When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

  • PLOS Biology
  • PLOS Climate
  • PLOS Complex Systems
  • PLOS Computational Biology
  • PLOS Digital Health
  • PLOS Genetics
  • PLOS Global Public Health
  • PLOS Medicine
  • PLOS Mental Health
  • PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
  • PLOS Pathogens
  • PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
  • PLOS Collections

How to Write a Peer Review

research paper review paper

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

research paper review paper

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.

Major vs. minor issues

What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is  fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:

  • Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
  • Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
  • Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
  • Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors.

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors.  If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.

If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

research paper review paper

  • Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
  • Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
  • Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
  • Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
  • Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

research paper review paper

Don’t

  • Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.
  • Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you don’t need to do their work for them.
  • Use the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
  • Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
  • Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments

✗ Before

“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”

✓ After

“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”

“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”

“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”

“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”

“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.

What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”

What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”

What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”

What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you turn in your report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!

  • Getting started as a reviewer
  • Responding to an invitation
  • Reading a manuscript
  • Writing a peer review

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

  • Published: 02 October 2017
  • Volume 46 , pages 1–5, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

  • Robert W. Palmatier 1 ,
  • Mark B. Houston 2 &
  • John Hulland 3  

224k Accesses

420 Citations

62 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ).

In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ).

Purpose of review papers

In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS.

The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to

Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic.

Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge.

Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).

Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.

Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.

Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions.

Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate.

The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas.

This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization.

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.

As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target.

Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS .

The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published.

Domain-based review papers

Domain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings.

Theory-based review papers

Theory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory.

Method-based review papers

Method-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective.

Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal.

Process and structure for review papers

In this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here.

Systematic literature review process

Some review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact.

In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review.

Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work.

Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan.

Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2.

Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing.

Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice.

A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis.

Structure of systematic review papers

There is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute.

Depth and rigor

Systematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention.

Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant).

Replicability

Processes for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail.

We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field.

Helpful format

Because such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table.

In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers.

Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.

Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615.

Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y .

Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.

Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.

Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217.

Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

Robert W. Palmatier

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Mark B. Houston

Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

John Hulland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Palmatier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2017

Issue Date : January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

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

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

  • How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

  • Search for relevant literature
  • Evaluate sources
  • Identify themes, debates, and gaps
  • Outline the structure
  • Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

  • Quick Run-through
  • Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

  • Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
  • Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
  • Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
  • Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
  • Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Literature review guide

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

research paper review paper

Try for free

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

  • Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
  • Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
  • Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
  • Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

  • Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
  • Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
  • Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

  • Your university’s library catalogue
  • Google Scholar
  • Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
  • Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
  • EconLit (economics)
  • Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

  • What question or problem is the author addressing?
  • What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
  • What are the key theories, models, and methods?
  • Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
  • What are the results and conclusions of the study?
  • How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

  • Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
  • Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
  • Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
  • Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
  • Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

  • Most research has focused on young women.
  • There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
  • But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

  • Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
  • Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
  • Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

  • Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
  • Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
  • Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
  • Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

  • Sampling methods
  • Simple random sampling
  • Stratified sampling
  • Cluster sampling
  • Likert scales
  • Reproducibility

 Statistics

  • Null hypothesis
  • Statistical power
  • Probability distribution
  • Effect size
  • Poisson distribution

Research bias

  • Optimism bias
  • Cognitive bias
  • Implicit bias
  • Hawthorne effect
  • Anchoring bias
  • Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

  • To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
  • To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
  • To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
  • To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
  • To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Reviewing with Empathy

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

  • What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
  • How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
  • Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
  • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
  • If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
  • If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

  • Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
  • The use of a discredited method
  • Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

  • The sampling in analytical papers
  • The sufficient use of control experiments
  • The precision of process data
  • The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
  • The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
  • That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

  • Insufficient data
  • Unclear data tables
  • Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
  • Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

  • Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
  • Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
  • Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

  • Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
  • Are the methods used appropriate?
  • Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

  • Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
  • Try to group similar concerns or praise together
  • If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
  • Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

  • Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
  • Any factual errors
  • Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

  • Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
  • Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
  • Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
  • Is the paper an appropriate length?
  • Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

  • Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
  • Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
  • Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

  • Sets out the argument
  • Summarizes recent research related to the topic
  • Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
  • Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
  • Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

  • Control experiments
  • Repeated analyses
  • Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

  • Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
  • The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
  • Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

  • They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
  • They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
  • Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
  • The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

  • The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
  • The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
  • There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

  • Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
  • Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
  • If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
  • References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

  • Helpful to the reader
  • Fair to competing authors
  • Not over-reliant on self-citation
  • Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

  • Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
  • Highlight important findings sufficiently?
  • Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

  • Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
  • Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
  • Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
  • Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
  • Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
  • State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

  • Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
  • Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
  • Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
  • If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
  • Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
  • Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

  • Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
  • Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
  • Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
  • Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

  • Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
  • Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
  • Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
  • If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
  • Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

  • Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
  • Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
  • Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

  • Interesting
  • Scholarships
  • UGC-CARE Journals
  • iLovePhD Web Stories

Research Paper Vs Review Paper | 50 Differences

50 Differences Between Research Article and a Review Article

ilovephd

difference between research paper vs review papaer.png

Table of contents

A research paper is a piece of writing that reports facts, data, and other information on a specific topic. It is usually longer than a review paper and includes a detailed evaluation of the research. Whereas, a review paper is a shorter piece of writing that summarizes and evaluates the research on a specific topic. It is usually shorter than a research paper and does not include a detailed evaluation of the research. In this article, we have listed the 50 important differences between a review paper vs research article.

  • A research paper is typically much longer than a review paper.
  • A research paper is typically more detailed and comprehensive than a review paper.
  • A research paper is typically more focused on a specific topic than a review paper.
  • A research paper is typically more analytical and critical than a review paper.
  • A research paper is typically more objective than a review paper.
  • A research paper is typically written by one or more authors, while a review paper may be written by a single author.
  • A research paper is typically peer-reviewed, while a review paper may not be.
  • A research paper is typically published in a scholarly journal, while a review paper may be published in a variety of different publications.
  • The audience for a research paper is typically other scholars, while the audience for a review paper may be the general public.
  • The purpose of a research paper is typically to contribute to the scholarly literature, while the purpose of a review paper may be to provide an overview of the literature or to evaluate a particular research study.
  • The structure of a research paper is typically more complex than the structure of a review paper.
  • A research paper typically includes an abstract, while a review paper may not.
  • A research paper typically includes a literature review, while a review paper may not.
  • A research paper typically includes a methodology section, while a review paper may not.
  • A research paper typically includes results and discussion sections, while a review paper may not.
  • A research paper typically includes a conclusion, while a review paper may not.
  • A research paper is typically organized around a central research question , while a review paper may be organized around a central theme.
  • A research paper typically uses primary sources, while a review paper may use both primary and secondary sources.
  • A research paper is typically based on empirical research, while a review paper may be based on either empirical or non-empirical research.
  • A research paper is typically more formal than a review paper.
  • A research paper is typically written in the third person, while a review paper may be written in the first person.
  • A research paper typically uses formal language, while a review paper may use more informal language.
  • A research paper is typically objective in tone, while a review paper may be more subjective in tone.
  • A research paper typically uses APA style, while a review paper may use a different style.
  • A research paper typically includes a title page, while a review paper may not.
  • A research paper typically includes an abstract on the title page, while a review paper may not.
  • A research paper typically includes keywords on the title page, while a review paper may not.
  • A research paper typically includes an author note, while a review paper may not.
  • A research paper is typically organized around a central research question, while a review paper may be organized around a central theme.
  • A research paper is typically longer than a review paper.

I hope, this article would help you to know the differences between Research Paper and a Review Paper.

Also Read: What is a Research Design? Importance and Types

difference between research paper vs review papaer

  • Difference between
  • evaluation review paper
  • Research Paper

ilovephd

Significance of Intellectual Property Rights in Research

List of ugc care journals discontinued from jan 2024, call for junior research fellow – iit madras, email subscription.

ilovephd logo

iLovePhD is a research education website to know updated research-related information. It helps researchers to find top journals for publishing research articles and get an easy manual for research tools. The main aim of this website is to help Ph.D. scholars who are working in various domains to get more valuable ideas to carry out their research. Learn the current groundbreaking research activities around the world, love the process of getting a Ph.D.

WhatsApp Channel

Join iLovePhD WhatsApp Channel Now!

Contact us: [email protected]

Copyright © 2019-2024 - iLovePhD

  • Artificial intelligence

COMMUNICATION IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Department of Biology

LITERATURE REVIEW PAPER

WHAT IS A REVIEW PAPER?

CHOOSING A TOPIC

RESEARCHING A TOPIC

HOW TO WRITE THE PAPER    

The purpose of a review paper is to succinctly review recent progress in a particular topic. Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic. It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers .

A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report . It is not merely a report on some references you found. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field.

Examples of scientific reviews can be found in:

                Current Opinion in Cell Biology

                Current Opinion in Genetics & Development

                Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology

                Annual Review of Physiology

                Trends in Ecology & Evolution

You should read articles from one or more of these sources to get examples of how your paper should be organized.

Scientists commonly use reviews to communicate with each other and the general public. There are a wide variety of review styles from ones aimed at a general audience (e.g., Scientific American ) to those directed at biologists within a particular subdiscipline (e.g., Annual Review of Physiology ).

A key aspect of a review paper is that it provides the evidence for a particular point of view in a field. Thus, a large focus of your paper should be a description of the data that support or refute that point of view. In addition, you should inform the reader of the experimental techniques that were used to generate the data.

The emphasis of a review paper is interpreting the primary literature on the subject.  You need to read several original research articles on the same topic and make your own conclusions about the meanings of those papers.

Click here for advice on choosing a topic.  

Click here for advice on doing research on your topic.  

HOW TO WRITE THE PAPER

Overview of the Paper: Your paper should consist of four general sections:

Review articles contain neither a materials and methods section nor an abstract.

Organizing the Paper: Use topic headings. Do not use a topic heading that reads, "Body of the paper." Instead the topic headings should refer to the actual concepts or ideas covered in that section.

Example  

What Goes into Each Section:

Home  

  • 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 3,067,737 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

Step 1 Understand what an article review is.

  • 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.

Step 2 Think about the organization of the review 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.

Step 3 Preview 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.

Step 4 Read the article closely.

  • 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.

Step 5 Put the article into your words.

  • 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.

Step 6 Write an outline of your evaluation.

  • 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

Step 1 Come up with...

  • 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

Step 3 Identify the article.

  • For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

Step 4 Write the introduction....

  • 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.

Step 5 Summarize the article.

  • 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.

Step 6 Write your critique.

  • 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.

Step 7 Conclude the article review.

  • 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.

Step 8 Proofread.

  • Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

Sample Article Reviews

research paper review paper

Expert Q&A

Jake Adams

You Might Also Like

Write Articles

  • ↑ 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

Jake Adams

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

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

research paper review paper

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Kristi N.

Oct 25, 2023

Vanita Meghrajani

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Am I a Narcissist or an Empath Quiz

Featured Articles

Start a Text Conversation with a Girl

Trending Articles

How to Take the Perfect Thirst Trap

Watch Articles

Wrap a Round Gift

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

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

  • Trending Now
  • Data Structures & Algorithms
  • Foundational Courses
  • Data Science
  • Practice Problem
  • Machine Learning
  • System Design
  • DevOps Tutorial
  • Web Development
  • Web Browser

Related Articles

  • Difference Between Blu-Ray and DVD
  • ChatGPT vs Google BARD - Top Differences That You Should Know
  • Difference Between Machine Language and Assembly Language
  • Difference Between Public Cloud and Private Cloud
  • Difference Between Hadoop and MapReduce
  • What is Google Crowdsource and How One Can Contribute to this?
  • Difference between Monitor and Television
  • Difference Between Hadoop and Splunk
  • Difference Between Hadoop and Hive
  • Difference Between Hadoop and Spark
  • Difference between Buffering and Caching in OS
  • Difference between Classification and Clustering in DBMS
  • Difference between T-SQL and PL-SQL
  • Difference Between Small Data and Big Data
  • Difference Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence
  • Difference between Data Scientist and Data Engineer
  • Difference Between Hadoop and HBase
  • What is Google Sheets API and How to Use it?
  • 20 Best VSCode Themes in 2024

Difference between Research Paper and Review Paper

Research paper, review paper, please login to comment....

  • Difference Between
  • Write From Home

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

 alt=

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • 12 February 2024

China conducts first nationwide review of retractions and research misconduct

  • Smriti Mallapaty

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Technicians wearing full PPE work in a lab

The reputation of Chinese science has been "adversely affected" by the number of retractions in recent years, according to a government notice. Credit: Qilai Shen/Bloomberg/Getty

Chinese universities are days away from the deadline to complete a nationwide audit of retracted research papers and probe of research misconduct. By 15 February, universities must submit to the government a comprehensive list of all academic articles retracted from English- and Chinese-language journals in the past three years. They need to clarify why the papers were retracted and investigate cases involving misconduct, according to a 20 November notice from the Ministry of Education’s Department of Science, Technology and Informatization.

The government launched the nationwide self-review in response to Hindawi, a London-based subsidiary of the publisher Wiley, retracting a large number of papers by Chinese authors. These retractions, along with those from other publishers, “have adversely affected our country’s academic reputation and academic environment”, the notice states.

A Nature analysis shows that last year, Hindawi issued more than 9,600 retractions, of which the vast majority — about 8,200 — had a co-author in China. Nearly 14,000 retraction notices, of which some three-quarters involved a Chinese co-author, were issued by all publishers in 2023.

This is “the first time we’ve seen such a national operation on retraction investigations”, says Xiaotian Chen, a library and information scientist at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, who has studied retractions and research misconduct in China. Previous investigations have largely been carried out on a case-by-case basis — but this time, all institutions have to conduct their investigations simultaneously, says Chen.

Tight deadline

The ministry’s notice set off a chain of alerts, cascading to individual university departments. Bulletins posted on university websites required researchers to submit their retractions by a range of dates, mostly in January — leaving time for universities to collate and present the data.

