Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

OWL logo

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

  • An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
  • A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
  • Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
  • 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 sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

  • Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
  • Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

  • Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
  • Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
  • Qualitative versus quantitative research
  • Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
  • Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
  • Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

  • It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
  • Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
  • Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
  • Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

  • 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 3,069,495 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

what is a research article review

Expert Q&A

Jake Adams

You Might Also Like

Write a Feature Article

  • ↑ 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?

what is a research article review

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

Do the Worm

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:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

what is a research article review

How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

what is a research article review

Did you know that article reviews are not just academic exercises but also a valuable skill in today's information age? In a world inundated with content, being able to dissect and evaluate articles critically can help you separate the wheat from the chaff. Whether you're a student aiming to excel in your coursework or a professional looking to stay well-informed, mastering the art of writing article reviews is an invaluable skill.

Short Description

In this article, our research paper writing service experts will start by unraveling the concept of article reviews and discussing the various types. You'll also gain insights into the art of formatting your review effectively. To ensure you're well-prepared, we'll take you through the pre-writing process, offering tips on setting the stage for your review. But it doesn't stop there. You'll find a practical example of an article review to help you grasp the concepts in action. To complete your journey, we'll guide you through the post-writing process, equipping you with essential proofreading techniques to ensure your work shines with clarity and precision!

What Is an Article Review: Grasping the Concept 

A review article is a type of professional paper writing that demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.

If you write a scientific review, you have to use database searches to portray the research. Your primary goal is to summarize everything and present a clear understanding of the topic you've been working on.

Writing Involves:

  • Summarization, classification, analysis, critiques, and comparison.
  • The analysis, evaluation, and comparison require the use of theories, ideas, and research relevant to the subject area of the article.
  • It is also worth nothing if a review does not introduce new information, but instead presents a response to another writer's work.
  • Check out other samples to gain a better understanding of how to review the article.

Types of Review

When it comes to article reviews, there's more than one way to approach the task. Understanding the various types of reviews is like having a versatile toolkit at your disposal. In this section, we'll walk you through the different dimensions of review types, each offering a unique perspective and purpose. Whether you're dissecting a scholarly article, critiquing a piece of literature, or evaluating a product, you'll discover the diverse landscape of article reviews and how to navigate it effectively.

types of article review

Journal Article Review

Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.

Research Article Review

Distinguished by its focus on research methodologies, a research article review scrutinizes the techniques used in a study and evaluates them in light of the subsequent analysis and critique. For instance, when reviewing a research article on the effects of a new drug, the reviewer would delve into the methods employed to gather data and assess their reliability.

Science Article Review

In the realm of scientific literature, a science article review encompasses a wide array of subjects. Scientific publications often provide extensive background information, which can be instrumental in conducting a comprehensive analysis. For example, when reviewing an article about the latest breakthroughs in genetics, the reviewer may draw upon the background knowledge provided to facilitate a more in-depth evaluation of the publication.

Need a Hand From Professionals?

Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!

Formatting an Article Review

The format of the article should always adhere to the citation style required by your professor. If you're not sure, seek clarification on the preferred format and ask him to clarify several other pointers to complete the formatting of an article review adequately.

How Many Publications Should You Review?

  • In what format should you cite your articles (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)?
  • What length should your review be?
  • Should you include a summary, critique, or personal opinion in your assignment?
  • Do you need to call attention to a theme or central idea within the articles?
  • Does your instructor require background information?

When you know the answers to these questions, you may start writing your assignment. Below are examples of MLA and APA formats, as those are the two most common citation styles.

Using the APA Format

Articles appear most commonly in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. If you write an article review in the APA format, you will need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use:

  • Web : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
  • Journal : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
  • Newspaper : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

Using MLA Format

  • Web : Last, First Middle Initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
  • Newspaper : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print.
  • Journal : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.

Enhance your writing effortlessly with EssayPro.com , where you can order an article review or any other writing task. Our team of expert writers specializes in various fields, ensuring your work is not just summarized, but deeply analyzed and professionally presented. Ideal for students and professionals alike, EssayPro offers top-notch writing assistance tailored to your needs. Elevate your writing today with our skilled team at your article review writing service !

order review

The Pre-Writing Process

Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you unsure of where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages from our dissertation services to get you started:

Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow:

  • Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
  • Define the positive points — identify the strong aspects, ideas, and insightful observations the author has made.
  • Find the gaps —- determine whether or not the author has any contradictions, gaps, or inconsistencies in the article and evaluate whether or not he or she used a sufficient amount of arguments and information to support his or her ideas.
  • Identify unanswered questions — finally, identify if there are any questions left unanswered after reading the piece.

Step 2: Move on and review the article. Here is a small and simple guide to help you do it right:

  • Start off by looking at and assessing the title of the piece, its abstract, introductory part, headings and subheadings, opening sentences in its paragraphs, and its conclusion.
  • First, read only the beginning and the ending of the piece (introduction and conclusion). These are the parts where authors include all of their key arguments and points. Therefore, if you start with reading these parts, it will give you a good sense of the author's main points.
  • Finally, read the article fully.

These three steps make up most of the prewriting process. After you are done with them, you can move on to writing your own review—and we are going to guide you through the writing process as well.

Outline and Template

As you progress with reading your article, organize your thoughts into coherent sections in an outline. As you read, jot down important facts, contributions, or contradictions. Identify the shortcomings and strengths of your publication. Begin to map your outline accordingly.

If your professor does not want a summary section or a personal critique section, then you must alleviate those parts from your writing. Much like other assignments, an article review must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Thus, you might consider dividing your outline according to these sections as well as subheadings within the body. If you find yourself troubled with the pre-writing and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.

Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:

  • Pre-Title Page - Before diving into your review, start with essential details: article type, publication title, and author names with affiliations (position, department, institution, location, and email). Include corresponding author info if needed.
  • Running Head - In APA format, use a concise title (under 40 characters) to ensure consistent formatting.
  • Summary Page - Optional but useful. Summarize the article in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology, avoiding verbatim text or references.
  • Title Page - Include the full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
  • Introduction - Set the stage with an engaging overview of the article.
  • Body - Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
  • Works Cited/References - Properly cite all sources used in your review.
  • Optional Suggested Reading Page - If permitted, suggest further readings for in-depth exploration.
  • Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor) - Include visuals when requested by your professor for clarity.

Example of an Article Review

You might wonder why we've dedicated a section of this article to discuss an article review sample. Not everyone may realize it, but examining multiple well-constructed examples of review articles is a crucial step in the writing process. In the following section, our essay writing service experts will explain why.

Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:

  • To get you introduced to the key works of experts in your field.
  • To help you identify the key people engaged in a particular field of science.
  • To help you define what significant discoveries and advances were made in your field.
  • To help you unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of your field—which contributes to finding fresh solutions.
  • To help you find solid references and arguments for your own review.
  • To help you generate some ideas about any further field of research.
  • To help you gain a better understanding of the area and become an expert in this specific field.
  • To get a clear idea of how to write a good review.

View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!

Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?

Steps for Writing an Article Review

Here is a guide with critique paper format on how to write a review paper:

steps for article review

Step 1: Write the Title

First of all, you need to write a title that reflects the main focus of your work. Respectively, the title can be either interrogative, descriptive, or declarative.

Step 2: Cite the Article

Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper. For example, an article citation in the MLA style should look as follows:

Author's last and first name. "The title of the article." Journal's title and issue(publication date): page(s). Print

Abraham John. "The World of Dreams." Virginia Quarterly 60.2(1991): 125-67. Print.

Step 3: Article Identification

After your citation, you need to include the identification of your reviewed article:

  • Title of the article
  • Title of the journal
  • Year of publication

All of this information should be included in the first paragraph of your paper.

The report "Poverty increases school drop-outs" was written by Brian Faith – a Health officer – in 2000.

Step 4: Introduction

Your organization in an assignment like this is of the utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you should outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts coherently.

  • If you are wondering how to start an article review, begin with an introduction that mentions the article and your thesis for the review.
  • Follow up with a summary of the main points of the article.
  • Highlight the positive aspects and facts presented in the publication.
  • Critique the publication by identifying gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions.

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Make a summary of the article by revisiting what the author has written about. Note any relevant facts and findings from the article. Include the author's conclusions in this section.

Step 6: Critique It

Present the strengths and weaknesses you have found in the publication. Highlight the knowledge that the author has contributed to the field. Also, write about any gaps and/or contradictions you have found in the article. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge. Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article.

Step 7: Craft a Conclusion

In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study. Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:

  • As you read the article, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they used to support that argument.
  • While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point. This is best done using direct quotations.
  • Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly. Take time to analyze the article adequately.
  • Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation, use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article.
  • Re-read your piece a day after you finish writing it. This will help you to spot grammar mistakes and to notice any flaws in your organization.
  • Use a spell-checker and get a second opinion on your paper.

The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work

Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.

To proofread your paper properly, start by reading it fully and checking the following points:

  • Punctuation
  • Other mistakes

Afterward, take a moment to check for any unnecessary information in your paper and, if found, consider removing it to streamline your content. Finally, double-check that you've covered at least 3-4 key points in your discussion.

And remember, if you ever need help with proofreading, rewriting your essay, or even want to buy essay , our friendly team is always here to assist you.

Need an Article REVIEW WRITTEN?

Just send us the requirements to your paper and watch one of our writers crafting an original paper for you.

Related Articles

Satire Essay

Elsevier QRcode Wechat

  • Research Process

Writing a good review article

  • 3 minute read
  • 64.4K views

Table of Contents

As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.

Types of review articles

Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.

A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more.

A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings.

Tips for writing a good review article

Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:

  • Define your question: Take your time to identify the research question and carefully articulate the topic of your review paper. A good review should also add something new to the field in terms of a hypothesis, inference, or conclusion. A carefully defined scientific question will give you more clarity in determining the novelty of your inferences.
  • Identify credible sources: Identify relevant as well as credible studies that you can base your review on, with the help of multiple databases or search engines. It is also a good idea to conduct another search once you have finished your article to avoid missing relevant studies published during the course of your writing.
  • Take notes: A literature search involves extensive reading, which can make it difficult to recall relevant information subsequently. Therefore, make notes while conducting the literature search and note down the source references. This will ensure that you have sufficient information to start with when you finally get to writing.
  • Describe the title, abstract, and introduction: A good starting point to begin structuring your review is by drafting the title, abstract, and introduction. Explicitly writing down what your review aims to address in the field will help shape the rest of your article.
  • Be unbiased and critical: Evaluate every piece of evidence in a critical but unbiased manner. This will help you present a proper assessment and a critical discussion in your article.
  • Include a good summary: End by stating the take-home message and identify the limitations of existing studies that need to be addressed through future studies.
  • Ask for feedback: Ask a colleague to provide feedback on both the content and the language or tone of your article before you submit it.
  • Check your journal’s guidelines: Some journals only publish reviews, while some only publish research articles. Further, all journals clearly indicate their aims and scope. Therefore, make sure to check the appropriateness of a journal before submitting your article.

Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!

What are Implications in Research

  • Manuscript Preparation

What are Implications in Research?

how to write the results section of a research paper

How to write the results section of a research paper

You may also like.

what is a descriptive research design

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Doctor doing a Biomedical Research Paper

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

what is a research article review

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

Risks of AI-assisted Academic Writing

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

Importance-of-Data-Collection

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

choosing the Right Research Methodology

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research

Why is data validation important in research?

Scholarly Sources What are They and Where can You Find Them

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

  • Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

  • Formulate a research question
  • Develop a protocol
  • Search for all relevant studies
  • Apply the selection criteria
  • Extract the data
  • Synthesize the data
  • Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

  • A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
  • If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
  • Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
  • Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
  • Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

  • They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
  • Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
  • They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
  • They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

  • They’re time-consuming .
  • They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

  • Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
  • Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

  • Population(s) or problem(s)
  • Intervention(s)
  • Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

  • What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

  • Type of study design(s)
  • The population of patients with eczema
  • The intervention of probiotics
  • In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
  • The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
  • Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

  • What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

  • Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
  • Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
  • Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
  • Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
  • Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

  • Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
  • Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
  • Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
  • Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

  • Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
  • Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
  • Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
  • Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

  • Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
  • Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

  • Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
  • Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

  • Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
  • Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

  • Abstract : A summary of the review
  • Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
  • Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
  • Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
  • Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
  • Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

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

  • Student’s  t -distribution
  • Normal distribution
  • Null and Alternative Hypotheses
  • Chi square tests
  • Confidence interval
  • Quartiles & Quantiles
  • Cluster sampling
  • Stratified sampling
  • Data cleansing
  • Reproducibility vs Replicability
  • Peer review
  • Prospective cohort study

Research bias

  • Implicit bias
  • Cognitive bias
  • Placebo effect
  • Hawthorne effect
  • Hindsight bias
  • Affect heuristic
  • Social desirability 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.

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 .  

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

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.

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved February 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Next-Gen. Now.

