20. Roberts PD, Stewart GB, Pullin AS (2006) Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine. Biol Conserv 132. 409–423 doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.034 NOTE: Use the same bibliographic citation format as you would for any bibliography, works cited or reference list. It will follow a standard documentation style such as MLA or APA. Before You Read the Article Prepare an Outline The review should begin with a complete citation of the article. For example: What is a Critical Review of a Journal Article? Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study. 4. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106 :485–8. [PubMed ] 3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Randomized controlled trials 3 registration/application checklist (12/2006) 2006. www.cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf (accessed 19 May 2009). The PRISMA statement [6 ] elaborated to write a well-designed review articles contains a 27-item checklist ( Table 1 ). It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible. The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines. [1 tips on writing the best essay,2 ] The institutions which provide financial support for further investigations resort to these reviews to reveal the need for these researches. [3 ] As is the case with all other researches, the value of a review article is related to what is achieved, what is found, and the way of communicating this information. A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published in 1985 case study in management examples, and 1986, and revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria. [4 ] In 1996 an international group that analyzed articles, demonstrated the aspects of review articles, and meta-analyses that had not complied with scientific criteria guidelines for writing essays, and elaborated QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) statement which focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies. [5 ] Later on this guideline was updated, and named as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). [6 ] 13. Mulrow C, Cook D, editors. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for health care decisions. Philadelphia: American Collage of Phtsicians; 1998. Before inquring for the method of preparation of a review article, it is more logical to investigate the motivation behind writing the review article in question. The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: To synthetize available, but quite different researches As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations. 14. Glasziou PP, Vandenbroucke J, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ. 2004; 328 :39–41. [PMC free article ] [PubMed ] In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. Before asking ‘how,’ the question of ‘why’ is more important when starting to write a review. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. A ‘methodological filter’ is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way. It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O). In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way. Structure of a systematic review
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
ArchivesCategories |