Although the alerts included lists of retractions that the ministry or the universities were aware of, they also called for unlisted retractions to be added.

research paper review paper

More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record

According to Nature ’s analysis, which includes only English-language journals, more than 17,000 retraction notices for papers published by Chinese co-authors have been issued since 1 January 2021, which is the start of the period of review specified in the notice. The analysis, an update of one conducted in December , used the Retraction Watch database, augmented with retraction notices collated from the Dimensions database, and involved assistance from Guillaume Cabanac, a computer scientist at the University of Toulouse in France. It is unclear whether the official lists contain the same number of retracted papers.

Regardless, the timing to submit the information will be tight, says Shu Fei, a bibliometrics scientist at Hangzhou Dianzi University in China. The ministry gave universities less than three months to complete their self-review — and this was cut shorter by the academic winter break, which typically starts in mid-January and concludes after the Chinese New Year, which fell this year on 10 February.

“The timing is not good,” he says. Shu expects that universities are most likely to submit only a preliminary report of their researchers’ retracted papers included on the official lists.

But Wang Fei, who studies research-integrity policy at Dalian University of Technology in China, says that because the ministry has set a deadline, universities will work hard to submit their findings on time.

Researchers with retracted papers will have to explain whether the retraction was owing to misconduct, such as image manipulation, or an honest mistake, such as authors identifying errors in their own work, says Chen: “In other words, they may have to defend themselves.” Universities then must investigate and penalize misconduct. If a researcher fails to declare their retracted paper and it is later uncovered, they will be punished, according to the ministry notice. The cost of not reporting is high, says Chen. “This is a very serious measure.”

It is not known what form punishment might take, but in 2021, China’s National Health Commission posted the results of its investigations into a batch of retracted papers. Punishments included salary cuts, withdrawal of bonuses, demotions and timed suspensions from applying for research grants and rewards.

The notice states explicitly that the first corresponding author of a paper is responsible for submitting the response. This requirement will largely address the problem of researchers shirking responsibility for collaborative work, says Li Tang, a science- and innovation-policy researcher at Fudan University in Shanghai, China. The notice also emphasizes due process, says Tang. Researchers alleged to have committed misconduct have a right to appeal during the investigation.

The notice is a good approach for addressing misconduct, says Wang. Previous efforts by the Chinese government have stopped at issuing new research-integrity guidelines that were poorly implemented, she says. And when government bodies did launch self-investigations of published literature, they were narrower in scope and lacked clear objectives. This time, the target is clear — retractions — and the scope is broad, involving the entire university research community, she says.

“Cultivating research integrity takes time, but China is on the right track,” says Tang.

It is not clear what the ministry will do with the flurry of submissions. Wang says that, because the retraction notices are already freely available, publicizing the collated lists and underlying reasons for retraction could be useful. She hopes that a similar review will be conducted every year “to put more pressure” on authors and universities to monitor research integrity.

What happens next will reveal how seriously the ministry regards research misconduct, says Shu. He suggests that, if the ministry does not take further action after the Chinese New Year, the notice could be an attempt to respond to the reputational damage caused by the mass retractions last year.

The ministry did not respond to Nature ’s questions about the misconduct investigation.

Chen says that, regardless of what the ministry does with the information, the reporting process itself will help to curb misconduct because it is “embarrassing to the people in the report”.

But it might primarily affect researchers publishing in English-language journals. Retraction notices in Chinese-language journals are rare.

Nature 626 , 700-701 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00397-x

Data analysis by Richard Van Noorden.

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

research paper review paper

  • Scientific community
  • Research management

How to boost your research: take a sabbatical in policy

How to boost your research: take a sabbatical in policy

World View 21 FEB 24

Scientists under arrest: the researchers taking action over climate change

Scientists under arrest: the researchers taking action over climate change

News Feature 21 FEB 24

Science can drive development and unity in Africa — as it does in the US and Europe

Science can drive development and unity in Africa — as it does in the US and Europe

Editorial 21 FEB 24

Could roving researchers help address the challenge of taking parental leave?

Could roving researchers help address the challenge of taking parental leave?

Career Feature 07 FEB 24

Best practice for LGBTQ+ data collection by STEM organizations

Correspondence 06 FEB 24

Open science — embrace it before it’s too late

Open science — embrace it before it’s too late

Editorial 06 FEB 24

Open-access publishing: citation advantage is unproven

Correspondence 13 FEB 24

How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images

How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images

News Explainer 12 FEB 24

COVID’s preprint bump set to have lasting effect on research publishing

COVID’s preprint bump set to have lasting effect on research publishing

Nature Index 09 FEB 24

Recruitment of Global Talent at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

The Institute of Zoology (IOZ), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), is seeking global talents around the world.

Beijing, China

Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

research paper review paper

Position Opening for Principal Investigator GIBH

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health(GIBH), Chinese Academy of Sciences

research paper review paper

Faculty Positions in Multiscale Research Institute for Complex Systems, Fudan University

The Multiscale Research Institute for Complex Systems (MRICS) at Fudan University is located at the Zhangjiang Campus of Fudan University.

Shanghai, China

Fudan University

research paper review paper

Postdoctoral Associate- Single- Cell and Data Science

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

research paper review paper

Postdoctoral Associate

research paper review paper

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Machine Learning

Title: research and application of transformer based anomaly detection model: a literature review.

Abstract: Transformer, as one of the most advanced neural network models in Natural Language Processing (NLP), exhibits diverse applications in the field of anomaly detection. To inspire research on Transformer-based anomaly detection, this review offers a fresh perspective on the concept of anomaly detection. We explore the current challenges of anomaly detection and provide detailed insights into the operating principles of Transformer and its variants in anomaly detection tasks. Additionally, we delineate various application scenarios for Transformer-based anomaly detection models and discuss the datasets and evaluation metrics employed. Furthermore, this review highlights the key challenges in Transformer-based anomaly detection research and conducts a comprehensive analysis of future research trends in this domain. The review includes an extensive compilation of over 100 core references related to Transformer-based anomaly detection. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review that focuses on the research related to Transformer in the context of anomaly detection. We hope that this paper can provide detailed technical information to researchers interested in Transformer-based anomaly detection tasks.

Submission history

Access paper:.

  • Download PDF
  • Other Formats

References & Citations

  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

BibSonomy logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

  • Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 21.2.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Effects of eHealth Interventions on 24-Hour Movement Behaviors Among Preschoolers: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors of this article:

Author Orcid Image

  • Shan Jiang 1 , MSc   ; 
  • Johan Y Y Ng 1 , PhD   ; 
  • Kar Hau Chong 2 , PhD   ; 
  • Bo Peng 1 , MSc   ; 
  • Amy S Ha 1 , PhD  

1 Department of Sports Science and Physical Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

2 School of Health and Society and Early Start, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Amy S Ha, PhD

Department of Sports Science and Physical Education

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

G05 Kwok Sports Building, Shatin, N.T.

China (Hong Kong)

Phone: 852 3943 6083

Email: [email protected]

Background: The high prevalence of unhealthy movement behaviors among young children remains a global public health issue. eHealth is considered a cost-effective approach that holds great promise for enhancing health and related behaviors. However, previous research on eHealth interventions aimed at promoting behavior change has primarily focused on adolescents and adults, leaving a limited body of evidence specifically pertaining to preschoolers.

Objective: This review aims to examine the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in promoting 24-hour movement behaviors, specifically focusing on improving physical activity (PA) and sleep duration and reducing sedentary behavior among preschoolers. In addition, we assessed the moderating effects of various study characteristics on intervention effectiveness.

Methods: We searched 6 electronic databases (PubMed, Ovid, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for experimental studies with a randomization procedure that examined the effectiveness of eHealth interventions on 24-hour movement behaviors among preschoolers aged 2 to 6 years in February 2023. The study outcomes included PA, sleep duration, and sedentary time. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the pooled effect using a random-effects model, and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the potential effects of moderating factors such as intervention duration, intervention type, and risk of bias (ROB). The included studies underwent a rigorous ROB assessment using the Cochrane ROB tool. Moreover, the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessment.

Results: Of the 7191 identified records, 19 (0.26%) were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis comprised a sample of 2971 preschoolers, which was derived from 13 included studies. Compared with the control group, eHealth interventions significantly increased moderate to vigorous PA (Hedges g =0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.30; P =.02) and total PA (Hedges g =0.37, 95% CI 0.02-0.72; P =.04). In addition, eHealth interventions significantly reduced sedentary time (Hedges g =−0.15, 95% CI −0.27 to −0.02; P =.02) and increased sleep duration (Hedges g =0.47, 95% CI 0.18-0.75; P =.002) immediately after the intervention. However, no significant moderating effects were observed for any of the variables assessed ( P >.05). The quality of evidence was rated as “moderate” for moderate to vigorous intensity PA and sedentary time outcomes and “low” for sleep outcomes.

Conclusions: eHealth interventions may be a promising strategy to increase PA, improve sleep, and reduce sedentary time among preschoolers. To effectively promote healthy behaviors in early childhood, it is imperative for future studies to prioritize the development of rigorous comparative trials with larger sample sizes. In addition, researchers should thoroughly examine the effects of potential moderators. There is also a pressing need to comprehensively explore the long-term effects resulting from these interventions.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022365003; http://tinyurl.com/3nnfdwh3

Introduction

Physical activity (PA), sedentary behavior (SB), and sleep are integrated as “24-hour movement behaviors” owing to the collective effect on daily movement patterns. The 24-hour movement paradigm acknowledges the possibility of categorizing these behaviors according to their intensity levels across a full day. This encompasses a diverse range of activities, including sleep; SB (eg, screen time, reclining, or lying down); and light, moderate, or vigorous PA [ 1 ]. Globally, the “24-hour movement behaviors” paradigm has already been recognized and adopted into movement guidelines [ 2 ]. In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) released guidelines on PA and SB that incorporate all 3 movement behaviors [ 3 ]. The health benefits of engaging in PA, getting the recommended sleep, and reducing sedentary time are well documented. Recent reviews have shown a positive association between PA; sleep; and a wide range of child outcomes related to mental health, cognition, and cardiometabolism [ 4 - 6 ]. In addition, it is worth mentioning that different domains of SB can have varying health effects. For instance, non–screen-based sedentary activities such as reading or studying have been associated with favorable cognitive development in children [ 7 ]. Conversely, screen-based sedentary time, also referred to as “screen time,” has been found to have adverse effects on health-related outcomes [ 8 ]. Moreover, prior research has indicated that imbalances in 24-hour movement behaviors—specifically, elevated sedentary screen time coupled with diminished levels of PA and sleep—could potentially increase the risk of depression [ 9 ] and result in poor health-related quality of life [ 10 ]. Therefore, any change in one of the movement behaviors may lead to a compensatory increase or decrease in one or both behaviors.

However, insufficient healthy levels of 24-hour movement behaviors in early childhood have remained one of the most critical global public health challenges [ 11 , 12 ]. According to the WHO guidelines [ 3 ], preschool children are recommended to engage in adequate daily PA, consisting of 180 minutes, with 60 minutes dedicated to moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA). In addition, they should ensure sufficient sleep, ranging from 10 to 13 hours, while limiting sedentary recreational screen time to no more than 60 minutes per day. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of preschoolers do not meet the PA guidelines (<50% across studies) [ 13 ]. Furthermore, previous studies have consistently demonstrated that preschoolers exceed the screen time recommendations set by the WHO. A comprehensive meta-analysis of 44 studies revealed that only 35.6% of children aged between 2 and 5 years met the guideline of limiting daily screen time to 1 hour. Moreover, when examining the integration of 24-hour movement behaviors [ 8 ], another meta-analysis discovered that only 13% of children worldwide adhere to all 3 behavior guidelines [ 14 ].

Preschoolers play a crucial role in laying the foundation for long-term physical health and overall well-being [ 15 , 16 ]. Improving PA levels, minimizing SB, and prioritizing quality sleep in young children have multiple benefits, including positively influencing their physical fitness [ 17 , 18 ], promoting the development of motor and cognitive skills [ 19 , 20 ], and preventing childhood obesity [ 21 ] and associated health issues [ 14 , 22 , 23 ]. Several studies have shown that these healthy behavior patterns can shape lifelong habits that extend from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood [ 5 , 24 ].

Although these statistics are concerning, attempts to address the issue through various interventions have yielded inconsistent findings [ 25 - 28 ]. For instance, a meta-analysis of PA intervention studies involving preschoolers revealed only small to moderate effects in enhancing PA, suggesting room for improvement in achieving the desired outcomes [ 29 ]. In a meta-analysis conducted by Fangupo et al [ 30 ], no intervention effect was observed on daytime sleep duration for young children. Interestingly, earlier research has also elucidated overflow effects stemming from interventions focusing on a specific behavior, impacting other behaviors that were not the primary target. A systematic review highlighted that interventions aimed at enhancing PA in children aged <5 years led to a reduction in screen time by approximately 32 minutes [ 31 ]. It is crucial to understand that as time is finite, the durations dedicated to PA, sedentary time, and sleep are interconnected within 24 hours. Thus, we need effective interventions for preschool children that holistically address all components of 24-hour movement behaviors.

eHealth broadly refers to a diverse array of information and communication technologies used to facilitate the delivery of health care [ 32 , 33 ]. The rapid evolution of digitalization in recent decades has led to the widespread adoption of eHealth in interventions [ 28 , 34 ]. Recent reviews [ 35 - 38 ] suggest that with the global proliferation of eHealth interventions, health promotion via these platforms is evolving to become more accessible and user-friendly, garnering acceptance among adolescents and adults. Previous reviews have underscored the effectiveness of these digital platforms in enhancing various movement behavior outcomes across diverse age groups, including children aged 6 to 12 years [ 39 ], adolescents [ 40 ], adults [ 41 ], and older adults [ 42 ]. Specifically, a meta-analysis indicated that eHealth interventions have successfully promoted PA among individuals with noncommunicable diseases [ 43 ]. Another review showed that computer, mobile, and wearable technologies have the potential to mitigate sedentary time effectively [ 41 ]. Previous studies have targeted different participant groups to investigate the impact of eHealth on sleep outcomes. Deng et al [ 44 ] conducted a meta-analysis demonstrating that eHealth interventions for adults with insomnia are effective in improving sleep and can be considered a promising treatment. Nevertheless, a review focusing on healthy adolescents found that there has not been any school-based eHealth interventions focusing on sleep outcomes [ 45 ].