  • Study resources
  • Calendar - Graduate
  • Calendar - Undergraduate
  • Class schedules
  • Class cancellations
  • Course registration
  • Important academic dates
  • More academic resources
  • Campus services
  • IT services
  • Job opportunities
  • Safety & prevention
  • Mental health support
  • Student Service Centre (Birks)
  • All campus services
  • Calendar of events
  • Latest news
  • Media Relations
  • Faculties, Schools & Colleges
  • Arts and Science
  • Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science
  • John Molson School of Business
  • School of Graduate Studies
  • All Schools, Colleges & Departments.
  • Directories
  • My Library account Renew books and more
  • Book a study room or scanner Reserve a space for your group online
  • Interlibrary loans (Colombo) Request books from external libraries
  • Zotero (formerly RefWorks) Manage your citations and create bibliographies
  • Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver Request a PDF of an article/chapter we have in our physical collection
  • Contactless Book Pickup Request books, DVDs and more from our physical collection while the Library is closed
  • WebPrint Upload documents to print on campus
  • Course reserves Online course readings
  • Spectrum Deposit a thesis or article
  • Sofia Discovery tool
  • Databases by subject
  • Course Reserves
  • E-journals via Browzine
  • E-journals via Sofia
  • Article/chapter scan
  • Intercampus delivery of bound periodicals/microforms
  • Interlibrary loans
  • Spectrum Research Repository
  • Special Collections
  • Additional resources & services
  • Subject & course guides
  • Open Educational Resources Guide
  • Borrowing & renewing
  • General guides for users
  • Evaluating...
  • Ask a librarian
  • Research Skills Tutorial
  • Bibliometrics & research impact guide
  • Concordia University Press
  • Copyright guide
  • Copyright guide for thesis preparation
  • Digital scholarship
  • Digital preservation
  • Open Access
  • ORCiD at Concordia
  • Research data management guide
  • Scholarship of Teaching & Learning
  • Systematic Reviews
  • Borrow (laptops, tablets, equipment)
  • Connect (netname, Wi-Fi, guest accounts)
  • Desktop computers, software & availability maps
  • Group study, presentation practice & classrooms
  • Printers, copiers & scanners
  • Technology Sandbox
  • Visualization Studio
  • Webster Library
  • Vanier Library
  • Grey Nuns Reading Room
  • Study spaces
  • Floor plans
  • Book a group study room/scanner
  • Room booking for academic events
  • Exhibitions
  • Librarians & staff
  • Work with us
  • Memberships & collaborations
  • Indigenous Student Librarian program
  • Wikipedian in residence
  • Researcher in residence
  • Feedback & improvement
  • Annual reports & fast facts
  • Strategic Plan 2016/21
  • Library Services Fund
  • Giving to the Library
  • Policies & Code of Conduct
  • My Library account
  • Book a study room or scanner
  • Interlibrary loans (Colombo)
  • Zotero (formerly RefWorks)
  • Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver
  • Contactless Book Pickup
  • Course reserves

Review vs. Research Articles

How can you tell if you are looking at a research paper, review paper or a systematic review  examples and article characteristics are provided below to help you figure it out., research papers.

A research article describes a study that was performed by the article’s author(s). It explains the methodology of the study, such as how data was collected and analyzed, and clarifies what the results mean. Each step of the study is reported in detail so that other researchers can repeat the experiment.

To determine if a paper is a research article, examine its wording. Research articles describe actions taken by the researcher(s) during the experimental process. Look for statements like “we tested,” “I measured,” or “we investigated.” Research articles also describe the outcomes of studies. Check for phrases like “the study found” or “the results indicate.” Next, look closely at the formatting of the article. Research papers are divided into sections that occur in a particular order: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references.

Let's take a closer look at this research paper by Bacon et al. published in the International Journal of Hypertension :

research1

Review Papers

Review articles do not describe original research conducted by the author(s). Instead, they give an overview of a specific subject by examining previously published studies on the topic. The author searches for and selects studies on the subject and then tries to make sense of their findings. In particular, review articles look at whether the outcomes of the chosen studies are similar, and if they are not, attempt to explain the conflicting results. By interpreting the findings of previous studies, review articles are able to present the current knowledge and understanding of a specific topic.

Since review articles summarize the research on a particular topic, students should read them for background information before consulting detailed, technical research articles. Furthermore, review articles are a useful starting point for a research project because their reference lists can be used to find additional articles on the subject.

Let's take a closer look at this review paper by Bacon et al. published in Sports Medicine :

review1

Systematic Review Papers

A systematic review is a type of review article that tries to limit the occurrence of bias. Traditional, non-systematic reviews can be biased because they do not include all of the available papers on the review’s topic; only certain studies are discussed by the author. No formal process is used to decide which articles to include in the review. Consequently, unpublished articles, older papers, works in foreign languages, manuscripts published in small journals, and studies that conflict with the author’s beliefs can be overlooked or excluded. Since traditional reviews do not have to explain the techniques used to select the studies, it can be difficult to determine if the author’s bias affected the review’s findings.

Systematic reviews were developed to address the problem of bias. Unlike traditional reviews, which cover a broad topic, systematic reviews focus on a single question, such as if a particular intervention successfully treats a medical condition. Systematic reviews then track down all of the available studies that address the question, choose some to include in the review, and critique them using predetermined criteria. The studies are found, selected, and evaluated using a formal, scientific methodology in order to minimize the effect of the author’s bias. The methodology is clearly explained in the systematic review so that readers can form opinions about the quality of the review.

Let's take a closer look this systematic review paper by Vigano et al. published in Lancet Oncology :

sysreview1

Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed

Many databases have special features that allow the searcher to restrict results to articles that match specific criteria. In other words, only articles of a certain type will be displayed in the search results. These “limiters” can be useful when searching for research or review articles. PubMed has a limiter for article type, which is located on the left sidebar of the search results page. This limiter can filter the search results to show only review articles.

what is a research article review

© Concordia University

Home

Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

colonnade and university hall

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

student at laptop

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

campus in spring

Find your Fit

UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.

campus in spring

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

campus in spring

Give Like a Star

Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.

alumni at gala

Bragging Rights

UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.

lincoln statue fall

  • Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support Bookstore UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness COVID-19 United in Safety Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps UIS Mobile App Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance

Request Info

Home

How to Review a Journal Article

rainbow over colonnade

  • Request Info Request info for....     Undergraduate/Graduate     Online     Study Away     Continuing & Professional Education     International Student Services     General Inquiries

For many kinds of assignments, like a  literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your  qualified opinion  and  evaluation  of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple  summary  of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes,  annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

  • How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
  • How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
  • How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
  • How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
  • How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

  • How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
  • Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
  • How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
  • What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
  • How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
  • How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?

Evaluating Methods

  • How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
  • How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
  • Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?

Evaluating Data

  • Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
  • Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
  • How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
  • What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.),  Digital games in language learning and teaching  (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an  annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

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

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

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

Publication types

How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

An article review is an academic assignment that invites you to study a piece of academic research closely. Then, you should present its summary and critically evaluate it using the knowledge you’ve gained in class and during your independent study. If you get such a task at college or university, you shouldn’t confuse it with a response paper, which is a distinct assignment with other purposes (we’ll talk about it in detail below).

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

In this article, prepared by Custom-Writing experts, you’ll find: 

  • the intricacies of article review writing;
  • the difference between an article review and similar assignments;
  • a step-by-step algorithm for review composition;
  • a couple of samples to guide you throughout the writing process.

So, if you wish to study our article review example and discover helpful writing tips, keep reading.

❓ What Is an Article Review?

  • ✍️ Writing Steps

📑 Article Review Format

🔗 references.

An article review is an academic paper that summarizes and critically evaluates the information presented in your selected article. 

This image shows what an article review is.

The first thing you should note when approaching the task of an article review is that not every article is suitable for this assignment. Let’s have a look at the variety of articles to understand what you can choose from.

Popular Vs. Scholarly Articles

In most cases, you’ll be required to review a scholarly, peer-reviewed article – one composed in compliance with rigorous academic standards. Yet, the Web is also full of popular articles that don’t present original scientific value and shouldn’t be selected for a review.  

Just in 1 hour! We will write you a plagiarism-free paper in hardly more than 1 hour

Not sure how to distinguish these two types? Here is a comparative table to help you out.

Article Review vs. Response Paper

Now, let’s consider the difference between an article review and a response paper:

  • If you’re assigned to critique a scholarly article , you will need to compose an article review .  
  • If your subject of analysis is a popular article , you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper .  

The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of these two article types. Peer-reviewed, scholarly articles have clear-cut quality criteria, allowing you to conduct and present a structured assessment of the assigned material. Popular magazines have loose or non-existent quality criteria and don’t offer an opportunity for structured evaluation. So, they are only fit for a subjective response, in which you can summarize your reactions and emotions related to the reading material.  

All in all, you can structure your response assignments as outlined in the tips below.

✍️ How to Write an Article Review: Step by Step

Here is a tried and tested algorithm for article review writing from our experts. We’ll consider only the critical review variety of this academic assignment. So, let’s get down to the stages you need to cover to get a stellar review.  

Receive a plagiarism-free paper tailored to your instructions. Cut 20% off your first order!

Read the Article

As with any reviews, reports, and critiques, you must first familiarize yourself with the assigned material. It’s impossible to review something you haven’t read, so set some time for close, careful reading of the article to identify:

  • Its topic.  
  • Its type.  
  • The author’s main points and message. 
  • The arguments they use to prove their points. 
  • The methodology they use to approach the subject. 

In terms of research type , your article will usually belong to one of three types explained below. 

Summarize the Article

Now that you’ve read the text and have a general impression of the content, it’s time to summarize it for your readers. Look into the article’s text closely to determine:

  • The thesis statement , or general message of the author.  
  • Research question, purpose, and context of research.  
  • Supporting points for the author’s assumptions and claims.  
  • Major findings and supporting evidence.  

As you study the article thoroughly, make notes on the margins or write these elements out on a sheet of paper. You can also apply a different technique: read the text section by section and formulate its gist in one phrase or sentence. Once you’re done, you’ll have a summary skeleton in front of you.

Evaluate the Article

The next step of review is content evaluation. Keep in mind that various research types will require a different set of review questions. Here is a complete list of evaluation points you can include.

Get an originally-written paper according to your instructions!

Write the Text

After completing the critical review stage, it’s time to compose your article review.

The format of this assignment is standard – you will have an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The introduction should present your article and summarize its content. The body will contain a structured review according to all four dimensions covered in the previous section. The concluding part will typically recap all the main points you’ve identified during your assessment.  

It is essential to note that an article review is, first of all, an academic assignment. Therefore, it should follow all rules and conventions of academic composition, such as:

  • No contractions . Don’t use short forms, such as “don’t,” “can’t,” “I’ll,” etc. in academic writing. You need to spell out all those words.  
  • Formal language and style . Avoid conversational phrasing and words that you would naturally use in blog posts or informal communication. For example, don’t use words like “pretty,” “kind of,” and “like.”  
  • Third-person narrative . Academic reviews should be written from the third-person point of view, avoiding statements like “I think,” “in my opinion,” and so on.  
  • No conversational forms . You shouldn’t turn to your readers directly in the text by addressing them with the pronoun “you.” It’s vital to keep the narrative neutral and impersonal.  
  • Proper abbreviation use . Consult the list of correct abbreviations , like “e.g.” or “i.e.,” for use in your academic writing. If you use informal abbreviations like “FYA” or “f.i.,” your professor will reduce the grade.  
  • Complete sentences . Make sure your sentences contain the subject and the predicate; avoid shortened or sketch-form phrases suitable for a draft only.  
  • No conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence . Remember the FANBOYS rule – don’t start a sentence with words like “and” or “but.” They often seem the right way to build a coherent narrative, but academic writing rules disfavor such usage.  
  • No abbreviations or figures at the beginning of a sentence . Never start a sentence with a number — spell it out if you need to use it anyway. Besides, sentences should never begin with abbreviations like “e.g.”  

Finally, a vital rule for an article review is properly formatting the citations. We’ll discuss the correct use of citation styles in the following section.

When composing an article review, keep these points in mind:

  • Start with a full reference to the reviewed article so the reader can locate it quickly.  
  • Ensure correct formatting of in-text references.  
  • Provide a complete list of used external sources on the last page of the review – your bibliographical entries .  

You’ll need to understand the rules of your chosen citation style to meet all these requirements. Below, we’ll discuss the two most common referencing styles – APA and MLA.

Article Review in APA

When you need to compose an article review in the APA format , here is the general bibliographical entry format you should use for journal articles on your reference page:  

  • Author’s last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year of Publication). Name of the article. Name of the Journal, volume (number), pp. #-#. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy

Horigian, V. E., Schmidt, R. D., & Feaster, D. J. (2021). Loneliness, mental health, and substance use among US young adults during COVID-19. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 53 (1), pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2020.1836435

Your in-text citations should follow the author-date format like this:

  • If you paraphrase the source and mention the author in the text: According to Horigian et al. (2021), young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic. 
  • If you paraphrase the source and don’t mention the author in the text: Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al., 2021). 
  • If you quote the source: As Horigian et al. (2021) point out, there were “elevated levels of loneliness, depression, anxiety, alcohol use, and drug use among young adults during COVID-19” (p. 6). 

Note that your in-text citations should include “et al.,” as in the examples above, if your article has 3 or more authors. If you have one or two authors, your in-text citations would look like this:

  • One author: “According to Smith (2020), depression is…” or “Depression is … (Smith, 2020).”
  • Two authors: “According to Smith and Brown (2020), anxiety means…” or “Anxiety means (Smith & Brown, 2020).”

Finally, in case you have to review a book or a website article, here are the general formats for citing these source types on your APA reference list.

Article Review in MLA

If your assignment requires MLA-format referencing, here’s the general format you should use for citing journal articles on your Works Cited page: 

  • Author’s last name, First name. “Title of an Article.” Title of the Journal , vol. #, no. #, year, pp. #-#. 

Horigian, Viviana E., et al. “Loneliness, Mental Health, and Substance Use Among US Young Adults During COVID-19.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , vol. 53, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-9.

In-text citations in the MLA format follow the author-page citation format and look like this:

  • According to Horigian et al., young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (6).
  • Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al. 6).

Like in APA, the abbreviation “et al.” is only needed in MLA if your article has 3 or more authors.

If you need to cite a book or a website page, here are the general MLA formats for these types of sources.

✅ Article Review Template

Here is a handy, universal article review template to help you move on with any review assignment. We’ve tried to make it as generic as possible to guide you in the academic process.

📝 Article Review Examples

The theory is good, but practice is even better. Thus, we’ve created three brief examples to show you how to write an article review. You can study the full-text samples by following the links.

📃 Men, Women, & Money   

This article review examines a famous piece, “Men, Women & Money – How the Sexes Differ with Their Finances,” published by Amy Livingston in 2020. The author of this article claims that men generally spend more money than women. She makes this conclusion from a close analysis of gender-specific expenditures across five main categories: food, clothing, cars, entertainment, and general spending patterns. Livingston also looks at men’s approach to saving to argue that counter to the common perception of women’s light-hearted attitude to money, men are those who spend more on average.  