Indeed, child-centered strategies such as gamification are used in some digital apps and have been shown to encourage children’s PA [ 46 - 48 ]. A considerable body of work has addressed the pivotal role of parental influence and role modeling in cultivating healthy lifestyle habits in children [ 49 , 50 ]. Physical literacy, a multidimensional concept encompassing various aspects of PA such as the affective, physical, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, plays a vital role in enhancing PA engagement [ 51 ]. Ha et al [ 52 ] conducted a web-based parent-focused intervention, revealing that enhancing parents’ physical literacy can effectively support children’s participation in PA. By understanding and promoting physical literacy, parents can provide valuable support to their children, fostering a lifelong commitment to healthy and active lifestyles. Although eHealth interventions offer promise, there are conflicting findings regarding their impact, especially when they are parent supported and targeted at young children. A previous meta-analysis examining eHealth interventions targeted at parents found no significant impact on children’s BMI. In addition, no studies have included children aged <5 years [ 50 ]. Similarly, a recent systematic review observed that eHealth interventions aimed at parents showed no significant effectiveness in enhancing PA levels in young children [ 53 ]. However, the prevalence of digital device use in young children has become widespread. For instance, studies conducted in England (the United Kingdom), Estonia, and the United States have reported that, on average, 83% of children aged 5 years use a digital device at least once a week [ 54 ]. Research also revealed that in the United States, approximately three-fourths of children had their own mobile device by the age of 4 years, and nearly all children (96.6%) used mobile devices [ 55 ]. Consequently, there is an urgent need to harness the potential of digital platforms and explore whether they can effectively deliver interventions to preschoolers [ 56 ].

In previous research, there has been a lack of studies examining the effectiveness of eHealth behavior change interventions among preschoolers. Although a systematic review found a significant effect of digital health interventions on the PA of preschoolers [ 53 ], this review did not include sedentary time and sleep in its inclusion criteria, and there is a lack of conclusive statements owing to the insufficient number of studies, and no quantitative methods were available for synthesizing the evidence on the effectiveness of eHealth interventions. To our knowledge, no systematic review or meta-analysis has distinctly investigated the effects of eHealth interventions on 24-hour movement behaviors in preschoolers or the factors that may influence their implementation. Therefore, the aims of this study were (1) to assess the effectiveness of eHealth interventions on 24-hour movement behaviors (improving PA and sleep duration and decreasing sedentary time) and (2) to examine the moderating effects of study characteristics (eg, intervention duration, intervention type, and outcome measurement tools) on intervention effectiveness.

This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022365003) and conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [ 57 ].

Eligibility Criteria

This review included trials with a randomization procedure that examined the outcomes of interventions using information and communication technology. These interventions targeted at least 1 movement behavior in preschool children aged 2 to 6 years. Studies were excluded if (1) the control groups received intervention using eHealth technology and (2) published in a non-English language. Full details are provided in Multimedia Appendix 1 [ 58 ].

Search and Selection

The following databases were systematically searched from inception to February 08, 2023: PubMed, Ovid, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We used the search terms “eHealth,” “Physical activity,” “Sedentary behavior,” “Sleep,” “preschooler,” and their Medical Subject Headings terms. The complete search strategy is described in Multimedia Appendix 2 [ 59 - 61 ]. A manual search of the reference lists of the included publications was performed to identify additional eligible studies for potential inclusion. Two independent reviewers (SJ and BP) screened the titles and abstracts and subsequent full-text articles for eligibility. Discrepancies that emerged during the selection process were effectively resolved through a discussion involving 3 authors (SJ, BP, and JYYN).

Data Extraction

A comprehensive data extraction form was developed (SJ) and refined (SJ and BP) based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [ 62 ]. Extracted information included bibliographic details (authors, title, journal, and year); study details (country, design, retention rate); participants’ characteristics (number of children and demographics); intervention type (parent supported, teacher led, or child centered), intervention’s theoretical basis, duration, delivery tool, and intensity; comparison (sample size, activity type); outcomes (behavioral variables with baseline and postintervention means with SDs), and measurement tools. Regarding the categorization of intervention types, we have established a clear classification. Specifically, in child-centered interventions, children are the direct beneficiaries, participating autonomously with less guidance from guardians. This can be accomplished using an exergaming system or designed mobile health games. In parent-supported interventions, parents are involved in educational programs and instructions that improve parents’ knowledge of preschoolers’ healthy movement behaviors. A teacher-led intervention involves supervising preschoolers’ PA during school time or participating in structured PA sessions aimed at improving healthy indicators. For data that were either incomplete or absent within the main text, we sought to reach out to the respective authors through email correspondence.

Risk of Bias

The included studies were assessed for risk of bias (ROB) using the revised Cochrane ROB2 tool [ 63 ]. The following domains of bias were assessed for each study: selection (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), performance and detection (masking of participants, personnel, and assessors), deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, appropriateness of analysis (selection of the reported outcome), and bias arising from period and carryover effects (for crossover studies) [ 63 ]. The studies were ranked as low risk, some concerns, or high risk for each domain. The ROB was evaluated independently by 2 authors (SJ and BP). Any discrepancies were resolved through discussions with the author (JYYN).

Outcomes and Data Synthesis

Our outcome targeted any of the following movement behaviors: PA (MVPA and total PA), sedentary time (screen time and sitting time), or sleep duration. Meta-analysis was conducted in R (version 4.2.1; R Group for Statistical Computing) using the meta , metafor , and metareg packages [ 64 ]. A random-effects model (Hartung-Knapp method) was used to calculate pooled estimates (Hedges g , a type of standardized mean difference) to account for variations in participants and measurement methods of movement behavior outcomes [ 65 ]. Multimedia Appendix 3 [ 63 - 65 ] describes the processing of missing data. Hedges g and their corresponding variances were calculated using the pre- and postintervention mean scores and SDs. However, if some studies had changes in baseline and postintervention data or if there were significant differences in their baseline data [ 59 - 61 ], we used the within-group difference in means and their SDs for intervention and control groups to calculate the effect size. Values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 represent small, moderate, and large effect sizes, respectively. A positive effect size indicated a beneficial effect on the intervention group compared with the control group. The between-group heterogeneity of the synthesized effect sizes was examined using the Cochran Q test and I 2 statistics. I 2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% indicated low, moderate, and high levels of heterogeneity, respectively. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the following factors: (1) intervention duration (0-3 months vs >3 months) and (2) type of intervention (child centered, parent focused, or teacher led). (3) Types of outcome measurement tools (objective vs self-reported) and (4) ROB (low risk, some concerns, or high risks).

Furthermore, we performed meta-regression analyses to examine the impact of potential moderators on the overall effect size. Potential moderators included 5 variables, as specified in the subgroup analyses, and 2 continuous variables (sample size and intervention length). These variables were selected based on existing evidence that highlights their significant moderating effects on eHealth interventions targeting movement behaviors [ 53 , 66 , 67 ]. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the leave-one-out method. Publication bias was visualized using funnel plot symmetry and quantified using the Eggertest score, for which P <.05 indicates a significant publication bias [ 68 ].

Quality Assessment of the Overall Evidence

GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) 2 criteria were used to assess the certainty of evidence for the effect of eHealth interventions on the targeted outcomes [ 69 , 70 ]. The GRADE assessment was completed using GRADEpro, and the quality of evidence was classified as high (≥4 points overall), moderate (3 points), low (2 points), or very low (≤1 point) [ 70 ].

Study Selection

The database search yielded 7140 records, with an additional 51 records identified from the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. There were 64 articles screened for full text, and 45 articles were excluded. The reasons for exclusion are listed in Multimedia Appendix 4 . A total of 19 studies reporting the effectiveness of interventions on movement behaviors were included in the systematic review [ 17 , 59 - 61 , 71 - 85 ], and 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis [ 59 - 61 , 76 - 85 ]. The PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process is shown in Figure 1 and PRISMA checklists are in Multimedia Appendices 5 and 6 .

research paper review paper

Study Characteristics

The study characteristics are described in Table 1 . In the 19 studies, 2971 preschoolers from 6 regions were included. A total of 18 studies were conducted in high-income countries, and only 1 study was conducted in an upper middle–income country, according to the World Bank classification ( Multimedia Appendix 7 ) [ 86 ]. Most included studies were conducted during and after 2017. For the study design, 16 studies were 2-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with 11 using a parallel group design [ 17 , 59 - 61 , 71 - 74 , 76 , 77 , 84 ], 2 being cluster RCTs [ 82 , 83 ], 2 pilot RCTs [ 79 , 81 ], and 1 crossover study [ 85 ]. The remaining 3 studies consisted of 2-arm experimental studies with a randomization procedure [ 75 , 78 , 80 ]. The sample size ranged from 34 preschoolers to 617 preschoolers. The study details are presented in Multimedia Appendices 8 and 9 [ 59 - 61 , 76 - 85 ].

a I: intervention.

b C: control.

c ECEC: early childhood education and care.

d PA: physical activity.

e SB: sedentary behavior.

f mHealth: mobile health.

g MINISTOP: mobile-based intervention intended to stop obesity in preschoolers.

h FMS: fundamental movement skills.

Intervention Details

The included studies used various delivery channels of eHealth technologies for the intervention. Seven studies used smartphone apps [ 59 - 61 , 74 ] and social media (Facebook and WhatsApp) [ 75 , 80 , 82 ]; 3 studies used an exergaming program [ 17 , 73 , 85 ]; 3 studies used the internet, with interventions including informational websites [ 83 , 84 ] and tablet computers [ 72 ]; and several studies used technology to dispatch reminders to exercise and send motivational messages encouraging persistence. Specifically, studies sent text messages and made telephone calls [ 71 , 76 - 79 , 81 ].

The intervention duration ranged from 1 week [ 78 ] to 36 months [ 77 ]. Seven studies had interventions that lasted >3 months [ 59 , 61 , 71 , 76 , 77 , 80 , 82 ]. Only 3 studies included follow-up assessment after intervention, with durations of 6 weeks [ 84 ], 3 months [ 72 ], and 6 months [ 60 ]. Regarding intervention types, this study consisted of 12 studies supported by parents [ 59 - 61 , 71 , 72 , 75 - 77 , 79 - 81 , 84 ], 3 studies led by teachers [ 78 , 82 , 83 ], and 4 studies involving eHealth interventions directed at children [ 17 , 73 , 74 , 85 ].

The comparison groups included a waitlist control group (n=4) [ 74 , 79 , 81 , 84 ], education as usual (n=7) [ 17 , 59 , 75 , 78 , 80 , 82 , 85 ], and an additional non-eHealth intervention (n=8) [ 59 - 61 , 71 - 73 , 76 , 77 ]. A total of 14 studies targeted PA [ 17 , 59 - 61 , 72 - 75 , 77 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 83 , 85 ], 12 studies targeted SB [ 59 - 61 , 71 , 76 - 80 , 82 , 84 , 85 ], and 4 studies targeted sleep duration [ 71 , 76 , 81 , 84 ]. Notably, no studies examined all 3 movement behaviors.

Meta-Analyses

Meta-analyses demonstrated that eHealth interventions produced significant improvements in MVPA (Hedges g =0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.30; P =.02; 7/13, 54%) and total PA (Hedges g =0.37, 95% CI 0.02-0.72; P =.04; 2/13, 15%), as shown in Figure 2 A [ 77 , 78 , 80 - 83 , 85 ]. For SB outcomes, another meta-analysis showed a significant decrease (Hedges g =−0.15, 95% CI −0.27 to −0.02; P =.02; 8/13, 62%), as shown in Figure 2 B [ 76 - 80 , 82 , 84 , 85 ]. Finally, meta-analysis also showed that there were significant improvements in sleep duration (Hedges g =0.47, 95% CI 0.18-0.75; P <.01; 3/13, 23%), as shown in Figure 2 C [ 76 , 81 , 84 ].

Owing to the heterogeneity among the included studies, the mobile-based intervention intended to stop obesity in preschoolers (MINISTOP) project’s 3 studies solely reported the difference in pre-to-post comparison [ 60 , 61 , 76 ]. Consequently, their inclusion in the pooled analysis with other studies was deemed inappropriate. We analyzed a series of MINISTOP studies separately and presented the findings using a forest plot. The pooled analysis indicated that no significant change in MVPA (Hedges g =−0.03, 95% CI −0.15 to 0.09; P =.66; 3/6, 50%; Multimedia Appendix 10 [ 59 - 61 , 76 - 85 ]) was observed between the intervention and control groups. An intervention effect was found in reducing SB (Hedges g =0.02, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.16; P =.83; 3/6, 50%; Multimedia Appendix 10 ) immediately after the intervention, as indicated in Multimedia Appendix 10 . Nonetheless, this effect was not statistically significant. All the results showed negligible heterogeneity ( I 2 =0).

research paper review paper

Subgroup Analyses and Meta-Regression

Table 2 shows the subgroup analysis and meta-regression results of MVPA and sedentary time according to study characteristics. No significant moderating effects were observed for any of the variables assessed ( P >.05). The complete results of the subgroup analyses are presented in Multimedia Appendix 11 [ 59 - 61 , 76 - 85 ].

a MVPA: moderate to vigorous physical activity.

b N/A: not applicable.

c Teacher focused studies as a reference group.