📃 When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism   

This is a review of Jonathan Heidt’s 2016 article titled “When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism,” written as an advocacy of right-wing populism rising in many Western states. The author illustrates the case with the election of Donald Trump as the US President and the rise of right-wing rhetoric in many Western countries. These examples show how nationalist sentiment represents a reaction to global immigration and a failure of globalization.  

📃 Sleep Deprivation   

This is a review of the American Heart Association’s article titled “The Dangers of Sleep Deprivation.” It discusses how the national organization concerned with the American population’s cardiovascular health links the lack of high-quality sleep to far-reaching health consequences. The organization’s experts reveal how a consistent lack of sleep leads to Alzheimer’s disease development, obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc.  

✏️ Article Review FAQ

A high-quality article review should summarize the assigned article’s content and offer data-backed reactions and evaluations of its quality in terms of the article’s purpose, methodology, and data used to argue the main points. It should be detailed, comprehensive, objective, and evidence-based.

The purpose of writing a review is to allow students to reflect on research quality and showcase their critical thinking and evaluation skills. Students should exhibit their mastery of close reading of research publications and their unbiased assessment.

The content of your article review will be the same in any format, with the only difference in the assignment’s formatting before submission. Ensure you have a separate title page made according to APA standards and cite sources using the parenthetical author-date referencing format.

You need to take a closer look at various dimensions of an assigned article to compose a valuable review. Study the author’s object of analysis, the purpose of their research, the chosen method, data, and findings. Evaluate all these dimensions critically to see whether the author has achieved the initial goals. Finally, offer improvement recommendations to add a critique aspect to your paper.

  • Scientific Article Review: Duke University  
  • Book and Article Reviews: William & Mary, Writing Resources Center  
  • Sample Format for Reviewing a Journal Article: Boonshoft School of Medicine  
  • Research Paper Review – Structure and Format Guidelines: New Jersey Institute of Technology  
  • Article Review: University of Waterloo  
  • Article Review: University of South Australia  
  • How to Write a Journal Article Review: University of Newcastle Library Guides  
  • Writing Help: The Article Review: Central Michigan University Libraries  
  • Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article: McLaughlin Library  
  • Share to Facebook
  • Share to Twitter
  • Share to LinkedIn
  • Share to email

Recommended for You

Compare and Contrast Essay Outline: Template and Example

Compare and Contrast Essay Outline: Template and Example

High school and college students often face challenges when crafting a compare-and-contrast essay. A well-written paper of this kind needs to be structured appropriately to earn you good grades. Knowing how to organize your ideas allows you to present your ideas in a coherent and logical manner This article by...

How to Write a Formal Essay: Format, Rules, & Example

How to Write a Formal Essay: Format, Rules, & Example

If you’re a student, you’ve heard about a formal essay: a factual, research-based paper written in 3rd person. Most students have to produce dozens of them during their educational career.  Writing a formal essay may not be the easiest task. But fear not: our custom-writing team is here to guide...

How to Write a Narrative Essay Outline: Template & Examples

How to Write a Narrative Essay Outline: Template & Examples

Narrative essays are unlike anything you wrote throughout your academic career. Instead of writing a formal paper, you need to tell a story. Familiar elements such as evidence and arguments are replaced with exposition and character development. The importance of writing an outline for an essay like this is hard...

How to Write a Precis: Definition, Guide, & Examples

How to Write a Precis: Definition, Guide, & Examples

A précis is a brief synopsis of a written piece. It is used to summarize and analyze a text’s main points. If you need to write a précis for a research paper or the AP Lang exam, you’ve come to the right place. In this comprehensive guide by Custom-Writing.org, you’ll...

How to Write a Synthesis Essay: Examples, Topics, & Outline

How to Write a Synthesis Essay: Examples, Topics, & Outline

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

How to Write a Catchy Hook: Examples & Techniques

How to Write a Catchy Hook: Examples & Techniques

Do you know how to make your essay stand out? One of the easiest ways is to start your introduction with a catchy hook. A hook is a phrase or a sentence that helps to grab the reader’s attention. After reading this article by Custom-Writing.org, you will be able to...

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

Logo

  • A Research Guide
  • Writing Guide
  • Article Writing

How To Write an Article Review

  • Definition of article review
  • Why do students write article reviews
  • Types of article review
  • Structure and outline
  • Step-by-step guide

Article review format

  • How to write a good article review
  • Article review examples

Definition of article review assignments

Why do students write article reviews.

  • Article writing is a deeply analytical process that helps students to correct vague terms when and if they are present. Likewise, when composing an article review or an original assignment, such work provides more clarity regarding using appropriate words. If an article has colloquial language or logical gaps, it is one of those aspects to mention in an article review. It also allows writers to determine whether certain terms must be replaced and edited.
  • Article review essay writing helps to clarify scientific questions.
  • Writing an article review allows students to see and understand how others approach specific issues and what perspectives should be studied regarding the problems at hand. Once a person reads the review, it makes it easier to get rid of bias.
  • Article review assignments also provide students with editing and grammar work to help with more accurate papers.
  • Most importantly, an article review is a way to encourage better work and provide critical analysis with due criticism and evaluation of the original article.

Types of article review tasks

  • Original Research Article Review. The original research article review is close to what is often seen as the literature review. An author must explore the author’s hypothesis and some background studies with due analysis to outline scientific methods. It’s one of the most challenging tasks to write as one must interpret the findings and talk about future implications. This type of work can also get lengthy and be up to 6,000 words in subjects like History or Sociology.
  • Critical Analysis. As the name implies, it critically evaluates the author’s work and can be up to 3,000 words.
  • Literature Review. It stands for the review of secondary literature sources. As a rule, such reviews do not present much new data and only evaluate the importance of sources and information that supports the author’s arguments.
  • Systematic Review. This case stands for research questions and articles that require a deeper synthesis of available facts or certain evidence. The purpose here is to define and evaluate the quality of the data obtained by the author.
  • Meta-Analysis Reviews. Once again, it is a systematic review focusing on a specific topic, the literature issues. You must provide a special quantitative estimate for exposure and intervention.
  • Clinical Trial Reviews. It means that one must provide a study related to an investigation offered by the author. It can relate to a drug or talk about a sample group of people, thus bringing it into the field of a defined population or a group of participants.
  • Perspective or Opinion Article Review. This is where one poses an opinion, meaning things can get biased toward a certain opinion. In writing a good review, a student can look for perspectives and evaluate the importance of the original article. Likewise, posing an opinion is one of the obligatory aspects.

Article review structure and outline

Article review structure.

  • Title page.
  • An article introduction presenting the main subject and/or a problem.
  • Brief article summary.
  • Critical article evaluation and/or a summary.
  • Conclusion with the moral lesson and discussion on the findings’ pros/cons.
  • Bibliography with relevant citations.

Article review outline

  • You provide an evaluation and summary of the author’s article.
  • Your audience can receive sufficient knowledge regarding the subject.
  • You have made points about the strongest arguments of the author.
  • You have criticized the author’s work and explained how it contributes to the scientific field.
  • You conclude your article review with your original thoughts and opinions without turning to additional research unless the grading rubric required it.

Step-by-step writing guide

Step 1: learn about the article’s agenda., step 2: summarize the main article ideas, step 3: organization aspect of the review, step 4: article preview and take notes, step 5: paraphrasing and analysis, step 6: final evaluation.

service-1

  • An introduction. The topic of your study must be mentioned here in the first sentence. Indicate what your article contains and talk about the author’s background. Provide an order of the subjects you plan to discuss to explain what your readers expect. The introduction should provide the author’s claims and the main arguments that result in your thesis statement. When writing an introduction, you must determine the main argument.
  • Body paragraphs. This is where you provide an evaluation with a summary and write about the author’s work.
  • Conclusion. Speak of your reasons for providing a review and talk about whether you could support your thesis and what you have learned.
  • Works Cited page. Refer to your grading rubric to identify what citation style must be used.

How to write a good article review?

  • Do not write the statements in the first person. It is recommended to use the third person instead by turning to a formal academic tone.
  • Your introduction with the information about the original article should take from 10 to 25% of your assignment’s volume.
  • An introduction must end with a strong thesis and make an assumption or research the author’s main claim. A typical thesis to start an article review for an assignment may look this way:
  • Write down all the important points and share your findings. It will help to show that you have done your homework correctly.
  • Discuss how the article supports the claims and whether it provides good evidence.
  • Always provide background information about the author.
  • Use direct quotes to support your claims by turning to the original article.
  • Read your summary twice to evaluate whether it follows the main thesis.
  • Talk about the contributions of the author to the academic community.
  • Provide reasons for whether you support the author’s view or not. Why or why not?
  • Summarize all the important points in a conclusion part.

Why choose article review examples?

  • Wright State University’s Journal Article Review Example .
  • University of Illinois Springfield’s Article How-to Review Guide .
  • UC Merced Library’s Article Review Sample
  • Identify recent and important changes in your field of study.
  • Determine who works in a specific field of science and why.
  • Narrow things down and identify essential information to help you start with research.
  • Use obtained information in school debates, and references work.
  • Generate new ideas and conduct lab experiments.
  • Write an article review through the lens of personal experience and expertise.

aside icon

Receive paper in 3 Hours!

  • Choose the number of pages.
  • Select your deadline.
  • Complete your order.

Number of Pages

550 words (double spaced)

Deadline: 10 days left

By clicking "Log In", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

Sign Up for your FREE account

The Tech Edvocate

  • Advertisement
  • Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
  • Home Page Four
  • Home Page Three
  • Home Page Two
  • Icons [No Sidebar]
  • Left Sidbear Page
  • Lynch Educational Consulting
  • My Speaking Page
  • Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
  • Newsletter Unsubscription
  • Page Example
  • Privacy Policy
  • Protected Content
  • Request a Product Review
  • Shortcodes Examples
  • Terms and Conditions
  • The Edvocate
  • The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
  • Write For Us
  • Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
  • The Edvocate Podcast
  • Assistive Technology
  • Child Development Tech
  • Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
  • EdTech Futures
  • EdTech News
  • EdTech Policy & Reform
  • EdTech Startups & Businesses
  • Higher Education EdTech
  • Online Learning & eLearning
  • Parent & Family Tech
  • Personalized Learning
  • Product Reviews
  • Tech Edvocate Awards
  • School Ratings

Understanding Temperament: Everything You Need to Know

How to value and sell a pokémon card, how to start a finance company, how to bedazzle a bottle of alcohol, 4 ways to remove mold odors from inside automobiles, how to groom a siberian husky, how to start a hot tub, how to become a young inventor, 6 ways to fight climate change if you have pets, 3 ways to make pointe shoes look brand new, how to write an article review (with sample reviews)  .

what is a research article review

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

' src=

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

what is a research article review

How to Ask a Question Intelligently

what is a research article review

How to Be a Good Team Captain: 13 Steps

what is a research article review

How to Lower Potassium Levels: 13 Steps

what is a research article review

How to Pay Attention in Class

what is a research article review

How to Drive a Pontoon Boat

what is a research article review

3 Ways to Get Rid of Leg Pain

How to Write a Review Article

  • Types of Review Articles
  • Before Writing a Review Article
  • Determining Where to Publish
  • Searching the Literature
  • Citation Management
  • Reading a Review Article

What is a Review Article?

The purpose of writing a review article is for knowledge updating concerning a topic.

A review article aims to highlight:

  • What has been done?
  • What has been found?
  • What issues have not been addressed?
  • What issues remain to be debated?
  • What new issues have been raised?
  • What will be the future direction of research?

Similarities and Differences to Original Research Articles

Differences Between Original Research Articles and Review Articles

Venn Diagram original research vs review article

  • An original research article aims to: Provides background information (Intro.) on prior research, Reasons for present study, Issues to be investigated by the present study, Written for experts. Authors describe: Research methods & materials, Data acquisition/analysis tools, Results, Discussion of results.
  • Both are Peer-reviewed for: Accuracy, Quality, Biases, Conflict of interest.
  • A review article aims to: Extensive survey of published research articles about a specific topic, Critical appraising of research findings, summarize up-to-date research findings, Identify critical issues to be addressed, Written for experts and general audiences, Be a source of original research.

Figure by Zhiyong Han, PhD

  • << Previous: Home
  • Next: Types of Review Articles >>

Seton Hall logo

  • The Interprofessional Health Sciences Library
  • 123 Metro Boulevard
  • Nutley, NJ 07110
  • [email protected]
  • Visiting Campus
  • News and Events
  • Parents and Families
  • Web Accessibility
  • Career Center
  • Public Safety
  • Accountability
  • Privacy Statements
  • Report a Problem
  • Login to LibApps

Article Review

Barbara P

Article Review Writing: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide with Examples

Published on: Feb 17, 2020

Last updated on: Nov 24, 2023

Article Review

People also read

Get Better at Math: Solving Math Problems Quick and Easy

Learn How to Write an Editorial on Any Topic

Best Tips on How to Avoid Plagiarism

How to Write a Movie Review - Guide & Examples

A Complete Guide on How to Write a Summary for Students

Write Opinion Essay Like a Pro: A Detailed Guide

Evaluation Essay - Definition, Examples, and Writing Tips

How to Write a Thematic Statement - Tips & Examples

How to Write a Bio - Quick Tips, Structure & Examples

How to Write a Synopsis – A Simple Format & Guide

How to Write a Comparative Essay – A Complete Guide

Visual Analysis Essay - A Writing Guide with Format & Sample

List of Common Social Issues Around the World

Writing Character Analysis - Outline, Steps, and Examples

11 Common Types of Plagiarism Explained Through Examples

A Detailed Guide on How to Write a Poem Step by Step

Detailed Guide on Appendix Writing: With Tips and Examples

Share this article

Struggling to write a review that people actually want to read? Feeling lost in the details and wondering how to make your analysis stand out?

You're not alone!

Many writers find it tough to navigate the world of article reviews, not sure where to start or how to make their reviews really grab attention.

No worries! 

In this blog, we're going to guide you through the process of writing an article review that stands out. We'll also share tips, and examples to make this process easier for you.

Let’s get started.

On This Page On This Page -->

What is an Article Review?

An article review is a critical evaluation and analysis of a piece of writing, typically an academic or journalistic article. 

It goes beyond summarizing the content; it involves an in-depth examination of the author's ideas, arguments, and methodologies. 

The goal is to provide a well-rounded understanding of the article's strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution to the field.

Order Essay

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Types of Article Reviews

Article reviews come in various forms, each serving a distinct purpose in the realm of academic or professional discourse. Understanding these types is crucial for tailoring your approach. 

Here are some common types of article reviews:

Journal Article Review

A journal article review involves a thorough evaluation of scholarly articles published in academic journals. 

It requires summarizing the article's key points, methodology, and findings, emphasizing its contributions to the academic field. 

Take a look at the following example to help you understand better.

Example of Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

A research article review focuses on scrutinizing articles with a primary emphasis on research.

This type of review involves evaluating the research design, methodology, results, and their broader implications. 

Discussions on the interpretation of results, limitations, and the article's overall contributions are key. 

Here is a sample for you to get an idea.

Example of Research Article Review

Science Article Review

A science article review specifically addresses articles within scientific disciplines. It includes summarizing scientific concepts, hypotheses, and experimental methods.

The type of review assesses the reliability of the experimental design, and evaluates the author's interpretation of findings. 

Take a look at the following example.

Example of Science Article Review

Critical Review

A critical review involves a balanced critique of a given article. It encompasses providing a comprehensive summary, highlighting key points, and engaging in a critical analysis of strengths and weaknesses. 

To get a clearer idea of a critical review, take a look at this example.

Critical Review Example

Article Review Format

When crafting an article review in either APA or MLA format, it's crucial to adhere to the specific guidelines for citing sources. 

Below are the bibliographical entries for different types of sources in both APA and MLA styles:

How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps

Writing an effective article review involves a systematic approach. Follow this step-by-step process to ensure a comprehensive and well-structured analysis.

Step 1: Understand the Assignment

Before diving into the review, carefully read and understand the assignment guidelines. 

Pay attention to specific requirements, such as word count, formatting style (APA, MLA), and the aspects your instructor wants you to focus on.

Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly

Begin by thoroughly reading the article. Take notes on key points, arguments, and evidence presented by the author. 

Understand the author's main thesis and the context in which the article was written.

Step 3: Create a Summary

Summarize the main points of the article. Highlight the author's key arguments and findings. 

While writing the summary ensure that you capture the essential elements of the article to provide context for your analysis.

Step 4: Identify the Author's Thesis

In this step, pinpoint the author's main thesis or central argument. Understand the purpose of the article and how the author supports their position. 

This will serve as a foundation for your critique.

Step 5: Evaluate the Author's Evidence and Methodology

Examine the evidence provided by the author to support their thesis. Assess the reliability and validity of the methodology used. 

Consider the sources, data collection methods, and any potential biases.

Step 6: Analyze the Author's Writing Style

Evaluate the author's writing style and how effectively they communicate their ideas. 

Consider the clarity of the language, the organization of the content, and the overall persuasiveness of the article.

Step 7: Consider the Article's Contribution

Reflect on the article's contribution to its field of study. Analyze how it fits into the existing literature, its significance, and any potential implications for future research or applications.

Step 8: Write the Introduction

Craft an introduction that includes the article's title, author, publication date, and a brief overview. 

State the purpose of your review and your thesis—the main point you'll be analyzing in your review.

Step 9: Develop the Body of the Review

Organize your review by addressing specific aspects such as the author's thesis, methodology, writing style, and the article's contribution. 

Use clear paragraphs to structure your analysis logically.

Step 10: Conclude with a Summary and Evaluation

Summarize your main points and restate your overall assessment of the article. 

Offer insights into its strengths and weaknesses, and conclude with any recommendations for improvement or suggestions for further research.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Article Review Outline

Creating a well-organized outline is an essential part of writing a coherent and insightful article review.

This outline given below will guide you through the key sections of your review, ensuring that your analysis is comprehensive and logically structured.

Refer to the following template to understand outlining the article review in detail.

Article Review Format Template

Article Review Examples

Examining article review examples can provide valuable insights into the structure, tone, and depth of analysis expected. 

Below are sample article reviews, each illustrating a different approach and focus.

Example of Article Review

Law Article Review

Sample of article review assignment pdf

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

Crafting an effective article review involves a combination of critical analysis, clarity, and structure. 

Here are some valuable tips to guide you through the process:

  • Start with a Clear Introduction

Kick off your article review by introducing the article's main points and mentioning the publication date, which you can find on the re-title page. Outline the topics you'll cover in your review.

  • Concise Summary with Unanswered Questions

Provide a short summary of the article, emphasizing its main ideas. Highlight any lingering questions, known as "unanswered questions," that the article may have triggered. Use a basic article review template to help structure your thoughts.

  • Illustrate with Examples

Use examples from the article to illustrate your points. If there are tables or figures in the article, discuss them to make your review more concrete and easily understandable.

  • Organize Clearly with a Summary Section

Keep your review straightforward and well-organized. Begin with the start of the article, express your thoughts on what you liked or didn't like, and conclude with a summary section. This follows a basic plan for clarity.

  • Constructive Criticism

When providing criticism, be constructive. If there are elements you don't understand, frame them as "unanswered questions." This approach shows engagement and curiosity.

  • Smoothly Connect Your Ideas

Ensure your thoughts flow naturally throughout your review. Use simple words and sentences. If you have questions about the article, let them guide your review organically.

  • Revise and Check for Clarity

Before finishing, go through your review. Correct any mistakes and ensure it sounds clear. Check if you followed your plan, used simple words, and incorporated the keywords effectively. This makes your review better and more accessible for others.

In conclusion , writing an effective article review involves a thoughtful balance of summarizing key points, and addressing unanswered questions. 

By following a simple and structured approach, you can create a review that not only analyzes the content but also adds value to the reader's understanding.

Remember to organize your thoughts logically, use clear language, and provide examples from the article to support your points. 

Ready to elevate your article reviewing skills? Explore the valuable resources and expert assistance at MyPerfectWords.com. 

Our team of experienced writers is here to help you with article reviews and other school tasks. 

So why wait? Get our essay writing service today!

Barbara P (Literature, Marketing)

Dr. Barbara is a highly experienced writer and author who holds a Ph.D. degree in public health from an Ivy League school. She has worked in the medical field for many years, conducting extensive research on various health topics. Her writing has been featured in several top-tier publications.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Get Help

Keep reading

Article Review

We value your privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience and give you personalized content. Do you agree to our cookie policy?

Website Data Collection

We use data collected by cookies and JavaScript libraries.

Are you sure you want to cancel?

Your preferences have not been saved.

  • Systematic review
  • Open access
  • Published: 19 February 2024

‘It depends’: what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies to use to support the use of research in clinical practice

  • Annette Boaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0557-1294 1 ,
  • Juan Baeza 2 ,
  • Alec Fraser   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1121-1551 2 &
  • Erik Persson 3  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  15 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1940 Accesses

70 Altmetric

Metrics details

The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of strategies have been developed to support the implementation of research into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to update and extend two previous reviews of systematic reviews of strategies designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice.

We developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the previous reviews to identify studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. The search was performed in June 2022 in four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a quality assessment checklist. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. Data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes.

We identified 32 reviews conducted between 2010 and 2022. The reviews are mainly of multi-faceted interventions ( n  = 20) although there are reviews focusing on single strategies (ICT, educational, reminders, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, social media and toolkits). The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Furthermore, a lot of nuance lies behind these headline findings, and this is increasingly commented upon in the reviews themselves.

Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been identified. We need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of research perspectives (including social science) in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed.

Peer Review reports

Contribution to the literature

Considerable time and money is invested in implementing and evaluating strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice.

The growing body of evidence is not providing the anticipated clear lessons to support improved implementation.

Instead what is needed is better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice.

This would involve a more central role in implementation science for a wider range of perspectives, especially from the social, economic, political and behavioural sciences and for greater use of different types of synthesis, such as realist synthesis.

Introduction

The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of interventions has been developed to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice [ 1 , 2 ]. In recent years researchers have worked to improve the consistency in the ways in which these interventions (often called strategies) are described to support their evaluation. One notable development has been the emergence of Implementation Science as a field focusing explicitly on “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice” ([ 3 ] p. 1). The work of implementation science focuses on closing, or at least narrowing, the gap between research and practice. One contribution has been to map existing interventions, identifying 73 discreet strategies to support research implementation [ 4 ] which have been grouped into 9 clusters [ 5 ]. The authors note that they have not considered the evidence of effectiveness of the individual strategies and that a next step is to understand better which strategies perform best in which combinations and for what purposes [ 4 ]. Other authors have noted that there is also scope to learn more from other related fields of study such as policy implementation [ 6 ] and to draw on methods designed to support the evaluation of complex interventions [ 7 ].

The increase in activity designed to support the implementation of research into practice and improvements in reporting provided the impetus for an update of a review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions designed to support the use of research in clinical practice [ 8 ] which was itself an update of the review conducted by Grimshaw and colleagues in 2001. The 2001 review [ 9 ] identified 41 reviews considering a range of strategies including educational interventions, audit and feedback, computerised decision support to financial incentives and combined interventions. The authors concluded that all the interventions had the potential to promote the uptake of evidence in practice, although no one intervention seemed to be more effective than the others in all settings. They concluded that combined interventions were more likely to be effective than single interventions. The 2011 review identified a further 13 systematic reviews containing 313 discrete primary studies. Consistent with the previous review, four main strategy types were identified: audit and feedback; computerised decision support; opinion leaders; and multi-faceted interventions (MFIs). Nine of the reviews reported on MFIs. The review highlighted the small effects of single interventions such as audit and feedback, computerised decision support and opinion leaders. MFIs claimed an improvement in effectiveness over single interventions, although effect sizes remained small to moderate and this improvement in effectiveness relating to MFIs has been questioned in a subsequent review [ 10 ]. In updating the review, we anticipated a larger pool of reviews and an opportunity to consolidate learning from more recent systematic reviews of interventions.

This review updates and extends our previous review of systematic reviews of interventions designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice. To identify potentially relevant peer-reviewed research papers, we developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the Grimshaw et al. [ 9 ] and Boaz, Baeza and Fraser [ 8 ] overview articles. To ensure optimal retrieval, our search strategy was refined with support from an expert university librarian, considering the ongoing improvements in the development of search filters for systematic reviews since our first review [ 11 ]. We also wanted to include technology-related terms (e.g. apps, algorithms, machine learning, artificial intelligence) to find studies that explored interventions based on the use of technological innovations as mechanistic tools for increasing the use of evidence into practice (see Additional file 1 : Appendix A for full search strategy).

The search was performed in June 2022 in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched for articles published since the 2011 review. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Reference lists of relevant papers were also examined.

We uploaded the results using EPPI-Reviewer, a web-based tool that facilitated semi-automation of the screening process and removal of duplicate studies. We made particular use of a priority screening function to reduce screening workload and avoid ‘data deluge’ [ 12 ]. Through machine learning, one reviewer screened a smaller number of records ( n  = 1200) to train the software to predict whether a given record was more likely to be relevant or irrelevant, thus pulling the relevant studies towards the beginning of the screening process. This automation did not replace manual work but helped the reviewer to identify eligible studies more quickly. During the selection process, we included studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. Studies were included if they met the following pre-determined inclusion criteria:

The study was a systematic review

Search terms were included

Focused on the implementation of research evidence into practice

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed as part of the review

Study populations included healthcare providers and patients. The EPOC taxonomy [ 13 ] was used to categorise the strategies. The EPOC taxonomy has four domains: delivery arrangements, financial arrangements, governance arrangements and implementation strategies. The implementation strategies domain includes 20 strategies targeted at healthcare workers. Numerous EPOC strategies were assessed in the review including educational strategies, local opinion leaders, reminders, ICT-focused approaches and audit and feedback. Some strategies that did not fit easily within the EPOC categories were also included. These were social media strategies and toolkits, and multi-faceted interventions (MFIs) (see Table  2 ). Some systematic reviews included comparisons of different interventions while other reviews compared one type of intervention against a control group. Outcomes related to improvements in health care processes or patient well-being. Numerous individual study types (RCT, CCT, BA, ITS) were included within the systematic reviews.

We excluded papers that:

Focused on changing patient rather than provider behaviour

Had no demonstrable outcomes

Made unclear or no reference to research evidence

The last of these criteria was sometimes difficult to judge, and there was considerable discussion amongst the research team as to whether the link between research evidence and practice was sufficiently explicit in the interventions analysed. As we discussed in the previous review [ 8 ] in the field of healthcare, the principle of evidence-based practice is widely acknowledged and tools to change behaviour such as guidelines are often seen to be an implicit codification of evidence, despite the fact that this is not always the case.

Reviewers employed a two-stage process to select papers for inclusion. First, all titles and abstracts were screened by one reviewer to determine whether the study met the inclusion criteria. Two papers [ 14 , 15 ] were identified that fell just before the 2010 cut-off. As they were not identified in the searches for the first review [ 8 ] they were included and progressed to assessment. Each paper was rated as include, exclude or maybe. The full texts of 111 relevant papers were assessed independently by at least two authors. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. 32 papers met the inclusion criteria and proceeded to data extraction. The study selection procedure is documented in a PRISMA literature flow diagram (see Fig.  1 ). We were able to include French, Spanish and Portuguese papers in the selection reflecting the language skills in the study team, but none of the papers identified met the inclusion criteria. Other non- English language papers were excluded.

figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram. Source: authors

One reviewer extracted data on strategy type, number of included studies, local, target population, effectiveness and scope of impact from the included studies. Two reviewers then independently read each paper and noted key findings and broad themes of interest which were then discussed amongst the wider authorial team. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a Quality Assessment Checklist based on Oxman and Guyatt [ 16 ] and Francke et al. [ 17 ]. Each study was rated a quality score ranging from 1 (extensive flaws) to 7 (minimal flaws) (see Additional file 2 : Appendix B). All disagreements were resolved through discussion. Studies were not excluded in this updated overview based on methodological quality as we aimed to reflect the full extent of current research into this topic.