Sensitivity Analyses and Publication Bias

Sensitivity analysis indicated that no individual study had an excessive influence on the results. The omitted meta-analytic estimates were not significantly different from those associated with the combined analysis, and all estimates were within the 95% CI. Forest plots of the sensitivity analysis for MVPA, sedentary time, and sleep are summarized in Multimedia Appendix 12 [ 59 - 61 , 76 - 85 ]. The significance of Egger’s test results provided evidence for asymmetry of the funnel plots (MVPA: t 5 =3.27; P =.02; Multimedia Appendix 13 ; sedentary time: t 6 =−3.37; P =.02; Multimedia Appendix 14 ). However, we could not distinguish chance from true asymmetry using the funnel plot asymmetry test because <10 studies were included in our meta-analysis [ 86 ].

ROB of Studies

Multimedia Appendix 15 [ 59 - 61 , 76 - 85 ] summarizes the overall ROB assessment for all the included papers. Six studies were considered to have a low ROB [ 59 , 74 , 76 , 77 , 79 , 85 ], and the remaining 13 were considered to have some concerns regarding the ROB [ 17 , 60 , 61 , 71 - 73 , 75 , 78 , 80 - 84 ]. Furthermore, 7 studies did not disclose randomization methods clearly [ 17 , 72 , 75 , 78 , 80 , 82 , 83 ], so they were rated as having some concerns about random sequence generation. All studies were rated as having a low risk for the measurement of outcomes based on the use of objective measurement tools or reliable questionnaires in each study. Four studies were rated as ‘some concerns’ of reporting bias because neither published study protocols nor registered trial records were presented [ 72 , 75 , 78 , 80 ].

Quality of the Evidence

The GRADE scores are shown in Multimedia Appendix 16 , and we deemed the overall quality of evidence to be moderate to low. The quality of evidence for MVPA and sedentary time outcomes was rated as “moderate,” considering the low ROB, absence of heterogeneity in participants’ outcomes, and high precision in results. As eHealth interventions are often combined with other intervention approaches, all evaluations of directness were assessed as “Indirectness.” There were high imprecisions with the sample size included in the study for total PA and sleep, which were graded as “Low.”

Principal Findings

This study systematically reviewed the effectiveness of eHealth interventions targeting 24-hour movement behaviors among preschool-aged children. Most studies assessed interventions aimed at increasing PA and decreasing SB. Few studies targeted sleep, and no studies have addressed a combination of all 24-hour movement behaviors. Overall, these studies showed trends supporting the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in increasing PA and sleep duration and reducing sedentary time immediately after the intervention; however, only short-term effects were found, and all trials were judged to be of low to moderate quality.

This review demonstrates a small positive effect of eHealth interventions targeting increases in preschooler’s MVPA (Hedges g =0.16) and total PA (Hedges g =0.37) immediately after the intervention. One possible explanation could be that eHealth interventions, while providing new opportunities for PA, might not be sufficient to result in significant overall activity increases. This might require expanding activity opportunities, extending new activity options, and enhancing broader activity strategies to achieve substantial benefits. Our findings echo the argument made in a previous study of young children that PA interventions had a small effect on MVPA [ 87 ]. Another meta-analysis found a positive impact of PA interventions with small to moderate effects on total PA (Hedges g =0.44) and moderate effects on MVPA (Hedges g =0.51) [ 29 ]. There is no conclusive explanation as to why MVPA and total PA were seen to have a smaller effect in our study, but this could be attributed to most interventions thus far concentrating on devising PA programs of diverse intensities without distinct objectives, including low-intensity PA, MVPA, and total PA (eg, activities such as outdoor active play and structured gross motor activity sessions in childcare environments). Moreover, our results are consistent with previous review findings that digital platforms can potentially increase PA among preschoolers [ 53 ]. Hence, future interventions should aim to optimize their effectiveness in increasing PA among young children. In addition, further research is warranted to investigate the mechanisms of the changes associated with these PA outcomes. This will help enhance the size and sustainability of the effects observed in eHealth interventions.

We found no significant improvement in MVPA for mobile app interventions (MINISTOP project). This is in contrast to a review of studies focusing on mobile apps and technologies, which highlighted the significant potential to enhance PA [ 88 ]. It is worth noting that the MINISTOP project aimed to reduce obesity as its primary outcome rather than targeting MVPA. In addition, studies concentrating solely on educating parents without implementing direct interventions for children have not achieved the desired enhancements in MVPA. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions about mobile apps because few intervention studies have used these means of communication for young children and their guardians. Given the small number of studies included in our meta-analysis, the positive, negative, and null findings of the individual studies may have attenuated the results. Thus, considering the popularity and cost-effectiveness of mobile apps in the new generation, future research should investigate the potential of using emerging and novel technologies, such as mobile health, for preschoolers.

Our meta-analysis suggests that eHealth interventions may be an effective strategy for decreasing sedentary time in preschoolers, although the magnitude of the effect was small (Hedges g =−0.15) and short term. Nonetheless, the significance should not be understated, given that many studies indicate that reduced sedentary time during childhood correlates with improved physical and mental health outcomes in subsequent years [ 16 , 21 , 89 ]. In the subgroup analysis, the effect of eHealth interventions on sedentary time varied depending on whether accelerometer or questionnaire measures were used. The questionnaire measures yielded higher levels of sedentary time, although this difference was not statistically significant. This observation aligns with findings from the existing literature, suggesting that questionnaire-based assessments tend to overestimate the actual sedentary time. For a more accurate evaluation of the impact of eHealth interventions, future research should consider using device-based measurement methods [ 90 ].

Interestingly, most eHealth interventions aimed to increase children’s PA and reduce sedentary time with parental support. Previous research has shown that parental and family involvement were among the key intervention components that encouraged significant improvement in children’s health behaviors and a decrease in sedentary time [ 91 , 92 ]. Likewise, Ha et al [ 49 ] found that parents’ physical literacy predicts children’s values toward PA, and concurrent interventions that target enhancing parents’ physical literacy for PA in the family context may be more effective in raising children’s PA values. However, our subgroup analysis showed no significant improvements in MVPA or reductions in sedentary time with the parent-supported interventions. This result also aligns with a prior review indicating that parent-directed digital interventions were ineffective in improving PA [ 53 ]. In that review, 8 studies, all published before 2020, primarily used digital platforms to convey health information and education to parents. Notably, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a marked increase in research centered on leveraging technology to improve children’s PA, leading to more recent studies in 3 years [ 93 ]. Furthermore, the discourse regarding the comparative value of targeting either parents or children exclusively is not a novel debate within intervention research. In contrast to the review, our study featured a larger sample size and included a quantitative analysis of effect sizes in the interventions. These insights indicate that prevailing eHealth interventions, even with parental support, may fail to effectively engage preschoolers. Recognizing the reciprocal dynamics between parents and young children can offer insights for refining digital interventions. Therefore, preliminary research is imperative to comprehensively understand the perceptions, attitudes, and driving factors of parents. Recognizing the reciprocal dynamics between parents and young children is crucial in understanding how they influence their children’s PA and SB.

Intervention duration is also an essential component for conducting acceptable and highly effective interventions. Another subgroup analysis found that interventions with a duration of <3 months had a significantly greater effect on PA and sedentary time than those with a duration of >3 months, although the results were not significant. This notion is corroborated by another systematic review, which demonstrated the difficulty in sustaining long-term behavior change, potentially attributed to the diminishing effects of behavior change interventions mediated by digital technology [ 41 ].

The meta-analysis, involving 3 studies, revealed an immediate improvement in sleep duration following the intervention. Previous research has extensively examined the influence of sleep duration during the preschool years on physical, cognitive, and psychosocial development. For instance, the systematic review by Chaput et al [ 6 ] involving 25 studies revealed a correlation between shorter sleep duration and diminished emotion regulation in children aged 0 to 4 years. Recent findings also suggest that maintaining an extended sleep duration during the early preschool stages is significant for subsequent behavioral outcomes [ 24 ]. However, few studies have focused on effective interventions to improve sleep outcomes [ 45 , 94 ]. Consequently, further research is warranted to explore the impact of eHealth interventions on sleep outcomes among preschoolers.

Increasing awareness of the interconnected nature of 24-hour movement behaviors highlights their intrinsic interdependence [ 14 ]. However, none of the studies in our review specifically investigated the intervention effects on all 3 movement behaviors. Generally, conventional analytical methods do not adequately consider these indicators during analysis. Therefore, future research should explore alternative approaches, such as compositional analyses, to attain a more profound comprehension of whether an optimal equilibrium is present among SB, light PA, MVPA, and sleep [ 90 , 95 , 96 ]. Furthermore, most studies in our review examined the immediate postintervention effect. Consequently, insights into the enduring nature of alterations in 24-hour movement behaviors remain elusive. Further studies should include long-term follow-up assessments. In addition, it would be interesting to obtain more insights into the feasibility of incorporating wearable devices and apps into the design of eHealth interventions. This information could inform the design of wearables and apps that effectively enhance PA, diminish sedentary time, and enhance sleep, thereby maximizing their impact on public health. Moreover, the overall quality of the interventions was suboptimal, lacking thorough descriptions or proper execution in areas such as randomization, blinded outcome assessment, valid measurement of 24-hour movement behaviors, and adjusted differences between groups. In our meta-analysis, we observed that lower-quality studies exhibited a more pronounced positive impact on the targeted outcomes. Thus, it is essential to interpret the results cautiously, recognizing that there could be an overestimation of the effect of eHealth interventions in studies of lower quality owing to potential bias. This mirrors the findings from previous reviews on eHealth childhood PA [ 53 ] and behavior change interventions among adolescents [ 45 ].

Strengths and Limitations

This systematic review has some strengths. First, this study is the first meta-analysis to quantitatively assess the effects of previously conducted RCTs using eHealth interventions on 24-hour movement behaviors in preschoolers. Second, the review was conducted rigorously, encompassing comprehensive terms and using an extensive systematic search strategy. We focused on robust evidence from RCT studies, assessed the quality using the GRADE approach, and adhered to a preregistered protocol. This meticulous approach reduces the heterogeneity and provides a more precise estimation of the effects.

Nonetheless, several limitations of our study should be noted. First, the quality of the studies included in this review was generally low and lacked rigorous study designs. Second, the small number of studies discerned over the decade spanned by this meta-analysis underscores the nascent state of this research domain, even considering significant technological advancements and their widespread acceptance. Third, although we systematically screened relevant electronic databases to identify studies, the search was restricted to studies published in English. Finally, the lack of evidence regarding sustained effects beyond the immediate postintervention period underscores the need for extended follow-up. Future studies should strive to elucidate strategies for maintaining the intervention effects over the preschooler’s trajectory.

Future Research and Implications

This study highlights the significant avenues for future research. First, further research is warranted to develop eHealth interventions that yield larger effect sizes and higher quality, specifically in identifying effective 24-hour movement behaviors. It is worth noting that none of the eligible eHealth interventions addressed the comprehensive integration of 24-hour movement behaviors in preschoolers, despite the increasing recognition of the interdependence between PA, SB), and sleep. Second, many studies were conducted in Western and high-income countries, prompting the need for further exploration of the effectiveness of eHealth behavior change interventions in other country settings. Third, our study’s focus was primarily on the quantitative aspects of 24-hour movement behaviors, warranting future studies to also delve into the qualitative facets, such as motor skills and sleep quality. In addition, it is crucial to recognize the pivotal role of objective measurement tools in comprehending movement behaviors among young children. Given the sporadic and unstructured nature of preschoolers’ activities, it becomes challenging for parents and teachers to accurately discern shifts in MVPA and SB, even if they have occurred. This highlights the importance of using objective measurement tools for precise insights into these behaviors. Finally, future research in this field should prioritize broadening the focus and incorporate additional dimensions, such as physical, affective, and cognitive indicators. This approach may promote the holistic development of young children and contribute to advancements in the field of health outcomes. By considering these dimensions, researchers can also gain a comprehensive understanding of the various factors that influence children’s overall well-being and physical literacy development.

Given the multifaceted nature of intervention moderators, further research is warranted to establish optimal patterns of daily movement behaviors and to gain deeper insights into the mechanisms underlying change when addressing the amalgamation of 24-hour movement behaviors in preschoolers. Indeed, future interventions should also draw from the effective behavior change techniques used in single-behavior eHealth interventions and apply them to interventions targeting multiple healthy movement behaviors. Moreover, collaborative engagement with parents and teachers throughout both the developmental and implementation phases of these interventions will play a pivotal role in their success. In addition, capitalizing on emerging and novel technologies may offer a valuable avenue to enhance the effectiveness and feasibility of these interventions.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that eHealth interventions may hold promise in improving 24-hour movement behaviors, particularly by increasing PA, improving sleep duration, and reducing sedentary time among preschoolers. However, these effects were relatively modest and transient and were observed primarily immediately after the intervention. Furthermore, the overall quality of the evidence was rated as moderate to low. As a result, there is a pressing need for rigorous and high-quality research endeavors to develop eHealth interventions capable of effectively enhancing both the quantity and quality of 24-hour movement behaviors simultaneously. These interventions should strive to maintain their effects over extended periods.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this study would like to express their sincere gratitude to the authors who responded to their emails and generously provided detailed information and data regarding their studies. Their cooperation has been instrumental in advancing this study.

Data Availability

The data sets generated during and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' Contributions

SJ drafted the manuscript. SJ, ASH, and JYYN were responsible for the concept and design of the study. SJ and BP screened all abstracts full texts, extracted all data, performed the risk of bias, and conducted the quality assessment. SJ performed the statistical analyses. SJ, JYYN, KHC, and ASH critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors participated in developing the review’s methodology, contributed to multiple manuscript drafts, and gave their approval for the final version.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Eligibility criteria for study inclusion.