The extracted data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns in the data linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes.

Thirty-two studies were included in the systematic review. Table 1. provides a detailed overview of the included systematic reviews comprising reference, strategy type, quality score, number of included studies, local, target population, effectiveness and scope of impact (see Table  1. at the end of the manuscript). Overall, the quality of the studies was high. Twenty-three studies scored 7, six studies scored 6, one study scored 5, one study scored 4 and one study scored 3. The primary focus of the review was on reviews of effectiveness studies, but a small number of reviews did include data from a wider range of methods including qualitative studies which added to the analysis in the papers [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. In this section, we discuss the different EPOC-defined implementation strategies in turn. Interestingly, we found only two ‘new’ approaches in this review that did not fit into the existing EPOC approaches. These are a review focused on the use of social media and a review considering toolkits. In addition to single interventions, we also discuss multi-faceted interventions. These were the most common intervention approach overall. A summary is provided in Table  2 .

Educational strategies

The overview identified three systematic reviews focusing on educational strategies. Grudniewicz et al. [ 22 ] explored the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour and patient outcomes and concluded they were not effective in any of these aspects. Koota, Kääriäinen and Melender [ 23 ] focused on educational interventions promoting evidence-based practice among emergency room/accident and emergency nurses and found that interventions involving face-to-face contact led to significant or highly significant effects on patient benefits and emergency nurses’ knowledge, skills and behaviour. Interventions using written self-directed learning materials also led to significant improvements in nurses’ knowledge of evidence-based practice. Although the quality of the studies was high, the review primarily included small studies with low response rates, and many of them relied on self-assessed outcomes; consequently, the strength of the evidence for these outcomes is modest. Wu et al. [ 20 ] questioned if educational interventions aimed at nurses to support the implementation of evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes. Although based on evaluation projects and qualitative data, their results also suggest that positive changes on patient outcomes can be made following the implementation of specific evidence-based approaches (or projects). The differing positive outcomes for educational strategies aimed at nurses might indicate that the target audience is important.

Local opinion leaders

Flodgren et al. [ 24 ] was the only systemic review focusing solely on opinion leaders. The review found that local opinion leaders alone, or in combination with other interventions, can be effective in promoting evidence‐based practice, but this varies both within and between studies and the effect on patient outcomes is uncertain. The review found that, overall, any intervention involving opinion leaders probably improves healthcare professionals’ compliance with evidence-based practice but varies within and across studies. However, how opinion leaders had an impact could not be determined because of insufficient details were provided, illustrating that reporting specific details in published studies is important if diffusion of effective methods of increasing evidence-based practice is to be spread across a system. The usefulness of this review is questionable because it cannot provide evidence of what is an effective opinion leader, whether teams of opinion leaders or a single opinion leader are most effective, or the most effective methods used by opinion leaders.

Pantoja et al. [ 26 ] was the only systemic review focusing solely on manually generated reminders delivered on paper included in the overview. The review explored how these affected professional practice and patient outcomes. The review concluded that manually generated reminders delivered on paper as a single intervention probably led to small to moderate increases in adherence to clinical recommendations, and they could be used as a single quality improvement intervention. However, the authors indicated that this intervention would make little or no difference to patient outcomes. The authors state that such a low-tech intervention may be useful in low- and middle-income countries where paper records are more likely to be the norm.

ICT-focused approaches

The three ICT-focused reviews [ 14 , 27 , 28 ] showed mixed results. Jamal, McKenzie and Clark [ 14 ] explored the impact of health information technology on the quality of medical and health care. They examined the impact of electronic health record, computerised provider order-entry, or decision support system. This showed a positive improvement in adherence to evidence-based guidelines but not to patient outcomes. The number of studies included in the review was low and so a conclusive recommendation could not be reached based on this review. Similarly, Brown et al. [ 28 ] found that technology-enabled knowledge translation interventions may improve knowledge of health professionals, but all eight studies raised concerns of bias. The De Angelis et al. [ 27 ] review was more promising, reporting that ICT can be a good way of disseminating clinical practice guidelines but conclude that it is unclear which type of ICT method is the most effective.

Audit and feedback

Sykes, McAnuff and Kolehmainen [ 29 ] examined whether audit and feedback were effective in dementia care and concluded that it remains unclear which ingredients of audit and feedback are successful as the reviewed papers illustrated large variations in the effectiveness of interventions using audit and feedback.

Non-EPOC listed strategies: social media, toolkits

There were two new (non-EPOC listed) intervention types identified in this review compared to the 2011 review — fewer than anticipated. We categorised a third — ‘care bundles’ [ 36 ] as a multi-faceted intervention due to its description in practice and a fourth — ‘Technology Enhanced Knowledge Transfer’ [ 28 ] was classified as an ICT-focused approach. The first new strategy was identified in Bhatt et al.’s [ 30 ] systematic review of the use of social media for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. They reported that the use of social media resulted in a significant improvement in knowledge and compliance with evidence-based guidelines compared with more traditional methods. They noted that a wide selection of different healthcare professionals and patients engaged with this type of social media and its global reach may be significant for low- and middle-income countries. This review was also noteworthy for developing a simple stepwise method for using social media for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. However, it is debatable whether social media can be classified as an intervention or just a different way of delivering an intervention. For example, the review discussed involving opinion leaders and patient advocates through social media. However, this was a small review that included only five studies, so further research in this new area is needed. Yamada et al. [ 31 ] draw on 39 studies to explore the application of toolkits, 18 of which had toolkits embedded within larger KT interventions, and 21 of which evaluated toolkits as standalone interventions. The individual component strategies of the toolkits were highly variable though the authors suggest that they align most closely with educational strategies. The authors conclude that toolkits as either standalone strategies or as part of MFIs hold some promise for facilitating evidence use in practice but caution that the quality of many of the primary studies included is considered weak limiting these findings.

Multi-faceted interventions

The majority of the systematic reviews ( n  = 20) reported on more than one intervention type. Some of these systematic reviews focus exclusively on multi-faceted interventions, whilst others compare different single or combined interventions aimed at achieving similar outcomes in particular settings. While these two approaches are often described in a similar way, they are actually quite distinct from each other as the former report how multiple strategies may be strategically combined in pursuance of an agreed goal, whilst the latter report how different strategies may be incidentally used in sometimes contrasting settings in the pursuance of similar goals. Ariyo et al. [ 35 ] helpfully summarise five key elements often found in effective MFI strategies in LMICs — but which may also be transferrable to HICs. First, effective MFIs encourage a multi-disciplinary approach acknowledging the roles played by different professional groups to collectively incorporate evidence-informed practice. Second, they utilise leadership drawing on a wide set of clinical and non-clinical actors including managers and even government officials. Third, multiple types of educational practices are utilised — including input from patients as stakeholders in some cases. Fourth, protocols, checklists and bundles are used — most effectively when local ownership is encouraged. Finally, most MFIs included an emphasis on monitoring and evaluation [ 35 ]. In contrast, other studies offer little information about the nature of the different MFI components of included studies which makes it difficult to extrapolate much learning from them in relation to why or how MFIs might affect practice (e.g. [ 28 , 38 ]). Ultimately, context matters, which some review authors argue makes it difficult to say with real certainty whether single or MFI strategies are superior (e.g. [ 21 , 27 ]). Taking all the systematic reviews together we may conclude that MFIs appear to be more likely to generate positive results than single interventions (e.g. [ 34 , 45 ]) though other reviews should make us cautious (e.g. [ 32 , 43 ]).

While multi-faceted interventions still seem to be more effective than single-strategy interventions, there were important distinctions between how the results of reviews of MFIs are interpreted in this review as compared to the previous reviews [ 8 , 9 ], reflecting greater nuance and debate in the literature. This was particularly noticeable where the effectiveness of MFIs was compared to single strategies, reflecting developments widely discussed in previous studies [ 10 ]. We found that most systematic reviews are bounded by their clinical, professional, spatial, system, or setting criteria and often seek to draw out implications for the implementation of evidence in their areas of specific interest (such as nursing or acute care). Frequently this means combining all relevant studies to explore the respective foci of each systematic review. Therefore, most reviews we categorised as MFIs actually include highly variable numbers and combinations of intervention strategies and highly heterogeneous original study designs. This makes statistical analyses of the type used by Squires et al. [ 10 ] on the three reviews in their paper not possible. Further, it also makes extrapolating findings and commenting on broad themes complex and difficult. This may suggest that future research should shift its focus from merely examining ‘what works’ to ‘what works where and what works for whom’ — perhaps pointing to the value of realist approaches to these complex review topics [ 48 , 49 ] and other more theory-informed approaches [ 50 ].

Some reviews have a relatively small number of studies (i.e. fewer than 10) and the authors are often understandably reluctant to engage with wider debates about the implications of their findings. Other larger studies do engage in deeper discussions about internal comparisons of findings across included studies and also contextualise these in wider debates. Some of the most informative studies (e.g. [ 35 , 40 ]) move beyond EPOC categories and contextualise MFIs within wider systems thinking and implementation theory. This distinction between MFIs and single interventions can actually be very useful as it offers lessons about the contexts in which individual interventions might have bounded effectiveness (i.e. educational interventions for individual change). Taken as a whole, this may also then help in terms of how and when to conjoin single interventions into effective MFIs.

In the two previous reviews, a consistent finding was that MFIs were more effective than single interventions [ 8 , 9 ]. However, like Squires et al. [ 10 ] this overview is more equivocal on this important issue. There are four points which may help account for the differences in findings in this regard. Firstly, the diversity of the systematic reviews in terms of clinical topic or setting is an important factor. Secondly, there is heterogeneity of the studies within the included systematic reviews themselves. Thirdly, there is a lack of consistency with regards to the definition and strategies included within of MFIs. Finally, there are epistemological differences across the papers and the reviews. This means that the results that are presented depend on the methods used to measure, report, and synthesise them. For instance, some reviews highlight that education strategies can be useful to improve provider understanding — but without wider organisational or system-level change, they may struggle to deliver sustained transformation [ 19 , 44 ].

It is also worth highlighting the importance of the theory of change underlying the different interventions. Where authors of the systematic reviews draw on theory, there is space to discuss/explain findings. We note a distinction between theoretical and atheoretical systematic review discussion sections. Atheoretical reviews tend to present acontextual findings (for instance, one study found very positive results for one intervention, and this gets highlighted in the abstract) whilst theoretically informed reviews attempt to contextualise and explain patterns within the included studies. Theory-informed systematic reviews seem more likely to offer more profound and useful insights (see [ 19 , 35 , 40 , 43 , 45 ]). We find that the most insightful systematic reviews of MFIs engage in theoretical generalisation — they attempt to go beyond the data of individual studies and discuss the wider implications of the findings of the studies within their reviews drawing on implementation theory. At the same time, they highlight the active role of context and the wider relational and system-wide issues linked to implementation. It is these types of investigations that can help providers further develop evidence-based practice.

This overview has identified a small, but insightful set of papers that interrogate and help theorise why, how, for whom, and in which circumstances it might be the case that MFIs are superior (see [ 19 , 35 , 40 ] once more). At the level of this overview — and in most of the systematic reviews included — it appears to be the case that MFIs struggle with the question of attribution. In addition, there are other important elements that are often unmeasured, or unreported (e.g. costs of the intervention — see [ 40 ]). Finally, the stronger systematic reviews [ 19 , 35 , 40 , 43 , 45 ] engage with systems issues, human agency and context [ 18 ] in a way that was not evident in the systematic reviews identified in the previous reviews [ 8 , 9 ]. The earlier reviews lacked any theory of change that might explain why MFIs might be more effective than single ones — whereas now some systematic reviews do this, which enables them to conclude that sometimes single interventions can still be more effective.

As Nilsen et al. ([ 6 ] p. 7) note ‘Study findings concerning the effectiveness of various approaches are continuously synthesized and assembled in systematic reviews’. We may have gone as far as we can in understanding the implementation of evidence through systematic reviews of single and multi-faceted interventions and the next step would be to conduct more research exploring the complex and situated nature of evidence used in clinical practice and by particular professional groups. This would further build on the nuanced discussion and conclusion sections in a subset of the papers we reviewed. This might also support the field to move away from isolating individual implementation strategies [ 6 ] to explore the complex processes involving a range of actors with differing capacities [ 51 ] working in diverse organisational cultures. Taxonomies of implementation strategies do not fully account for the complex process of implementation, which involves a range of different actors with different capacities and skills across multiple system levels. There is plenty of work to build on, particularly in the social sciences, which currently sits at the margins of debates about evidence implementation (see for example, Normalisation Process Theory [ 52 ]).

There are several changes that we have identified in this overview of systematic reviews in comparison to the review we published in 2011 [ 8 ]. A consistent and welcome finding is that the overall quality of the systematic reviews themselves appears to have improved between the two reviews, although this is not reflected upon in the papers. This is exhibited through better, clearer reporting mechanisms in relation to the mechanics of the reviews, alongside a greater attention to, and deeper description of, how potential biases in included papers are discussed. Additionally, there is an increased, but still limited, inclusion of original studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries as opposed to just high-income countries. Importantly, we found that many of these systematic reviews are attuned to, and comment upon the contextual distinctions of pursuing evidence-informed interventions in health care settings in different economic settings. Furthermore, systematic reviews included in this updated article cover a wider set of clinical specialities (both within and beyond hospital settings) and have a focus on a wider set of healthcare professions — discussing both similarities, differences and inter-professional challenges faced therein, compared to the earlier reviews. These wider ranges of studies highlight that a particular intervention or group of interventions may work well for one professional group but be ineffective for another. This diversity of study settings allows us to consider the important role context (in its many forms) plays on implementing evidence into practice. Examining the complex and varied context of health care will help us address what Nilsen et al. ([ 6 ] p. 1) described as, ‘society’s health problems [that] require research-based knowledge acted on by healthcare practitioners together with implementation of political measures from governmental agencies’. This will help us shift implementation science to move, ‘beyond a success or failure perspective towards improved analysis of variables that could explain the impact of the implementation process’ ([ 6 ] p. 2).