Search strategy.

Missing data processing.

Exclusion studies.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) abstract checklist.

Number of studies included per country and income economy.

Summary of intervention details in the included studies.

Characteristics of the included studies including physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep outcomes.

Forest plot of the mobile-based intervention intended to stop obesity in preschoolers (MINISTOP) results.

Forest plots of the subgroup analyses of moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary behavior.

Sensitive analysis.

Moderate to vigorous physical activity bias funnel.

Sedentary behavior bias funnel.

Risk of bias.

GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessment results.

  • Shirazipour CH, Raines C, Diniz MA, Salvy SJ, Haile RW, Freedland SJ, et al. The 24-hour movement paradigm: an integrated approach to the measurement and promotion of daily activity in cancer clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. Apr 2023;32:101081. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. World Health Organization. 2020. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128 [accessed 2024-01-18]
  • Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under 5 years of age. World Health Organization. 2019. URL: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/311664/9789241550536-eng.pdf?sequence=1 [accessed 2024-01-18]
  • Kuzik N, Poitras VJ, Tremblay MS, Lee EY, Hunter S, Carson V. Systematic review of the relationships between combinations of movement behaviours and health indicators in the early years (0-4 years). BMC Public Health. Nov 20, 2017;17(Suppl 5):849. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Rollo S, Antsygina O, Tremblay MS. The whole day matters: understanding 24-hour movement guideline adherence and relationships with health indicators across the lifespan. J Sport Health Sci. Dec 2020;9(6):493-510. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Chaput JP, Gray CE, Poitras VJ, Carson V, Gruber R, Birken CS, et al. Systematic review of the relationships between sleep duration and health indicators in the early years (0-4 years). BMC Public Health. Nov 20, 2017;17(Suppl 5):855. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Hu R, Zheng H, Lu C. The association between sedentary screen time, non-screen-based sedentary time, and overweight in Chinese preschool children: a cross-sectional study. Front Pediatr. Dec 2021;9:767608. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • McArthur BA, Volkova V, Tomopoulos S, Madigan S. Global prevalence of meeting screen time guidelines among children 5 years and younger: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. Apr 01, 2022;176(4):373-383. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • da Costa BG, Chaput JP, Lopes MV, Malheiros LE, Silva KS. Movement behaviors and their association with depressive symptoms in Brazilian adolescents: a cross-sectional study. J Sport Health Sci. Mar 2022;11(2):252-259. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Del Pozo-Cruz B, Perales F, Parker P, Lonsdale C, Noetel M, Hesketh KD, et al. Joint physical-activity/screen-time trajectories during early childhood: socio-demographic predictors and consequences on health-related quality-of-life and socio-emotional outcomes. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. Jul 08, 2019;16(1):55. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Okely AD, Kariippanon KE, Guan H, Taylor EK, Suesse T, Cross PL, et al. Global effect of COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep among 3- to 5-year-old children: a longitudinal study of 14 countries. BMC Public Health. May 17, 2021;21(1):940. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Okely AD, Reilly JJ, Tremblay MS, Kariippanon KE, Draper CE, El Hamdouchi A, et al. Cross-sectional examination of 24-hour movement behaviours among 3- and 4-year-old children in urban and rural settings in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries: the SUNRISE study protocol. BMJ Open. Oct 25, 2021;11(10):e049267. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Tucker P. The physical activity levels of preschool-aged children: a systematic review. Early Child Res Q. Oct 2008;23(4):547-558. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Feng J, Zheng C, Sit CH, Reilly JJ, Huang WY. Associations between meeting 24-hour movement guidelines and health in the early years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. Nov 28, 2021;39(22):2545-2557. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Feng J, Huang WY, Reilly JJ, Wong SH. Compliance with the WHO 24-h movement guidelines and associations with body weight status among preschool children in Hong Kong. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. Oct 2021;46(10):1273-1278. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Rodriguez-Ayllon M, Cadenas-Sánchez C, Estévez-López F, Muñoz NE, Mora-Gonzalez J, Migueles JH, et al. Role of physical activity and sedentary behavior in the mental health of preschoolers, children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. Sep 16, 2019;49(9):1383-1410. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Gao Z, Lee JE, Zeng N, Pope ZC, Zhang Y, Li X. Home-based exergaming on preschoolers' energy expenditure, cardiovascular fitness, body mass index and cognitive flexibility: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med. Oct 21, 2019;8(10):1745. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Wong RS, Tung KT, Chan BN, Ho FK, Rao N, Chan KL, et al. Early-life activities mediate the association between family socioeconomic status in early childhood and physical fitness in early adolescence. Sci Rep. Jan 07, 2022;12(1):81. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Zeng N, Ayyub M, Sun H, Wen X, Xiang P, Gao Z. Effects of physical activity on motor skills and cognitive development in early childhood: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:2760716. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Carson V, Hunter S, Kuzik N, Wiebe SA, Spence JC, Friedman A, et al. Systematic review of physical activity and cognitive development in early childhood. J Sci Med Sport. Jul 2016;19(7):573-578. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Talarico R, Janssen I. Compositional associations of time spent in sleep, sedentary behavior and physical activity with obesity measures in children. Int J Obes (Lond). Aug 2018;42(8):1508-1514. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Cliff DP, McNeill J, Vella SA, Howard SJ, Santos R, Batterham M, et al. Adherence to 24-hour movement guidelines for the early years and associations with social-cognitive development among Australian preschool children. BMC Public Health. Nov 20, 2017;17(Suppl 5):857. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Christian H, Murray K, Trost SG, Schipperijn J, Trapp G, Maitland C, et al. Meeting the Australian 24-hour movement guidelines for the early years is associated with better social-emotional development in preschool boys. Prev Med Rep. Jun 2022;27:101770. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Guerlich K, Avraam D, Cadman T, Calas L, Charles MA, Elhakeem A, et al. Sleep duration in preschool age and later behavioral and cognitive outcomes: an individual participant data meta-analysis in five European cohorts. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. Jan 2024;33(1):167-177. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Johnstone A, Hughes AR, Martin A, Reilly JJ. Utilising active play interventions to promote physical activity and improve fundamental movement skills in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. Jun 26, 2018;18(1):789. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Lee AM, Chavez S, Bian J, Thompson LA, Gurka MJ, Williamson VG, et al. Efficacy and effectiveness of mobile health technologies for facilitating physical activity in adolescents: scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Feb 12, 2019;7(2):e11847. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Morgan EH, Schoonees A, Sriram U, Faure M, Seguin-Fowler RA. Caregiver involvement in interventions for improving children's dietary intake and physical activity behaviors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jan 05, 2020;1(1):CD012547. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Hammersley ML, Wyse RJ, Jones RA, Okely AD, Wolfenden L, Eckermann S, et al. Telephone and web-based delivery of healthy eating and active living interventions for parents of children aged 2 to 6 years: mixed methods process evaluation of the time for healthy habits translation trial. J Med Internet Res. May 26, 2022;24(5):e35771. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Gordon ES, Tucker P, Burke SM, Carron AV. Effectiveness of physical activity interventions for preschoolers: a meta-analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport. Sep 2013;84(3):287-294. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Fangupo LJ, Haszard JJ, Reynolds AN, Lucas AW, McIntosh DR, Richards R, et al. Do sleep interventions change sleep duration in children aged 0-5 years? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Sleep Med Rev. Oct 2021;59:101498. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Downing KL, Hnatiuk JA, Hinkley T, Salmon J, Hesketh KD. Interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour in 0-5-year-olds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Sports Med. Mar 06, 2018;52(5):314-321. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Oh H, Rizo C, Enkin M, Jadad A. What is eHealth (3): a systematic review of published definitions. J Med Internet Res. Feb 24, 2005;7(1):e1. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Boogerd EA, Arts T, Engelen LJ, van de Belt TH. "What is eHealth": time for an update? JMIR Res Protoc. Mar 12, 2015;4(1):e29. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Liu S, Li J, Wan DY, Li R, Qu Z, Hu Y, et al. Effectiveness of eHealth self-management interventions in patients with heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. Sep 26, 2022;24(9):e38697. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Brown HE, Atkin AJ, Panter J, Wong G, Chinapaw MJ, van Sluijs EM. Family-based interventions to increase physical activity in children: a systematic review, meta-analysis and realist synthesis. Obes Rev. Apr 2016;17(4):345-360. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • He Z, Wu H, Yu F, Fu J, Sun S, Huang T, et al. Effects of smartphone-based interventions on physical activity in children and adolescents: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Feb 01, 2021;9(2):e22601. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Bonvicini L, Pingani I, Venturelli F, Patrignani N, Bassi MC, Broccoli S, et al. Effectiveness of mobile health interventions targeting parents to prevent and treat childhood obesity: systematic review. Prev Med Rep. Oct 2022;29:101940. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Western MJ, Armstrong ME, Islam I, Morgan K, Jones UF, Kelson MJ. The effectiveness of digital interventions for increasing physical activity in individuals of low socioeconomic status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. Nov 09, 2021;18(1):148. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Lau PW, Lau EY, Wong DP, Ransdell L. A systematic review of information and communication technology-based interventions for promoting physical activity behavior change in children and adolescents. J Med Internet Res. Jul 13, 2011;13(3):e48. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Rose T, Barker M, Maria Jacob C, Morrison L, Lawrence W, Strömmer S, et al. A systematic review of digital interventions for improving the diet and physical activity behaviors of adolescents. J Adolesc Health. Dec 2017;61(6):669-677. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Stephenson A, McDonough SM, Murphy MH, Nugent CD, Mair JL. Using computer, mobile and wearable technology enhanced interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. Aug 11, 2017;14(1):105. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Yerrakalva D, Yerrakalva D, Hajna S, Griffin S. Effects of mobile health app interventions on sedentary time, physical activity, and fitness in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. Nov 28, 2019;21(11):e14343. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Duan Y, Shang B, Liang W, Du G, Yang M, Rhodes RE. Effects of eHealth-based multiple health behavior change interventions on physical activity, healthy diet, and weight in people with noncommunicable diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. Feb 22, 2021;23(2):e23786. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Deng W, M J J van der Kleij R, Shen H, Wei J, Brakema EA, Guldemond N, et al. eHealth-based psychosocial interventions for adults with insomnia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res. Mar 14, 2023;25:e39250. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Champion KE, Parmenter B, McGowan C, Spring B, Wafford QE, Gardner LA, et al. Health4Life team. Effectiveness of school-based eHealth interventions to prevent multiple lifestyle risk behaviours among adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Digit Health. Sep 2019;1(5):e206-e221. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Johnson D, Deterding S, Kuhn KA, Staneva A, Stoyanov S, Hides L. Gamification for health and wellbeing: a systematic review of the literature. Internet Interv. Nov 2016;6:89-106. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Kozak AT, Buscemi J, Hawkins MA, Wang ML, Breland JY, Ross KM, et al. Technology-based interventions for weight management: current randomized controlled trial evidence and future directions. J Behav Med. Feb 2017;40(1):99-111. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Benzing V, Schmidt M. Exergaming for children and adolescents: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. J Clin Med. Nov 08, 2018;7(11):422. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Ha AS, Jia J, Ng FF, Ng JY. Parent’s physical literacy enhances children’s values towards physical activity: a serial mediation model. Psychol Sport Exerc. Nov 2022;63:102297. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Hammersley ML, Jones RA, Okely AD. Parent-focused childhood and adolescent overweight and obesity eHealth interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. Jul 21, 2016;18(7):e203. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Cornish K, Fox G, Fyfe T, Koopmans E, Pousette A, Pelletier CA. Understanding physical literacy in the context of health: a rapid scoping review. BMC Public Health. Oct 19, 2020;20(1):1569. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Ha AS, He Q, Lubans DR, Chan CH, Ng JY. Parent-focused online intervention to promote parents' physical literacy and support children's physical activity: results from a quasi-experimental trial. BMC Public Health. Jul 12, 2022;22(1):1330. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Swindle T, Poosala AB, Zeng N, Børsheim E, Andres A, Bellows LL. Digital intervention strategies for increasing physical activity among preschoolers: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Jan 11, 2022;24(1):e28230. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • International early learning and child well-being study. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2020. URL: https://www.oecd.org/education/school/early-learning-and-child-well-being-study/ [accessed 2024-01-18]
  • Kabali HK, Irigoyen MM, Nunez-Davis R, Budacki JG, Mohanty SH, Leister KP, et al. Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics. Dec 2015;136(6):1044-1050. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • McCloskey ML, Thompson DA, Chamberlin B, Clark L, Johnson SL, Bellows LL. Mobile device use among rural, low-income families and the feasibility of an app to encourage preschoolers' physical activity: qualitative study. JMIR Pediatr Parent. Dec 06, 2018;1(2):e10858. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. Mar 29, 2021;372:n71. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. Jul 21, 2009;339(jul21 1):b2700. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Alexandrou C, Henriksson H, Henström M, Henriksson P, Delisle Nyström C, Bendtsen M, et al. Effectiveness of a smartphone app (MINISTOP 2.0) integrated in primary child health care to promote healthy diet and physical activity behaviors and prevent obesity in preschool-aged children: randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. Feb 21, 2023;20(1):22. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Delisle Nyström C, Sandin S, Henriksson P, Henriksson H, Maddison R, Löf M. A 12-month follow-up of a mobile-based (mHealth) obesity prevention intervention in pre-school children: the MINISTOP randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. May 24, 2018;18(1):658. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Nyström CD, Sandin S, Henriksson P, Henriksson H, Trolle-Lagerros Y, Larsson C, et al. Mobile-based intervention intended to stop obesity in preschool-aged children: the MINISTOP randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. Jun 2017;105(6):1327-1335. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
  • Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. Aug 28, 2019;366:l4898. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. Nov 28, 2019;22(4):153-160. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol. Feb 18, 2014;14:25. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Ferguson T, Olds T, Curtis R, Blake H, Crozier AJ, Dankiw K, et al. Effectiveness of wearable activity trackers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet Digit Health. Aug 2022;4(8):e615-e626. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Ho RS, Chan EK, Liu KK, Wong SH. Active video game on children and adolescents' physical activity and weight management: a network meta-analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. Aug 2022;32(8):1268-1286. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. Sep 13, 1997;315(7109):629-634. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE Working Group. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. May 03, 2008;336(7651):995-998. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. Apr 26, 2008;336(7650):924-926. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Garrison MM, Christakis DA. The impact of a healthy media use intervention on sleep in preschool children. Pediatrics. Sep 2012;130(3):492-499. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Sun A, Cheng J, Bui Q, Liang Y, Ng T, Chen JL. Home-based and technology-centered childhood obesity prevention for Chinese mothers with preschool-aged children. J Transcult Nurs. Nov 08, 2017;28(6):616-624. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Fu Y, Burns RD, Constantino N, Zhang P. Differences in step counts, motor competence, and enjoyment between an exergaming group and a non-exergaming group. Games Health J. Oct 2018;7(5):335-340. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Trost SG, Brookes DS. Effectiveness of a novel digital application to promote fundamental movement skills in 3- to 6-year-old children: a randomized controlled trial. J Sports Sci. Feb 27, 2021;39(4):453-459. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Yarımkaya E, Esentürk OK, İlhan EL, Karasu N. A WhatsApp-delivered intervention to promote physical activity in young children with autism spectrum disorder. Int J Dev Disabil. Feb 18, 2022;68(5):732-743. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Haines J, McDonald J, O'Brien A, Sherry B, Bottino CJ, Schmidt ME, et al. Healthy habits, happy homes: randomized trial to improve household routines for obesity prevention among preschool-aged children. JAMA Pediatr. Nov 01, 2013;167(11):1072-1079. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Barkin SL, Heerman WJ, Sommer EC, Martin NC, Buchowski MS, Schlundt D, et al. Effect of a behavioral intervention for underserved preschool-age children on change in body mass index: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. Aug 07, 2018;320(5):450-460. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Byun W, Lau EY, Brusseau TA. Feasibility and effectiveness of a wearable technology-based physical activity intervention in preschoolers: a pilot study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Aug 23, 2018;15(9):1821. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Downing KL, Salmon J, Hinkley T, Hnatiuk JA, Hesketh KD. Feasibility and efficacy of a parent-focused, text message-delivered intervention to reduce sedentary behavior in 2- to 4-year-old children (mini movers): pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Feb 09, 2018;6(2):e39. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Ling J, Robbins LB, Zhang N, Kerver JM, Lyons H, Wieber N, et al. Using Facebook in a healthy lifestyle intervention: feasibility and preliminary efficacy. West J Nurs Res. Dec 09, 2018;40(12):1818-1842. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Yoong SL, Grady A, Stacey F, Polimeni M, Clayton O, Jones J, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial examining the impact of a sleep intervention targeting home routines on young children's (3-6 years) physical activity. Pediatr Obes. Apr 11, 2019;14(4):e12481. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Andersen E, Øvreås S, Jørgensen KA, Borch-Jenssen J, Moser T. Children's physical activity level and sedentary behaviour in Norwegian early childhood education and care: effects of a staff-led cluster-randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. Nov 04, 2020;20(1):1651. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Hoffman JA, Schmidt EM, Arguello DJ, Eyllon MN, Castaneda-Sceppa C, Cloutier G, et al. Online preschool teacher training to promote physical activity in young children: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. Sch Psychol. Mar 2020;35(2):118-127. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Marsh S, Taylor R, Galland B, Gerritsen S, Parag V, Maddison R. Results of the 3 Pillars Study (3PS), a relationship-based programme targeting parent-child interactions, healthy lifestyle behaviours, and the home environment in parents of preschool-aged children: a pilot randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. Sep 17, 2020;15(9):e0238977. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Zeng N, Lee JE, Gao Z. Effects of home-based exergaming on preschool children’s cognition, sedentary behavior, and physical activity: a randomized crossover trial. Brain Behav Immun Integr. Jan 2023;1:100002. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. Jul 22, 2011;343(jul22 1):d4002. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Hnatiuk JA, Brown HE, Downing KL, Hinkley T, Salmon J, Hesketh KD. Interventions to increase physical activity in children 0-5 years old: a systematic review, meta-analysis and realist synthesis. Obes Rev. Jan 2019;20(1):75-87. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Wu CC, Huang CW, Wang YC, Islam MM, Kung WM, Weng YC, et al. mHealth research for weight loss, physical activity, and sedentary behavior: bibliometric analysis. J Med Internet Res. Jun 08, 2022;24(6):e35747. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Zhang J, Yang SX, Wang L, Han LH, Wu XY. The influence of sedentary behaviour on mental health among children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Affect Disord. Jun 01, 2022;306:90-114. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Cliff DP, Hesketh KD, Vella SA, Hinkley T, Tsiros MD, Ridgers ND, et al. Objectively measured sedentary behaviour and health and development in children and adolescents: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. Apr 2016;17(4):330-344. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Kelishadi R, Azizi-Soleiman F. Controlling childhood obesity: a systematic review on strategies and challenges. J Res Med Sci. Oct 2014;19(10):993-1008. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
  • Marsh S, Foley LS, Wilks DC, Maddison R. Family-based interventions for reducing sedentary time in youth: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. Feb 2014;15(2):117-133. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Neville RD, Lakes KD, Hopkins WG, Tarantino G, Draper CE, Beck R, et al. Global changes in child and adolescent physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. Sep 01, 2022;176(9):886-894. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Teesson M, Champion KE, Newton NC, Kay-Lambkin F, Chapman C, Thornton L, et al. Health4Life Team. Study protocol of the Health4Life initiative: a cluster randomised controlled trial of an eHealth school-based program targeting multiple lifestyle risk behaviours among young Australians. BMJ Open. Jul 13, 2020;10(7):e035662. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Chastin SF, Palarea-Albaladejo J, Dontje ML, Skelton DA. Combined effects of time spent in physical activity, sedentary behaviors and sleep on obesity and cardio-metabolic health markers: a novel compositional data analysis approach. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0139984. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
  • Chong KH, Parrish AM, Cliff DP, Dumuid D, Okely AD. Changes in 24-hour movement behaviours during the transition from primary to secondary school among Australian children. Eur J Sport Sci. Aug 02, 2022;22(8):1276-1286. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by T de Azevedo Cardoso; submitted 19.09.23; peer-reviewed by W Liang, M Zhou, Y Zhang, EJ Buckler; comments to author 11.10.23; revised version received 04.11.23; accepted 18.01.24; published 21.02.24.