This review brings together 32 papers considering individual and multi-faceted interventions designed to support the use of evidence in clinical practice. The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been conducted. As a whole, this substantial body of knowledge struggles to tell us more about the use of individual and MFIs than: ‘it depends’. To really move forwards in addressing the gap between research evidence and practice, we may need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of perspectives, especially from the social, economic, political and behavioural sciences in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed. Harvey et al. [ 53 ] suggest that when context is likely to be critical to implementation success there are a range of primary research approaches (participatory research, realist evaluation, developmental evaluation, ethnography, quality/ rapid cycle improvement) that are likely to be appropriate and insightful. While these approaches often form part of implementation studies in the form of process evaluations, they are usually relatively small scale in relation to implementation research as a whole. As a result, the findings often do not make it into the subsequent systematic reviews. This review provides further evidence that we need to bring qualitative approaches in from the periphery to play a central role in many implementation studies and subsequent evidence syntheses. It would be helpful for systematic reviews, at the very least, to include more detail about the interventions and their implementation in terms of how and why they worked.

Availability of data and materials

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

Abbreviations

Before and after study

Controlled clinical trial

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care

High-income countries

Information and Communications Technology

Interrupted time series

Knowledge translation

Low- and middle-income countries

Randomised controlled trial

Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362:1225–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Green LA, Seifert CM. Translation of research into practice: why we can’t “just do it.” J Am Board Fam Pract. 2005;18:541–5. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.18.6.541 .

Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2006;1:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:2–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0 .

Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, et al. Never the twain shall meet? - a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2013;8:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-63 .

Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Eldh AC, et al. A realist process evaluation within the Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE) cluster randomised controlled international trial: an exemplar. Implementation Sci. 2018;13:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0 .

Boaz A, Baeza J, Fraser A, European Implementation Score Collaborative Group (EIS). Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:212. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-212 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, et al. Changing provider behavior – an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001;39 8Suppl 2:II2–45.

Google Scholar  

Squires JE, Sullivan K, Eccles MP, et al. Are multifaceted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals’ behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews. Implement Sci. 2014;9:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6 .

Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R. Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109:561–74. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1223 .

Thomas JM. Diffusion of innovation in systematic review methodology: why is study selection not yet assisted by automation? OA Evid Based Med. 2013;1:1–6.

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). The EPOC taxonomy of health systems interventions. EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2016. epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy . Accessed 9 Oct 2023.

Jamal A, McKenzie K, Clark M. The impact of health information technology on the quality of medical and health care: a systematic review. Health Inf Manag. 2009;38:26–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/183335830903800305 .

Menon A, Korner-Bitensky N, Kastner M, et al. Strategies for rehabilitation professionals to move evidence-based knowledge into practice: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:1024–32. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0451 .

Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-b .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Francke AL, Smit MC, de Veer AJ, et al. Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: a systematic meta-review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-8-38 .

Jones CA, Roop SC, Pohar SL, et al. Translating knowledge in rehabilitation: systematic review. Phys Ther. 2015;95:663–77. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130512 .

Scott D, Albrecht L, O’Leary K, Ball GDC, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implement Sci. 2012;7:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-70 .

Wu Y, Brettle A, Zhou C, Ou J, et al. Do educational interventions aimed at nurses to support the implementation of evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes? A systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;70:109–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.026 .

Yost J, Ganann R, Thompson D, Aloweni F, et al. The effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for promoting evidence-informed decision-making among nurses in tertiary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0286-1 .

Grudniewicz A, Kealy R, Rodseth RN, Hamid J, et al. What is the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Implement Sci. 2015;10:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0347-5 .

Koota E, Kääriäinen M, Melender HL. Educational interventions promoting evidence-based practice among emergency nurses: a systematic review. Int Emerg Nurs. 2018;41:51–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2018.06.004 .

Flodgren G, O’Brien MA, Parmelli E, et al. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000125.pub5 .

Arditi C, Rège-Walther M, Durieux P, et al. Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001175.pub4 .

Pantoja T, Grimshaw JM, Colomer N, et al. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001174.pub4 .

De Angelis G, Davies B, King J, McEwan J, et al. Information and communication technologies for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines to health professionals: a systematic review. JMIR Med Educ. 2016;2:e16. https://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.6288 .

Brown A, Barnes C, Byaruhanga J, McLaughlin M, et al. Effectiveness of technology-enabled knowledge translation strategies in improving the use of research in public health: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e17274. https://doi.org/10.2196/17274 .

Sykes MJ, McAnuff J, Kolehmainen N. When is audit and feedback effective in dementia care? A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;79:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.10.013 .

Bhatt NR, Czarniecki SW, Borgmann H, et al. A systematic review of the use of social media for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:1195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.10.008 .

Yamada J, Shorkey A, Barwick M, Widger K, et al. The effectiveness of toolkits as knowledge translation strategies for integrating evidence into clinical care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006808. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006808 .

Afari-Asiedu S, Abdulai MA, Tostmann A, et al. Interventions to improve dispensing of antibiotics at the community level in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2022;29:259–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2022.03.009 .

Boonacker CW, Hoes AW, Dikhoff MJ, Schilder AG, et al. Interventions in health care professionals to improve treatment in children with upper respiratory tract infections. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74:1113–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.07.008 .

Al Zoubi FM, Menon A, Mayo NE, et al. The effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the uptake of clinical practice guidelines and best practices among musculoskeletal professionals: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:2–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3253-0 .

Ariyo P, Zayed B, Riese V, Anton B, et al. Implementation strategies to reduce surgical site infections: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019;3:287–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.355 .

Borgert MJ, Goossens A, Dongelmans DA. What are effective strategies for the implementation of care bundles on ICUs: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0306-1 .

Cahill LS, Carey LM, Lannin NA, et al. Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012575.pub2 .

Pedersen ER, Rubenstein L, Kandrack R, Danz M, et al. Elusive search for effective provider interventions: a systematic review of provider interventions to increase adherence to evidence-based treatment for depression. Implement Sci. 2018;13:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0788-8 .

Jenkins HJ, Hancock MJ, French SD, Maher CG, et al. Effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging for low-back pain: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2015;187:401–8. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.141183 .

Bennett S, Laver K, MacAndrew M, Beattie E, et al. Implementation of evidence-based, non-pharmacological interventions addressing behavior and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review focused on implementation strategies. Int Psychogeriatr. 2021;33:947–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220001702 .

Noonan VK, Wolfe DL, Thorogood NP, et al. Knowledge translation and implementation in spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2014;52:578–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.62 .

Albrecht L, Archibald M, Snelgrove-Clarke E, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies to promote research uptake in child health settings. J Pediatr Nurs. 2016;31:235–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2015.12.002 .

Campbell A, Louie-Poon S, Slater L, et al. Knowledge translation strategies used by healthcare professionals in child health settings: an updated systematic review. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;47:114–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2019.04.026 .

Bird ML, Miller T, Connell LA, et al. Moving stroke rehabilitation evidence into practice: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33:1586–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519847253 .

Goorts K, Dizon J, Milanese S. The effectiveness of implementation strategies for promoting evidence informed interventions in allied healthcare: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06190-0 .

Zadro JR, O’Keeffe M, Allison JL, Lembke KA, et al. Effectiveness of implementation strategies to improve adherence of physical therapist treatment choices to clinical practice guidelines for musculoskeletal conditions: systematic review. Phys Ther. 2020;100:1516–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa101 .

Van der Veer SN, Jager KJ, Nache AM, et al. Translating knowledge on best practice into improving quality of RRT care: a systematic review of implementation strategies. Kidney Int. 2011;80:1021–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2011.222 .

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al. Realist review–a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10Suppl 1:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530 .

Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2012;7:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-33 .

Johnson MJ, May CR. Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008592. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008592 .

Metz A, Jensen T, Farley A, Boaz A, et al. Is implementation research out of step with implementation practice? Pathways to effective implementation support over the last decade. Implement Res Pract. 2022;3:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221105585 .

May CR, Finch TL, Cornford J, Exley C, et al. Integrating telecare for chronic disease management in the community: What needs to be done? BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-131 .

Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Wilson P, et al. Connecting the science and practice of implementation – applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research. Front Health Serv. 2023;3:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2023.1162762 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Kathryn Oliver for her support in the planning the review, Professor Steve Hanney for reading and commenting on the final manuscript and the staff at LSHTM library for their support in planning and conducting the literature search.

This study was supported by LSHTM’s Research England QR strategic priorities funding allocation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Grant number NIHR200152. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or Research England.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, The Policy Institute, King’s College London, Virginia Woolf Building, 22 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6LE, UK

Annette Boaz

King’s Business School, King’s College London, 30 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4BG, UK

Juan Baeza & Alec Fraser

Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Campus Universitário Reitor João Davi Ferreira Lima, Florianópolis, SC, 88.040-900, Brazil

Erik Persson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AB led the conceptual development and structure of the manuscript. EP conducted the searches and data extraction. All authors contributed to screening and quality appraisal. EP and AF wrote the first draft of the methods section. AB, JB and AF performed result synthesis and contributed to the analyses. AB wrote the first draft of the manuscript and incorporated feedback and revisions from all other authors. All authors revised and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Boaz .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix a., additional file 2: appendix b., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Boaz, A., Baeza, J., Fraser, A. et al. ‘It depends’: what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies to use to support the use of research in clinical practice. Implementation Sci 19 , 15 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01337-z

Download citation

Received : 01 November 2023

Accepted : 05 January 2024

Published : 19 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01337-z

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

  • Implementation
  • Interventions
  • Clinical practice
  • Research evidence
  • Multi-faceted

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

  • Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
  • General enquiries: [email protected]

what is a research article review

  • Open access
  • Published: 19 February 2024

Strategies for engaging older adults and informal caregivers in health policy development: A scoping review

  • Opeyemi Rashidat Kolade 1 , 2 ,
  • Joshua Porat-Dahlerbruch 1 , 3 ,
  • Rustem Makhmutov 1 , 4 ,
  • Theo van Achterberg 2 &
  • Moriah Esther Ellen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7127-7283 1 , 5  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  26 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

179 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Care for older adults is high on the global policy agenda. Active involvement of older adults and their informal caregivers in policy-making can lead to cost–effective health and long-term care interventions. Yet, approaches for their involvement in health policy development have yet to be extensively explored. This review maps the literature on strategies for older adults (65+ years) and informal caregivers’ involvement in health policy development.

As part of the European Union TRANS-SENIOR program, a scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodology. Published and grey literature was searched, and eligible studies were screened. Data were extracted from included studies and analysed using the Multidimensional Framework for Patient and Family Engagement in Health and Healthcare.

A total of 13 engagement strategies were identified from 11 publications meeting the inclusion criteria. They were categorized as “traditional”, “deliberative” and “others”, adopting the World Bank’s categorization of engagement methods. Older adults and informal caregivers are often consulted to elicit opinions and identify priorities. However, their involvement in policy formulation, implementation and evaluation is unclear from the available literature. Findings indicate that older adults and their informal caregivers do not often have equal influence and shared leadership in policy-making.

Although approaches for involving older adults and their informal caregivers’ involvement were synthesized from literature, we found next to no information about their involvement in policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. Findings will guide future research in addressing identified gaps and guide policy-makers in identifying and incorporating engagement strategies to support evidence-informed policy-making processes that can improve health outcomes for older adults/informal caregivers.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

One in six people worldwide will be over 65 years in 2050 [ 1 ]. Ageing is correlated with increased multimorbidity and chronic health needs. This is burdensome to older adults and their informal caregivers and significantly increases health and social care service utilization [ 2 , 3 ], and the complexity of health and long-term care needs. Informal caregiving and care for older adults have become critical issues of public policy. Informal caregivers of older adults are the mainstay of support for older adults with chronic health conditions [ 4 ]. Furthermore, they are potentially at risk for adverse effects on their health and well-being, quality of life and economic security [ 5 ]. Therefore, health policy decisions are relevant to older adults and their informal caregivers and impact the healthcare system, highlighting the need to develop responsive health policies [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. One approach to efficacious health policy development is citizen engagement [ 9 ].

When citizens are engaged in policy development, policy-makers are better aware of needs and outcomes affecting the target population [ 8 ]. Citizen engagement in policy-making can improve instrumental (designed to improve the quality of decision-making), developmental (intended to improve knowledge and capacity of the participants) and democratic (intended to meet transparency, accountability, trust and confidence goals) outcomes [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. As such, involving older adults and their informal caregivers in health policy development improves the legitimacy and transparency of the health policy-making process and can also lead to carefully crafted, relevant policies that improve cost–effective healthcare and long-term care interventions [ 8 , 13 , 14 ]. However, informal caregiver and older adult input in health policy development is limited, and little is known about strategies to engage them in developing policies affecting their lives [ 15 , 16 ]. Most previous research on engagement at the policy level focuses on the general population, which does not often reflect older adults’ unique and complex social and healthcare needs [ 17 ]. Policy-making would benefit from older adult and informal caregiver perspectives, as their involvement has been shown to improve policy sustainability and outcomes [ 6 ]. Finally, tangible public health outcomes emerge when active citizen participation in decision-making is promoted [ 18 ].