©Shan Jiang, Johan Y Y Ng, Kar Hau Chong, Bo Peng, Amy S Ha. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 21.02.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

New York Tech

Best Research Paper Writing Services: TOP 5 Cheap Custom Writing Help Websites Reviews

T he workload in colleges and universities is so enormous that students only have time for some of their responsibilities or extracurricular activities. Aside from the day-long lectures and seminars, each course comes with assignments, especially in the form of research work or paper writing. 

To cut down on this vast workload, students employ professional research assistants and writers to complete these tasks for them. However, advancements in technology have even made this service more easily accessible. With research paper writing websites, students can generate their assignments in a few days. Hence, five of the best research paper writing services online have been highlighted and discussed in detail below. Here is a list with the TOP 5 research paper writing websites:

  • PaperHelp - the best research paper writing service overall.
  • SpeedyPaper - #1 research paper writing website in the U.S.
  • GradeMiners - custom paper writers to hire online for help with homework.
  • PaperWriter - the cheapest research paper writing company in the world.
  • PaperCoach - the fastest research paper & proposal writing provider.

Research assignments are highly valuable to students. It is an avenue for them to learn something new that may not be discussed during the lecture. It could even be a good opportunity for students to improve their critical thinking and problem-solving skills, depending on the technicality of the research topic. Students can likewise deep dive into career experts or work closely with a mentor within or outside the educational system. However, students still do not take an interest in paper writing assignments. This attitude persists among them, even knowing that research and paper writing contribute anywhere between 20% and 80% of a course's grade.

A lot of reasons can be associated with students' poor interest in this aspect of their schooling. As mentioned in the introduction, the workload of colleges and universities forces students to give low consideration to such projects. In close relation to envy workloads, many students do not have the time, mental resources, or skillset for carrying out research or paper writing. According to Marco Learning, 40% of students could not write at a college level. Nevertheless, no student will settle for a low grade, even with terrible research and writing skills. Hence, the quest for a high grade will propel them to either contract the task to a physical professional or employ an online service. Some of the top-notch online services have been thoroughly dissected below.

5 Best Research Paper Writing Services Reviews

Each of the research paper writing services has its strengths. However, PaperHelp is the overall best research paper writing service. And that is why it is number one on this special list. A reviewer by the name of Betty showed her excitement about using this service by saying, "Very great support; they followed me through the whole process for a great essay! Thank you! Very excellent writer! The essay is very clear, and he finished before the deadline! For sure, I will release more orders."  PaperHelp is a writing platform for students with intuitive, customizable features. This platform was created to help students ease the burden of being overworked.

It is an easy-to-use service with only four phases of order placement. Firstly, clients have to choose the type of paper they want in the order form. The options available are academic writing, editing and proofreading, and calculations. Users will find essay writing services like rewriting, custom writing, programming homework help, etc. Students can also request term paper help, paper rating or grading, and several other services. Secondly, users are expected to provide details of their project, like the number of pages, line spacing, other text format, and deadline.

Extra files can also be uploaded where available. Then, they can proceed to input a valid email to generate secure login information. Finally, the process is completed by paying with a credit card or alternative payment system. Once the order has been set, users can follow their order in multiple ways. They can get updates through email, login to their control panel on a web or mobile app, or contact the support team. The support team can be reached via email, Facebook Messenger, phone, or in-app chat. If customers would like to get updates via SMS constantly, they can add the VIP Customer Service extra when they want to order.

The platform owners pride themselves on offering professional service, keeping interactions friendly, and ensuring customers are happy. The platform has a privacy policy for end users. They adhere strictly to Personal Data Protection law and only employ users’ data for legal reasons. Hence, they have a safe and secure service. Clients on PaperHelp can freely withdraw or give their consent to the use of their personal data. When users have complaints about how personal data is collected and processed, they can file a complaint under the PDP law. The platform updates and tests its platform security consistently to make personal data theftproof.

Such an important research paper writing service would not be appealing to students if they did not find the price pocket-friendly. Their pricing is based on school levels. For instance, a high school paper costs $9 per page, an undergraduate essay costs $12 per page, a bachelor's writing costs $17 per page, and a professional essay costs $20 per page. In addition to this, users can select helpful extra services like VIP customer support, plagiarism reports, sources used, etc., all at prices below $15. Not only does PaperHelp have affordable prices, but it also gives users incentives that make it very appealing, especially for multiple orders. There are bonuses, referral discount codes, a 7% feedback discount, and increased discounts on increased orders.

SpeedyPaper

Making it to number two on this list is the leading research paper writing website in the U.S. SpeedyPaper has second-to-none ratings on rating sites like Sitejabber, Reviews.io, and ScamFighter with 5/5, 4.9/5, and 4.9/5 on each site, respectively. This online writing assistant helps students scale through projects ranging from college admission essays to postgraduate or doctoral theses. Even if they have written the research paper and need it edited or proofread, SpeedyPaper is their reliable solution. Other solutions available for them include getting correct answers to multi-choice questions and receiving explanations on school or business projects.

This platform is everyone's go-to service provider for transforming old papers into new ones with paraphrasing or rewriting. In addition, SpeedyPaper can be used as a source of inspiration for writing a research paper. They have over 20,000 free paper samples that you can go through. These free samples cut across all topics, including catalogs on education, law, finance, books, history, etc. Aside from connecting students with writing professionals, it has features that cater to student growth. For instance, this paper writing service comes with an impressive blog that gives students insight into being better writers and overall students.

Using SpeedyPaper is quite easy. End-users begin by filling out the order form with paper details and uploading additional files when available. Some of the details end users can set include paper types like research papers, reports, essays, dissertations, application letters, theses, and much more. Other key details about the paper types you can set are subject, title, reference type, and requirements. Then, they proceed to set the price they want to pay by adjusting the number of pages, academic level, and deadline of the research paper. Additionally, this ordering stage will allow users to set page formats, like line spacing.

To complete the ordering process, the customer chooses the kind of writer they want and additional features, like summary, abstract, plagiarism, Grammarly report, etc. This stage is when users enter their discount code if they have one. For new users, they have to proceed to create an account by entering their email, phone contact, and preferred password. They can opt to create an account directly with their Facebook, Google, or Apple account. However, return users only need to log in to their account with their email and password. Afterward, they submit their payment details to complete the ordering phase.

When the assigned writer is done, the customer will get an email to preview their submission. At this junction, the customer can either approve the submission or request a revision. These revisions are free, but you can make your research paper writing payment using credit card options such as MasterCard, Visa, American Express, or Discover. You can also pay using Bitcoin. The cost of ordering ranges from a 20-day deadline to a 6-hour deadline. For instance, high school prices range from $9 to $26. Similarly, undergraduate would cost between $11 and $32, while Masters varies from $14 to $39. PhD articles are available for prices between $19 and $52. Lastly, you can get admission orders for $34 and $99. These prices are limited to requests for just a page and writing the research paper from scratch.

GradeMiners

"Another great product! I received extra points on this assignment along with all the others. Thanks for helping me pass my class with an A+." These were the words of a satisfied HRM client of GradeMiners. The reviews speak for themselves: this platform offers professional custom paper writers to hire online for help with homework. Our number-three research paper writing service is quite unique for its broad paper-type options, such as lab reports, movie reviews, PowerPoint presentations, etc. But this platform is even more special because of its team of writers, proofreaders, editors, and managers.

A breakdown of this team shows that there is a surplus of 3,600 writers and 250 editors. Each of these experts has an MA or PhD qualification and over three years of experience. This statistic means this platform allows users to pick from a large pool of proven and excellent professionals. Furthermore, it has some impressive features, such as over 50 writing and editing services and more than 40 disciplines covered. Over the years, an excess of 45,000 papers have been completed by the professionals on this platform. Yet, GradeMiners have retained their 100% plagiarism-free status. Likewise, every customer request gets a swift response because of the 24/7 service available on the platform.

The process of ordering a research paper is similar to the previous platforms already considered. Customers are to pick the type of work they want to order. As mentioned already, GradeMiners has a very impressive list that is not common to many other platforms. After picking a type of paper, users can set the subject they want the paper to be written on. Setting the academic level to undergraduate, master's, or PhD is the next step. After which, page number, line spacing, deadline, and type of writer are customized to the client's taste. To complete this stage, the user has to include their email and phone number, enable or disable status updates via SMS, and agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

As part of its commitment to the agreed-upon T&C and Privacy Policy, GradeMiners process clients' payments using a secure system. They do not have access to users' credit card data. This data, along with other clients' data, remains confidential. By extension, using their service will not be known to anyone, especially third-party individuals or institutions. However, they would issue a refund to clients if something dissatisfying happened. For instance, if the customer has convincing evidence against the delivery, especially when a writer has not followed the given requirement, the client's money will be refunded. To avoid unnecessary cancellations, users can request unlimited revisions for up to two weeks after receiving their order.

The price on this platform starts at $11.64. This price is considered steep compared to those of previously considered platforms. Also, it comes with a longer deadline of 30 days. However, if customers want their research paper in 3 hours, they need to pay about $32.62. To soothe customer's experiences on the platform, every first-time user gets a generous 15% discount. On subsequent orders, return buyers will keep getting discounts of 5%. Aside from the research paper writing service on GradeMiners, it has a grammar online checker. With this feature, students can put together error-free writeups and upgrade their assignment language.

PaperWriter

Do you have a write my research paper request, but you do not want to pay too much? Then, this is an exceptional option for you. PaperWriter is the cheapest research paper-writing company in the world. The service owners crafted the platform to help students with affordable, qualitative, and trustworthy solutions. This concise research writing service is highly rated by its users and reviewers. It has high ratings on Sitejabber (4.8), Reviews (4.8), and ResellerRatings (4.9). Importantly, its services cut across writing from scratch, editing finished paper to ensure it is flawless and rewriting paper to fit a unique style or voice tone.

PaperWriter places high value on their customers’ time, experience, and data. Writers are very punctual on this platform, given the sensitivity of deadlines to their customers’ grades. Even in the shortest amount of time, writers on this platform are always on hand to help customers with their writing requests. The app interface is seamless, and users will have a good time navigating it. It is easy on the eyes and visually excellent. To show how valuable customer's personal data is, they do not share it with ad agencies or any other third parties. In addition, all payments are made through tested and trusted online commercial service stores.

To order on PaperWriter is very intuitive. Customers can start by filling out the requirements of the research paper in the order form. They will then be required to input assignment type, education level, deadline, page number, word count, and line spacing, among other details. Their paper requirement will be used to suggest the available writers. These writers have ratings and reviews clients can check before hiring them. To ensure that there is no miscommunication in the order requirement, customers are welcome to chat with writers before hiring them. Complete the process by depositing money first in the balance and only release it after receiving the order.

Students can get a college-level paper for as low as $10. Alongside the ridiculously low price on this platform, customers will get several premium services for free. Some of these services are originality reports, generated title pages, formatting, outline, and reference pages. As if these incentives are not enough, they have a mouthwatering discount structure. Their discount allows end-users to get bigger discounts as they place more orders. At the end of each order, customers are notified via email and SMS. Overall, students can trust writers on PaperWriter to submit a faultless order.

If you are trying to salvage a last-minute research assignment, use PaperCoach. It is the fastest research paper & proposal writing service provider. This research paper writing service is committed to providing high quality. They are aware of customer's demand for plagiarism-free papers, and they are determined to achieve that. Ensuring that the quality remains 100% in the nick of time is hard to achieve. However, that is what PaperCoach excels at. They apply a multi-level approach that includes monitoring the progress of writers to avoid any kind of lateness.

The experienced teams in PaperCoach have helped it maintain an unbroken result of quality and timeliness. Some of these teams are the quality assurance department, dispute department, writer department, customer service department, etc. With division of labor, the company can scale effectively and meet their customers’ needs. That is why Customers can select a good range of research papers, essay and dissertation writing services. They also keep non-disclosure of all users' personal data. After receiving an order, clients are entitled to three free revisions. If they are still not satisfied, they can change the writer by contacting the support department.

Follow these steps to order on PaperCoach. Fill out the order form and click on the "Order Now" icon. This form-filling stage also allows you to add comments to your paper requirement. You can include other information, including a description file, if one is available for the assignment. Proceed to place your order. Now, set the number of pages, academic level, and when you want the deadline to adjust the order price to fit your financial means. After that, you can patiently wait for your order to be delivered.

To use PaperCoach, you can set your school level to high school, undergraduate, master's, PhD, and admissions. High school prices range from $7.99 to $23, and undergraduates cost $10 to $29. For master's students, they can pay between $14 and $36, while PhDs will pay in the range of $19 and $49. Lastly, users can pay from $20 to $66. Each of these above-listed prices is for one page of research paper that will be written from scratch. PaperCoach offers some extra services such as plagiarism reports, progressive delivery, summary, etc.

What Is a Research Paper?

A research paper is an academic writing that allows students to offer their interpretation of an argument. It is also called an academic paper, defined as an informative piece of essay for sharing personal discovery about a subject. To arrive at a conclusion, the student subjects their argument to in-depth analysis and evaluation. Through this thorough evaluation and analysis, there may be new results or inventions. After which, the evaluator, in most cases a lecturer or examiner, questions the research paper to judge the student’s understanding of the subject. After being examined, this paper is published in academic journals.

Is Writing a Research Paper Easy?

There is no straight answer to this question. While some students are comfortable with researching a theory and documenting it, it is not so for many other students. However, a research paper is not so complicated that any student cannot learn to write it. Given that it is a task that takes critical thinking, time, and dedication, several students avoid it. Hence, in the eyes of an average student, this is a hard task or project. To get past the difficulty encountered in writing a research paper, the students need to pay attention to the instructions given by the lecturer and apply them one after the other.

Can I Write a Research Paper in a Day?

Yes, you can write a research paper in a day. While it might not be a mean feat, you can get it done by simply following instructions. Since libraries, encyclopaedias, and even labs are all available on your mobile phone, you have all the research material you need. Hence, collect data online regarding the topic you want to write a research paper on. Use the resources you have gathered to write an introduction, abstract, and conclusion. You have to also be careful of the popular formats of research paper writing you are working with. That way, you can insert the appropriate citation without having to waste more time on it.

How Much Does Research Paper Writing Cost?

Research paper writing costs about $9 to $15 per page for basic writing. The more experience the writer has, the higher the price they will charge for it. Research paper writing is highly priced compared to other writing because of the meticulousness and skill needed to get the project done. For instance, writing research papers requires sourcing materials, interpretation of data, citations, etc. If other requirements are included in the request to write a research paper, the price may go up significantly.  Hence, you could pay as much as $99 for a page of research paper.

What Are Some Popular Formats of Research Paper Writing?

Writing formats are very important for research papers. Below are pinpoint explanations of the most popular format types, especially for you to distinguish them.

  • # APA (American Psychological Association): APA is mostly used for science papers in fields such as physics, psychology, chemistry, etc. It requires a title page at the start and a citation page titled "References." Its in-text citation should include the author's name, publication date, and page number introduced by “p.”
  • # MLA (Modern Language Association): This is the most popular format among the humanities. This format does not need a footnote. It uses only in-text citations. Thereafter, references are listed in alphabetic order at the closing of the paper under the title "Works Cited."
  • # CMS/CMOS (Chicago Manual of Style): This format is common among publishers and academic paper writers in arts, history, philosophy, and religion. Chicago style uses a superscript number and footnote to indicate cited resources.
  • # Harvard: It is a simple research paper format and has a close similarity to the APA format. However, the Harvard format does not use commas to separate the author's name and year of publication. In addition, its citation page is tagged "Reference List."

Can I Really Hire Someone to Write My Research Paper Online?

Yes, you can pay someone to write your research paper for you online. The best way to do it is to pick the most reliable research writing service. In this article, five of those top-notch services have been discussed. They vary slightly in feature, interface, and application. However, they will get the job done for you without having to task yourself with the responsibility of writing the research paper yourself. Our top pick is PaperHelp. However, you can consider other alternatives, such as SpeedyPaper, GradeMiners, PaperWriter, and PaperCoach.

What Research Paper Writing Service Today is the Best?

The overall best research paper writing service today is PaperHelp. Not only is it highly ranked on popular rating sites, but it is also well appreciated by first-hand users. Talking about its features, PaperHelp is the trailblazer platform for students to customize their research paper writing service intuitively. This user-friendly interface of the app makes it easy for users to order. Furthermore, the platform offers customers the chance to get research paper writing services at affordable prices. To further sweeten the offers, there are discounts and bonuses up for grabs.

What Is the Cheapest Research Paper Writing Service Overall?

The most pocket-friendly research paper writing service available is PaperWriter. PaperWriter is a very concise solution for students who want to spend less and still maintain good grades. The platform has a cozy effect on the user and makes it worth more than it costs. In addition, $10 is a ridiculous price for all the extra benefits that its users have access to on the platform. Counterpart service providers offer the same extra bonuses or services for heftier prices than the base price customers will pay on PaperWriter. In addition, there are discounts for new and loyal customers.

Do Paper Writing Services Really Work?

Yes, paper writing services really work. They have helped me write research and essays on short notice. When a student does not possess the inquisitive, critical thinking, or writing skills to write their paper, paper writing services have been helpful. They have helped proofread and edit near-perfect projects. And for research paper writing projects that are far from required, these solutions have helped rewrite them. Additionally, more students can ease the burden of the education system and free up some time with paper writing services.

Can I Be Caught Using Essay Writing Services?

Yes, you can get caught using essay writing services. While it is not illegal to use essay writing services, you do not want to get caught by your examiner, supervisor, or lecturer. One of the ways to ensure you make your essay writing service detection proof is by studying the submitted document. Since your examiner will be quizzing you to know how well you understand the subject, you can also get familiar with what is written inside. Another possible way to get caught is by using a service without a privacy policy or security terms. Such a service is likely to share your personal data with ad agencies and third parties.

Can You Trust Essay Writing Services?

Yes, you can trust essay writing services. The tons of reviews and feedback from customers show they can be trusted. That is why you have to examine the ratings and reviews well before you start using an essay writing service. Likewise, it is essential to be cautious before choosing a writing service. For instance, you want to choose one of the options discussed above before considering other options. Even if you do not pick any of these options, ensure the essay writing service you choose has a privacy and security policy agreement.

Ordering your research paper from any of the services discussed above is highly advantageous. Firstly, these platforms offer the best paper writing services. Hence, their premium service is a guarantee that you will be able to impress your lecturer or supervisor and get the best grade in the course. Even though good grades are the most important reason students would want to contact a professional writer, one cannot rule out exceptional students who would like to free up some time. Free time can be spent in several ways, which include but are not limited to extracurricular activities, recreation, makeup class or reading, religious activity, or an extra job/internship.

When a student is not freeing up some time, they may be trying to improve their writing. Hence, these services offer rewriting, editing, and proofreading. That way, they can still get a good grade without good enough writing skills. Furthermore, many of the best research paper writing services discussed help students become better all-round. In other words, students can be more studious, better writers, and improve their research and critical thinking skills with the aid of these tools. Lastly, the low rate of these services also means that students can get the most results for the least amount of money.

The workload in colleges and universities is so enormous that students only have time for some of their responsibilitie

  • Newsletters

OpenAI teases an amazing new generative video model called Sora

The firm is sharing Sora with a small group of safety testers but the rest of us will have to wait to learn more.

  • Will Douglas Heaven archive page

OpenAI has built a striking new generative video model called Sora that can take a short text description and turn it into a detailed, high-definition film clip up to a minute long.

Based on four sample videos that OpenAI shared with MIT Technology Review ahead of today’s announcement, the San Francisco–based firm has pushed the envelope of what’s possible with text-to-video generation (a hot new research direction that we flagged as a trend to watch in 2024 ).

“We think building models that can understand video, and understand all these very complex interactions of our world, is an important step for all future AI systems,” says Tim Brooks, a scientist at OpenAI.

But there’s a disclaimer. OpenAI gave us a preview of Sora (which means sky in Japanese) under conditions of strict secrecy. In an unusual move, the firm would only share information about Sora if we agreed to wait until after news of the model was made public to seek the opinions of outside experts. [Editor’s note: We’ve updated this story with outside comment below.] OpenAI has not yet released a technical report or demonstrated the model actually working. And it says it won’t be releasing Sora anytime soon. [ Update: OpenAI has now shared more technical details on its website.]

The first generative models that could produce video from snippets of text appeared in late 2022. But early examples from Meta , Google, and a startup called Runway were glitchy and grainy. Since then, the tech has been getting better fast. Runway’s gen-2 model, released last year, can produce short clips that come close to matching big-studio animation in their quality. But most of these examples are still only a few seconds long.  

The sample videos from OpenAI’s Sora are high-definition and full of detail. OpenAI also says it can generate videos up to a minute long. One video of a Tokyo street scene shows that Sora has learned how objects fit together in 3D: the camera swoops into the scene to follow a couple as they walk past a row of shops.