Engaging older adults in health policy development holds substantial public health implications, affecting diverse aspects of healthcare. This impact spans from individual older adults and informal caregivers to the broader societal level, influencing healthcare systems, policies, emerging technologies, healthcare innovation and the overall quality of care. Participation in shaping solutions and emerging health technologies enables the creation of practical and effective solutions alongside those experiencing the issues. For instance, employing collaborative methods such as creative workshops and dilemma games fosters active involvement in co-developing health technologies [ 19 ]. Similarly, involvement methods such as patient journey mapping, surveys, workshops, expert panels, user boards, public and patient involvement (PPI) conferences, Delphi methods, living laboratories for technology innovation, stakeholder activities and patient interviews have been employed in the co-development of health services [ 20 ].

Most existing research focuses on citizens’ engagement in research. For example, engaging older adults as partners in transitional care research, engaging patients in health research and engaging older adults in healthcare research and planning [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Previous research has also focused on involvement of older adults/informal caregivers in healthcare decision-making [ 26 , 27 ] as opposed to older adult/informal caregiver engagement in health policy development. There are a few examples of older adult and informal caregiver engagement in health policy development [ 17 , 28 , 29 ]. However, these works include no overview nor synthesis of methods for engaging older adults and informal caregivers in health policy development. More information on strategies for their engagement is necessary to promote older adult and informal caregiver engagement in health policy development and improve outcomes linked to health policy. This review aims to provide a foundation for older adult and informal caregiver engagement in health policy development by providing an overview of available research evidence on strategies for their engagement in health and well-being policy development. The scope of this study is thus focused specifically on exploring older adult and informal caregiver involvement in government policy development rather than involvement in individual care/healthcare decision-making, and organizational governance/policy-making.

Using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, we gathered evidence on engagement strategies for older adults and informal caregivers in health policy development, and identified and analysed knowledge gaps [ 30 ]. A scoping review protocol was developed to guide the study [ 31 ]. Data analysis was guided by the Multidimensional Framework for Patient and Family Engagement in Health and Healthcare by Carman et al. [ 32 ] (Additional file 1 : Appendix S1), which was influenced by Arnstein’s ladder of participation [ 33 ]. The multidimensional framework describes a continuum of engagement (consultation, involvement and partnership/shared leadership) across three levels of the healthcare system (individual care, organizational governance and government policy) and describes factors influencing engagement. This study derives the basis for analysis from the following elements adapted from the framework: the engagement continuum (consultation, involvement, partnership/shared leadership), the level/stage of government policy (agenda setting, policy formulation, policy implementation, policy evaluation) and factors influencing policy-makers to create involvement opportunities, all described in data charting section below. Finally, we were interested in synthesizing data on reported outcomes of engagement.

There are a plethora of potentially relevant frameworks, theories and conceptualizations related to citizen engagement, such as Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation and the International Association for Public Participation (Iap2) models, among others [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. However, for this study, we opted for the Multidimensional framework by Carman and colleagues. This choice was based on its ability to illustrate different levels of the healthcare system where patients and families can be engaged, a fundamental aspect of our study.

Search strategy and selection criteria

An initial search of two online databases (PubMed and Embase) was conducted. We analysed the keywords in the title and abstract of retrieved papers and the index terms used to describe the articles. A second search used all identified keywords and index terms across all relevant databases: Health Systems Evidence, Health Evidence, CINAHL, PubMed, and Embase. Thirdly, the reference lists of identified reports and articles were scanned for additional sources. We worked with three librarians for search terms and search strategy refinement. We searched grey literature (Participedia.net and Google) using a combination of indexing (Mesh) terms and the following search key words: (older adult OR aged OR senior) AND (patient participation OR empowerment OR deliberation OR activation) AND (health policy OR Advisory committee OR policy formulation; Additional file 2 : Appendix S2). We refined search results from Participedia.net by using filters relating to health and well-being.

Search results were imported into EndNote 20 for de-duplication, then into an online systematic review software, Covidence ( www.covidence.org ). Titles and abstracts were screened to determine eligibility for full-text review. Results from the grey literature were screened by reading the titles and summaries. All five research team members screened a sample together for eligibility and discussed any doubts and differences. Then all titles and abstracts were screened independently by at least two team members. Disagreements were discussed and resolved through discussion or involving a third team member, and a consensus was reached.

Titles and abstracts of empirical studies, reviews and grey literature reports were included for full-text review if they reported on policy development in the areas of health and well-being, addressed the use or evaluation of a method for engaging older adults and/or informal caregivers in health and well-being policy development, focused on older adults (defined as persons with a minimum age of 65 years; a majority of participants were aged 65 years and above) and/or their informal caregivers, or used proxy words (such as chronically ill, dementia and frail elderly), and addressed policy development at regional, national or international level. In the screening of titles and abstracts, we specifically sought studies that identified participants as either older adults aged 65 years and above, informal caregivers or a combination of both. For full-text screening, we checked for the actual ages and percentage of participants aged 65 years and above. Studies that only included participants younger than 65 years were excluded. Articles with a majority of 65 years and older were included. Corresponding authors of full-text articles were contacted for clarity when the sample population was unclear. Articles were not included in this review when there was no response.

Empirical studies, reviews and grey literature reported in all languages and from the databases’ inception were included. Titles and abstracts of included studies in languages other than English were first screened by a colleague able to read the applicable language to decide on its relevance for extraction. Studies describing older adult and informal caregiver engagement in research or in healthcare decision-making were excluded. We excluded articles describing engagement for organizational governance/policy development. Studies that involved heterogeneous population groups (for example, older adults/informal caregivers and health workers, or government representatives) were excluded. Finally, studies whereby we could not access the full texts were excluded.

Data charting

Based on the elements of the multidimensional framework for patient and family engagement in health and healthcare [ 32 ], a preliminary data charting table (Additional file 3 : Appendix S3) was developed and piloted by two team members who also extracted the data. In case of discrepancies, a third team member reviewed for extraction agreement. Data charting followed the following elements – continuum of engagement, stages of government policy development and factors influencing policy-makers to create engagement opportunities. Additionally, data were extracted on outcomes of engagement which we defined as the result of engaging older adults in health policy development.

The engagement continuum is categorized based on how much information flows between parties (policy-maker and citizens), and the level of influence citizens have over decision-making ranging from limited participation, or degrees of tokenism, to a state of collaborative partnership in which citizens share leadership or control decisions. The engagement continuum, according to Carman et al., includes consultation (eliciting opinions about health issues), involvement (when research recommendations influence policy) and partnership/shared leadership (when citizens and policy-makers share equal power and responsibility in decision-making) [ 32 ].

Levels of engagement in the framework was modified to “levels/stages of policy development” since we were particularly focused on engagement in policy development. We focused on these stages of the policy cycle: agenda setting (identifying priorities, recognition of issues as a problem demanding public attention), policy formulation (developing and refining policy options for government), policy implementation (activities taken to achieve goals stated in policy statement) and policy evaluation (examination of the effects ongoing policies and public programs have on their targets in terms of the goals they are meant to achieve) [ 39 ]. Factors influencing engagement were modified to factors influencing policy-makers to create opportunities for engagement, as this was a gap in the framework this review set out to fill to build on the framework.

Study selection

The published and grey literature search yielded 10 921 publications. After removing duplicates, 7486 articles were included for the title and abstract screening. We excluded 7385 articles for irrelevance. Altogether, 101 articles were assessed for full-text eligibility, 90 articles were excluded and data were extracted from 11 publications (Fig.  1 ). We identified the engagement methods in the relevant articles and described how they were used to engage participants in health policy development. Then, we interpreted these findings on the basis of the elements in the framework.

figure 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram showing article selection process

Study characteristics

The studies included were conducted in countries in North America [ 40 , 41 , 42 ] ( n  = 3), Europe [ 17 , 43 , 44 , 45 ] ( n  = 4), Australia [ 46 , 47 , 48 ] ( n  = 3) and Asia [ 29 ] ( n  = 1). Publication dates of included studies ranged from 1997 to 2021. The design of the studies included a multi-method design [ 45 ] ( n  = 1), qualitative designs [ 17 , 29 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 46 , 47 ] ( n  = 8), a quantitative design [ 48 ]) ( n  = 1) and a case study design [ 44 ] ( n  = 1; Table  1 ). About half of the studies [ 17 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 ] ( n  = 6) involved both older adults and their informal caregivers. Four studies [ 40 , 42 , 43 , 46 ] involved only older adults, and one study [ 29 ] involved only informal caregivers in health policy development. A wide range of older adults (people with chronic illnesses, dementia, complex health and social needs, and home-bound older adults) and their informal caregivers were included in the studies. Finally, some engagement strategies were implemented as a one-time event, while others were ongoing or continued for a longer period of time.

Engagement strategies

A total of 13 unique engagement strategies were reported across the 11 included articles. We adopted the World Bank Groups’ categorization of citizen engagement being traditional consultation and feedback mechanisms, participatory mechanisms and citizen-led mechanisms [ 49 ]. For this review, we slightly adjusted these categories to traditional strategies, deliberative strategies, and other strategies (see Additional file 4 : Appendix S4 for definition of terms). Traditional engagement strategies (interviews, surveys, focus groups, workshops, telephone conferencing) were categorized as such, as they are commonly used strategies not unique for engagement (for example, also used for research purposes) and generally designed to measure the prevalence and range of opinions and not their stability or depth [ 50 , 51 ]. Deliberative strategies (citizen juries, citizen panels, community juries, policy café and carers assembly) were thus categorized, as they highlight participants’ prior education on the topic of discussion (for example, using citizen briefs and expert witnesses), thus eliciting informed views and perspectives on complex topics [ 50 ]. The “other strategies” category under which we classified a discrete choice experiment and two visual engagement strategies (photo elicitation and photovoice and audio recording) were so categorized under a general heading “other engagement strategies”, as they did not fit into the traditional or deliberative categories.

Traditional engagement strategies only ( n  = 5) were reported in four articles [ 42 , 44 , 45 , 47 ], deliberative strategies only ( n  = 4) were reported in three articles [ 17 , 41 , 46 ], one article reported using one deliberative method and two traditional methods [ 29 ], and the remaining three articles [ 40 , 43 , 48 ] reported “other” engagement strategies. The strategies engaged participants in a wide range of health policy issues, most of which related to older adults. One article used carers assembly to engage caregivers of people with dementia to discuss issues of concern to them and to identify priorities to bring to policy-makers about to make important legislative decisions on the future provision of home care in Ireland [ 17 ]. Traditional engagement strategies were used to engage participants on recommendations for improving care for people with chronic illnesses (semi-structured interviews), priorities for older adults with multiple long-term conditions (survey, interview, workshop), quality of life and care in nursing homes, medication reimbursement (focus group, telephone interview), eldercare and informal caregiver policy (policy café and carers assembly) and health-related concerns of homebound people (survey, interview, group discussion, telephone conferencing). Deliberative methods were used to engage participants on government-funded mammography screening (community jury), long-term care provision (citizen jury with interview and focus group), post-diagnosis support/home care legislation (policy café and carers assembly) and hospital-to-home care transitions (citizen panels). Finally, other methods engaged participants in consumer-directed care (discrete choice experiment), age-friendliness of a rural community (photo-elicitation) and improving neighbourhood food and physical environment (photovoice and audio recording). Table 2 presents a summary of the engagement strategies, their descriptions and examples of health policy issues addressed.

Synthesis of result according to Carman et al. ’s framework

Continuum of engagement.

Identified engagement strategies varied in the level of influence (engagement continuum) participants had, with no clear relationship between engagement approach and continuum of involvement. In all, 4 of the 11 included articles reported engagement approaches on the lower end of the engagement continuum (that is, views on and experiences with a health issue were elicited [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Six articles [ 17 , 29 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] reported engagement approaches best situated in between the consultation and involvement continuum (that is, in addition to simply eliciting views and experiences, participants’ opinions were used for advocacy, development and presentation of research evidence and policy recommendations to policy-makers). This is a newly added component to the Framework. Finally, one article [ 44 ] reported engagement strategies with characteristics fitting the involvement continuum (that is, older adults’ inputs to contributed to changes in service provisions). No article reported engagement strategies reflecting participants’ involvement on the highest end of the continuum (partnership/shared leadership; Fig.  2 ). The level of power and decision-making authority that older adults and informal caregivers had was not a function of the engagement approach/category. Thus, it was impossible to establish a clear relationship between individual engagement approaches/the category they belong to, and the engagement continuum. For example, three unique traditional engagement strategies (interviews, surveys, and workshops) belonged to the consultation continuum, thus indicating that older adults/caregivers involved using those approaches had a lower level of power in decision-making. Contrastingly, another article described similar traditional engagement strategies (survey, interviews, group discussions and telephone conferencing), but older adult and informal caregivers involved had a higher level of influence in decision-making (involvement continuum) as shown in Table  3 .

figure 2

Distribution of studies ( n  = 11) over the continuum of engagement

Stages of policy development

Regarding the stages of policy development, none of the 11 studies described older adults and their informal caregivers’ involvement beyond the agenda/priority-setting stage of policy development. Their role in the process of policy formulation, implementation and evaluation was not clear. Most of the studies reported participant involvement in identifying health priority issues or care needs and examining how citizen involvement can be actualized. Also, no studies reported on factors influencing policy-makers to create engagement opportunities.

Outcomes of engagement

Of the 11 studies, 8 reported on outcomes of older adult/informal caregiver engagement in policy development. Outcomes reported in the studies included but were not limited to developmental outcomes (civic education of citizens, citizens’ developed capacity to participate in public policy issues) [ 29 , 45 , 46 ] and instrumental outcomes (promotion of active citizenship and awareness of lived experiences of other older adults) [ 17 , 29 ]. Other outcomes included increased health and information access, quality of life and self-esteem of participants [ 44 ]; provision of reform solutions [ 47 ]; and priorities for policy-makers [ 17 ]. Finally, some engagement strategies were reportedly used in isolation [ 41 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 48 ], while others were combined with one [ 17 , 40 , 42 , 45 ] or more than one [ 29 , 44 ] engagement method.