OpenAI also claims that Sora handles occlusion well. One problem with existing models is that they can fail to keep track of objects when they drop out of view. For example, if a truck passes in front of a street sign, the sign might not reappear afterward.  

In a video of a papercraft underwater scene, Sora has added what look like cuts between different pieces of footage, and the model has maintained a consistent style between them.

It’s not perfect. In the Tokyo video, cars to the left look smaller than the people walking beside them. They also pop in and out between the tree branches. “There’s definitely some work to be done in terms of long-term coherence,” says Brooks. “For example, if someone goes out of view for a long time, they won’t come back. The model kind of forgets that they were supposed to be there.”

Impressive as they are, the sample videos shown here were no doubt cherry-picked to show Sora at its best. Without more information, it is hard to know how representative they are of the model’s typical output.   

It may be some time before we find out. OpenAI’s announcement of Sora today is a tech tease, and the company says it has no current plans to release it to the public. Instead, OpenAI will today begin sharing the model with third-party safety testers for the first time.

In particular, the firm is worried about the potential misuses of fake but photorealistic video . “We’re being careful about deployment here and making sure we have all our bases covered before we put this in the hands of the general public,” says Aditya Ramesh, a scientist at OpenAI, who created the firm’s text-to-image model DALL-E .

But OpenAI is eyeing a product launch sometime in the future. As well as safety testers, the company is also sharing the model with a select group of video makers and artists to get feedback on how to make Sora as useful as possible to creative professionals. “The other goal is to show everyone what is on the horizon, to give a preview of what these models will be capable of,” says Ramesh.

To build Sora, the team adapted the tech behind DALL-E 3, the latest version of OpenAI’s flagship text-to-image model. Like most text-to-image models, DALL-E 3 uses what’s known as a diffusion model. These are trained to turn a fuzz of random pixels into a picture.

Sora takes this approach and applies it to videos rather than still images. But the researchers also added another technique to the mix. Unlike DALL-E or most other generative video models, Sora combines its diffusion model with a type of neural network called a transformer.

Transformers are great at processing long sequences of data, like words. That has made them the special sauce inside large language models like OpenAI’s GPT-4 and Google DeepMind’s Gemini . But videos are not made of words. Instead, the researchers had to find a way to cut videos into chunks that could be treated as if they were. The approach they came up with was to dice videos up across both space and time. “It’s like if you were to have a stack of all the video frames and you cut little cubes from it,” says Brooks.

The transformer inside Sora can then process these chunks of video data in much the same way that the transformer inside a large language model processes words in a block of text. The researchers say that this let them train Sora on many more types of video than other text-to-video models, varied in terms of resolution, duration, aspect ratio, and orientation. “It really helps the model,” says Brooks. “That is something that we’re not aware of any existing work on.”

“From a technical perspective it seems like a very significant leap forward,” says Sam Gregory, executive director at Witness, a human rights organization that specializes in the use and misuse of video technology. “But there are two sides to the coin,” he says. “The expressive capabilities offer the potential for many more people to be storytellers using video. And there are also real potential avenues for misuse.” 

OpenAI is well aware of the risks that come with a generative video model. We are already seeing the large-scale misuse of deepfake images . Photorealistic video takes this to another level.

Gregory notes that you could use technology like this to misinform people about conflict zones or protests. The range of styles is also interesting, he says. If you could generate shaky footage that looked like something shot with a phone, it would come across as more authentic.

The tech is not there yet, but generative video has gone from zero to Sora in just 18 months. “We’re going to be entering a universe where there will be fully synthetic content, human-generated content and a mix of the two,” says Gregory.

The OpenAI team plans to draw on the safety testing it did last year for DALL-E 3. Sora already includes a filter that runs on all prompts sent to the model that will block requests for violent, sexual, or hateful images, as well as images of known people. Another filter will look at frames of generated videos and block material that violates OpenAI’s safety policies.

OpenAI says it is also adapting a fake-image detector developed for DALL-E 3 to use with Sora. And the company will embed industry-standard C2PA tags , metadata that states how an image was generated, into all of Sora’s output. But these steps are far from foolproof. Fake-image detectors are hit-or-miss. Metadata is easy to remove, and most social media sites strip it from uploaded images by default.  

“We’ll definitely need to get more feedback and learn more about the types of risks that need to be addressed with video before it would make sense for us to release this,” says Ramesh.

Brooks agrees. “Part of the reason that we’re talking about this research now is so that we can start getting the input that we need to do the work necessary to figure out how it could be safely deployed,” he says.

Update 2/15: Comments from Sam Gregory were added .

Artificial intelligence

Ai for everything: 10 breakthrough technologies 2024.

Generative AI tools like ChatGPT reached mass adoption in record time, and reset the course of an entire industry.

What’s next for AI in 2024

Our writers look at the four hot trends to watch out for this year

  • Melissa Heikkilä archive page

Google’s Gemini is now in everything. Here’s how you can try it out.

Gmail, Docs, and more will now come with Gemini baked in. But Europeans will have to wait before they can download the app.

Deploying high-performance, energy-efficient AI

Investments into downsized infrastructure can help enterprises reap the benefits of AI while mitigating energy consumption, says corporate VP and GM of data center platform engineering and architecture at Intel, Zane Ball.

  • MIT Technology Review Insights archive page

Stay connected

Get the latest updates from mit technology review.

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.

  • Mobile Site
  • Staff Directory
  • Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

  • Biz & IT
  • Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

AI gone wild —

Scientists aghast at bizarre ai rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article, it's unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review..

Beth Mole - Feb 15, 2024 11:16 pm UTC

An actual laboratory rat, who is intrigued.

Appall and scorn ripped through scientists' social media networks Thursday as several egregiously bad AI-generated figures circulated from a peer-reviewed article recently published in a reputable journal. Those figures—which the authors acknowledge in the article's text were made by Midjourney—are all uninterpretable. They contain gibberish text and, most strikingly, one includes an image of a rat with grotesquely large and bizarre genitals, as well as a text label of "dck."

AI-generated Figure 1 of the paper. This image is supposed to show spermatogonial stem cells isolated, purified, and cultured from rat testes.

The article in question is titled "Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway," which was authored by three researchers in China, including the corresponding author Dingjun Hao of Xi’an Honghui Hospital. It was published online Tuesday in the journal Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.

Frontiers did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment, but we will update this post with any response.

Figure 2 is supposed to be a diagram of the JAK-STAT signaling pathway.

But the rat's package is far from the only problem. Figure 2 is less graphic but equally mangled. While it's intended to be a diagram of a complex signaling pathway, it instead is a jumbled mess. One scientific integrity expert questioned whether it provided an overly complicated explanation of "how to make a donut with colorful sprinkles." Like the first image, the diagram is rife with nonsense text and baffling images. Figure 3 is no better, offering a collage of small circular images that are densely annotated with gibberish. The image is supposed to provide visual representations of how the signaling pathway from Figure 2 regulates the biological properties of spermatogonial stem cells.

Some scientists online questioned whether the article's text was also AI-generated. One user noted that AI detection software determined that it was likely to be AI-generated; however, as Ars has reported previously, such software is unreliable .

Figure 3 is supposed to show the regulation of biological properties of spermatogonial stem cells by JAK/STAT signaling pathway.

The images, while egregious examples, highlight a growing problem in scientific publishing. A scientist's success relies heavily on their publication record, with a large volume of publications, frequent publishing, and articles appearing in top-tier journals, all of which earn scientists more prestige. The system incentivizes less-than-scrupulous researchers to push through low-quality articles, which, in the era of AI chatbots, could potentially be generated with the help of AI. Researchers worry that the growing use of AI will make published research less trustworthy. As such, research journals have recently set new authorship guidelines for AI-generated text to try to address the problem. But for now, as the Frontiers article shows, there are clearly some gaps.

reader comments

Channel ars technica.

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) Descriptive Review for Research Paper Format

    research paper review paper

  2. Literature Review Outline Template

    research paper review paper

  3. Paper review

    research paper review paper

  4. Writing a Research Paper Literature Review in APA or MLA

    research paper review paper

  5. Sample of Research Literature Review

    research paper review paper

  6. research-paper-literature-review-sample.pdf

    research paper review paper

VIDEO

  1. Research Paper Writing online Workshop

  2. CA Foundation Law and BCR Dec 2023 Paper Review

  3. Critique Paper/Review Paper

  4. How to write a Research Paper or Review Paper

  5. Research Paper Topics 😮😮😯 Best for Beginners 👍

  6. CMA INTER December 2023 DT & IDT Paper Review

COMMENTS

  1. How to write a review paper

    There exist a number of papers devoted to instruction on how to write a good review paper. Among the most useful for scientific reviews, in my estimation, are those by Torraco (2016, 2005) and Pautasso (2013). Many of the steps detailed in the instructional list that follows are found in these papers.

  2. How to review a paper

    How-To How to review a paper 22 Sep 2016 By Elisabeth Pain A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach. Credit: dmark/iStockphoto

  3. 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper

    One of the most popular questions on our Q&A forum - What is the difference between a research paper and a review paper? - led us to conclude that of all the types of scholarly literature, researchers tend to be most perplexed by the distinction between a research paper and a review paper.

  4. What is the difference between a research paper and a review paper

    A review article or review paper is based on other published articles. It does not report original research. Review articles generally summarize the existing literature on a topic in an attempt to explain the current state of understanding on the topic. Review articles can be of three kinds:

  5. How to Write a Peer Review

    1. Summary of the research and your overall impression In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses.

  6. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

    Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review-conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review, Psychology Bulletin, Medicinal Research Reviews).The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process.

  7. How to Write a Literature Review

    There are five key steps to writing a literature review: Search for relevant literature Evaluate sources Identify themes, debates, and gaps Outline the structure Write your literature review

  8. What is a review article?

    A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...

  9. How to write a superb literature review

    One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad ...

  10. How to Write a Best Review Paper to Get More Citation

    A review paper, or a literature review, is a thorough, analytical examination of previously published literature. It also provides an overview of current research works on a particular topic in chronological order.

  11. How to write a good scientific review article

    In addition to writing up research papers, writing review articles is a useful skill to develop early on in your career as a scientist, whether pursuing an academic career path or not.

  12. PDF Format for a review paper

    Abstract: An abstract should be of approximately 200-300 words. Provide a brief summary of the review question being addressed or rationale for the review, the major studies reviewed, and conclusions drawn. Please do not cite references in the Abstract.

  13. Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript

    The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper. First Read Considerations Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

  14. Research Paper Vs Review Paper

    A research paper is typically objective in tone, while a review paper may be more subjective in tone. A research paper typically uses APA style, while a review paper may use a different style. A research paper typically includes a title page, while a review paper may not. A research paper typically includes an abstract on the title page, while ...

  15. Writing Review Papers

    The purpose of a review paper is to succinctly review recent progress in a particular topic. Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic. It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers. A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report.

  16. What is the difference between research papers and review papers

    Research papers and review papers are written by scholars and intended for an academic audience; they're written with the aim of contributing to the existing body of knowledge in a particular field and can be published in peer reviewed journals.

  17. How to Write an Article Review (with Sample Reviews)

    Identify the article. Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest. 4.

  18. Writing a Literature Review Research Paper: A step-by-step approach

    It demands a range of skills, such as learning how to define topics for exploration, acquiring skills of literature searching and retrieval, developing the ability to analyze and synthesize data as...

  19. Difference between Research Paper and Review Paper

    A review paper refers to the study and survey of a recently published Research paper on a specific topic or subject. For instance, climate change due to industrial waste has many scholarly Research paper. these papers can be reviewed by any other number of scholars for its merits.

  20. How to write a review paper?

    a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field. Cite 13 Recommendations Top...

  21. How To Write A Scientific Review Research Paper

    Choose keywords carefully, choose a good database such as Web of Science, choose the time-frame that your review will cover, and read everything that is a match. Take notes and, if appropriate to ...

  22. (PDF) How to Review a Research Paper

    Peer review in health sciences. Second edition. London: BMJ Books, 2003:45-61. PDF | workshop at University of Diyala , Dec. 4, 2016 for the academic staff and post graduate students | Find, read ...

  23. China conducts first nationwide review of retractions and research

    Related Articles. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record Multimillion-dollar trade in paper authorships alarms publishers

  24. [2402.08975] Research and application of Transformer based anomaly

    Download a PDF of the paper titled Research and application of Transformer based anomaly detection model: A literature review, by Mingrui Ma and 2 other authors. ... To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review that focuses on the research related to Transformer in the context of anomaly detection. We hope that this ...

  25. Cancers

    Highly Viewed Papers on Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis in Cancer Research. We are delighted to share some highly viewed papers on systematic review or meta-analysis in cancer research that were published in Cancers (ISSN: 2072-6694) in 2023. The following is a list of articles that we believe will interest you: "Effectiveness of ...

  26. Journal of Medical Internet Research

    Background: The high prevalence of unhealthy movement behaviors among young children remains a global public health issue. eHealth is considered a cost-effective approach that holds great promise for enhancing health and related behaviors. However, previous research on eHealth interventions aimed at promoting behavior change has primarily focused on adolescents and adults, leaving a limited ...

  27. Best Research Paper Writing Services: TOP 5 Cheap Custom Writing ...

    SpeedyPaper. Making it to number two on this list is the leading research paper writing website in the U.S. SpeedyPaper has second-to-none ratings on rating sites like Sitejabber, Reviews.io, and ...

  28. OpenAI teases an amazing new generative video model called Sora

    February 15, 2024. OpenAI. OpenAI has built a striking new generative video model called Sora that can take a short text description and turn it into a detailed, high-definition film clip up to a ...

  29. Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed

    The first figure in the paper, the one containing the rat, drew immediate attention as scientists began widely sharing it and commenting on it on social media platforms, including Bluesky and X ...