This review synthesized existing literature on strategies for engaging older adults and informal caregivers in health and well-being policy development. Findings suggest that, although older adults and informal caregivers were consulted for identifying priorities and to elicit their opinions on health issues, they were rarely engaged in the actual processes of policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. They also rarely had shared leadership and decision-making authority. None of the included studies provided data on factors influencing policy-makers to create engagement opportunities and data on comparisons of alternative engagement strategies for variation, content, breadth and depth of participants’ input.

Our categorization of engagement methods into “traditional”, “deliberative” and “others” is in line with previous research suggesting the same. For example, the World Bank categorized engagement mechanisms as traditional and consultative feedback mechanisms (including surveys and focus groups), participatory mechanisms and citizen-led mechanisms. Similarly, approaches such as citizen juries, community juries, citizen panels and policy cafés have been described as deliberative engagement methods in previous literature, usually characterized by the presenting research evidence or using expert witnesses to educate lay citizens to make reasoned and informed judgement on complex issues [ 17 , 50 , 52 , 53 ]. Finally, photovoice and audio-recording and photo elicitation, categorized under the other category with the discrete choice experiment, have been described in previous research as visual research methodologies [ 54 , 55 ].

Furthermore, findings from this review indicate that the engagement of older adults in policy-making often relies solely on consultation approaches [ 15 ] and takes place at the beginning stages of the policy cycle through older adult and informal caregiver consultation and priority identification. However, meaningful participation involves stakeholders in all stages of the policy cycle. This includes research, data collection, priority setting, policy formulation, budgeting, implementation and review and evaluation [ 15 , 56 ]. Thus, future research can be conducted to increase our understanding of older adult and informal caregiver involvement in the higher end of engagement continuum as well as how or when in the policy cycle/process they are involved.

Most of the engagement strategies reported in this review involved participants directly and not through advisory bodies or organizations of older persons, although some collaborations and partnerships with other stakeholders were necessary in some cases to reach the older adults and their informal caregivers [ 17 , 40 , 43 , 44 ]. Also worthy of note is the fact that leveraging on partnerships, institutionalizing engagement and community-based partnerships is critical to enabling desired engagement outcomes [ 12 , 40 , 43 , 44 ]. Finally, the literature on engagement strategies for other populations can be useful to inform future empirical work on engagement strategies for older adults aged 65 years and above. These strategies include the participatory theatre approach [ 57 ], concept maps [ 58 ], deliberative polling and citizen dialogues [ 59 ].

Although our research focuses solely on identifying literature that describes the use and evaluation of older adults and informal caregivers involvement approaches, we recognize that older persons or informal caregivers’ participation in policy-making can take place both in individual and collective settings [ 60 ]. Thus, there may be other engagement approaches that accommodate older adults and informal caregivers in group settings with other stakeholders and not as the sole participants, for example, public consultations on the living conditions of seniors which involved older adults, representatives of health and social services, and elected members of city councils [ 61 ]. The choice of engagement approach may be dependent on existing policy processes within a particular setting, for example, senior councils in Europe for supporting local political decision-making. Also, Keogh and colleagues [ 17 ] designed innovative methods for involving people with dementia in policy development, using a world café methodology and citizen assembly model commonly implemented in Ireland [ 17 , 62 ].

The evaluation of engagement methods has been minimal. Understanding the effectiveness of engagement strategies is fundamental to informing the design of successful engagement and reaching the full potential of engagement [ 16 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]. This review discusses existing engagement strategies, but it does not address which may be most effective for older adults and informal caregivers based on the context/health system. One of the excluded studies (on the basis of the age criterion) reported on the evaluation of engagement strategies. Two deliberative methods of public participation – the citizens’ workshop and the citizens’ jury – were evaluated. The evaluation of the methods was based on process and outcome evaluation measures [ 66 ], and found that both methods were not rated significantly differently by the participants on most criteria, thus, signalling an overlap in the impact and utility of the two methods of deliberation. There is need for more studies on the evaluation of engagement strategies for involving older adults 65 years and older and their informal caregivers in health policy development.

Having established that research is needed around the evaluation of engagement methods, we also need to provide the older adults and informal caregivers with the necessary skills needed to educate themselves about the process of policy-making as well as advocacy training. Engaging them in advocacy has the potential to achieve better local policy outcomes [ 40 ]. For example, one excluded study (on the basis of the age criterion) reported the evaluation of a senior civic academy (SCA) methodology: a self-advocacy course that simultaneously educates older residents about policy-making processes and engages them in advocacy training to incorporate their voices in local policy and planning. A pre- and post-program evaluation, as well as follow-up interviews, were conducted [ 67 ]. The study reported the efficaciousness of the methodology in engaging older adults. Advocacy training can be provided for older adults and informal caregivers on advocating for policy changes. Training components may include building a case for change, identifying potential allies and resources, and role-playing scenarios targeting local policy-makers [ 40 ]. Finally, civil society organizations and older adult organizations also play a role in building the skills of older persons to engage in advocacy with governments, thus creating a space for them to tell their own stories from their perspectives to inform policy-making [ 56 ].

Strengths and limitations

This is the first attempt we can identify to synthesize evidence on strategies for engaging older adults and informal caregivers in health policy development. We used the Multidimensional Framework for Patient and Family Engagement in Health and Healthcare to guide data extraction and analysis, thus providing a theoretical contribution to the literature.

Some limitations were, however, identified. First, although the review was not sufficient to provide information to build on the framework (for example, it was not clear how or whether older adults and their informal caregivers are involved in all the stages/cycle of policy development; also no factors influencing policy-makers to create opportunities for involvement were identified), gaps in the literature were identified, providing direction for future studies. Secondly, due to the ambiguity and heterogeneity of terminology for engagement, the search string for this review, although built with the help of librarians, may not have identified all relevant published and grey literature. Quality appraisal, which is an evaluation of the quality of the included publications, was not performed, since our objective was to identify and describe the range of literature available on the topic without excluding studies on the basis of methodological quality. Furthermore, our intention was to provide a comprehensive overview of the field rather than to evaluate the quality of individual studies. Also, quality appraisal is not required in scoping review methods. Finally, our research focused solely on engagement approaches that were used exclusively for older adults and informal caregivers; thus, we may have missed out on publications reporting approaches that include other citizens and stakeholders alongside older adults and informal caregivers.

Implications for future research and policy

An examination of the existing literature points to a dearth of literature on the use and evaluation of engagement strategies for older adults aged 65 years and above and their informal caregivers. Implications for future research include understanding different healthcare systems and contexts in which these methods were used, understanding factors influencing policy-makers to create engagement opportunities for them and researching methods for evaluating and assessing engagement strategies for variation, content, breadth and depth of participants’ input.

Policy-makers can learn from the findings of this review by understanding how older adults and informal caregivers can be involved in policy process using the identified approaches. Engaging older adults and their informal caregivers in health policy formulation, implementation and evaluation beyond just consultations and tokenism [ 33 ] but also, in the continuum of involvement and partnership/shared leadership, requires a concerted effort of all stakeholders, including researchers, policy-makers, older adults’ representative organizations and older adults and their informal caregivers.

The analysis shows a dearth in literature on the use and evaluation of strategies for engaging older adults and informal caregivers in health policy development. The small number of studies reviewed could indicate a need to further explore older adult and informal caregiver involvement in collective settings including other stakeholders. Finally, this review highlights gaps in strategies for involving older adults and informal caregiver, and provides relevant information to enable policy-makers to make evidence-informed and responsive policy decisions, thus improving health outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

All data are publicly available and included within the article and its supplementary information files.

UNDESA. World population ageing. Highlights: living arrangements of older persons. New York: United Nations; 2020. p. 2020.

Google Scholar  

Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. “It all depends”: conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2010;70(10):1518–26.

Abdi S, Spann A, Borilovic J, de Witte L, Hawley M. Correction to: Understanding the care and support needs of older people: a scoping review and categorisation using the WHO international classification of functioning, disability and health framework (ICF). BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):23.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Schulz R, Eden J, Adults C on FC for O, Services B on HC, Division H and M, National Academies of Sciences E. Recommendations to support family caregivers of older adults. Families Caring for an Aging America. National Academies Press (US); 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK396408/ . Accessed 19 Feb 2023.

Schulz R, Eden J, Adults C on FC for O, Services B on HC, Division H and M, National Academies of Sciences E. Family caregiving roles and impacts. Families Caring for an Aging America. National Academies Press (US); 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK396398/ . Accessed 19 Feb 2023.

Stefanoni, S., & Williamson, C. Review of Good Practice in National Policies and Laws on Ageing. HelpAge International Asia, Pacific Regional Development Centre (HAI). 2015. www.helpage.org/Worldwide/AsiaPacific .

de Freitas C, Martin G. Inclusive public participation in health: policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare. Soc Sci Med. 2015;135:31–9.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Irvin RA, Stansbury J. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Adm Rev. 2004;64(1):55–65.

Article   Google Scholar  

Figueiredo Nascimento S, Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. 2016. Report No.: EUR 28328 EN. https://doi.org/10.2788/40563

Conklin A, Morris Z, Nolte E. What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expect. 2015;18(2):153–65.

Gaventa J, Barrett G. Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. World Dev. 2012;40(12):2399–410.

Abelson J, Stephanie M, Kathy L, Gauvin FP, Martin E. Effective strategies for interactive public engagement in the development of healthcare policies and program; 2010. p. 49. www.chsrf.ca

Carman K, Heeringa J, Heil S, Garfinkel S, Windham A, Gilmore D, et al. Public deliberation to elicit input on health topics: findings from a literature review. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. Report No.: AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC070-EF. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov .

Cylus, J., Normand, Charles, & Figueras, J. The economics of healthy and active ageing series will population ageing spell the end of the of the welfare state?: A review of evidence and policy options. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. 2019. (pp. 1–43). https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/publications/i/will-population-ageing-spell-the-end-of-the-welfare-state-a-review-of-evidence-and-policy-options-study .

Falanga R, Cebulla A, Principi A, Socci M. The participation of senior citizens in policy-making: patterning initiatives in Europe. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;18(1):34.

Holroyd-Leduc J, Resin J, Ashley L, Barwich D, Elliott J, Huras P, et al. Giving voice to older adults living with frailty and their family caregivers: engagement of older adults living with frailty in research, health care decision making, and in health policy. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):23.

Keogh F, Carney P, O’Shea E. Innovative methods for involving people with dementia and carers in the policymaking process. Health Expect. 2021;24(3):800–9.

Brusaferro S, Arnoldo L, Brunelli L, Croci R, Mistretta A. Six Ps to drive the future of public health. J Public Health. 2022;44(1):i94–6.

Clemensen J, Rothmann MJ, Smith AC, Caffery LJ, Danbjorg DB. Participatory design methods in telemedicine research. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(9):780–5.

Cluley V, Ziemann A, Feeley C, Olander EK, Shamah S, Stavropoulou C. Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2022;25(3):840–55.

Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):5.

McNeil H, Elliott J, Huson K, Ashbourne J, Heckman G, Walker J, et al. Engaging older adults in healthcare research and planning: a realist synthesis. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):10.

Ganann R, McAiney C, Johnson W. Engaging older adults as partners in transitional care research. Can Med Assoc J. 2018;190(Suppl):S40–1.

Kylén M, Slaug B, Jonsson O, Iwarsson S, Schmidt SM. User involvement in ageing and health research: a survey of researchers’ and older adults’ perspectives. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):93.

Maulod A, Rouse S, Lee A, Ravindran M, Mohamad H, Goh V, et al. Ethics of participation and social inclusion of older persons in research: lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(S1):126.

Kraun L, De Vliegher K, Vandamme M, Holtzheimer E, Ellen M, van Achterberg T. Older peoples’ and informal caregivers’ experiences, views, and needs in transitional care decision-making: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;134: 104303.

Elliott J, McNeil H, Ashbourne J, Huson K, Boscart V, Stolee P. Engaging older adults in health care decision-making: a realist synthesis. Patient. 2016;9(5):383–93.

Frączkiewicz-Wronka A, Kowalska-Bobko I, Sagan A, Wronka-Pośpiech M. The growing role of seniors councils in health policy-making for older people in Poland. Health Policy. 2019;123(10):906–11.

Chuengsatiansup K, Tengrang K, Posayanonda T, Sihapark S. Citizens’ Jury and elder care: public participation and deliberation in long-term care policy in Thailand. J Aging Soc Policy. 2019;31(4):378–92.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.

Kolade O, Porat-Dahlerbruch J, van Achterberg T, Ellen M. Strategies for engaging senior citizens and their informal caregivers in health policy development: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2022;12(10): e064505.

Carman K, Dardess P, Maurer M, Sofaer S, Adams K, Bechtel C, et al. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):223–31.

Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 1969;35(4):216–24.

International Association for Public Participation Australasia (IAP2). IAP2 Australasia. Quality assurance standard for community and stakeholder engagement. https://www.iap2.org.au/Resources/IAP2-Published-Resources . Accessed 20 Dec 2023.

Wiles LK, Kay D, Luker JA, Worley A, Austin J, Ball A, et al. Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: a systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(1): e0261808.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Masterson D, Areskoug Josefsson K, Robert G, Nylander E, Kjellström S. Mapping definitions of co-production and co-design in health and social care: a systematic scoping review providing lessons for the future. Health Expect. 2022;25(3):902–13.

Bright FAS, Kayes NM, Worrall L, McPherson KM. A conceptual review of engagement in healthcare and rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(8):643–54.

Caputo F, Prisco A, Lettieri M, Crescenzo M. Citizens’ engagement in smart cities for promoting circular economy. A Knowledge based framework. ITM Web Conf. 2023;51:02001.

Howlett M, Giest S. Policy Cycle. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier; 2015. p. 288–92. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780080970868750318 . Accessed 20 Feb 2023.

Buman MP, Winter SJ, Baker C, Hekler EB, Otten JJ, King AC. Neighborhood Eating and Activity Advocacy Teams (NEAAT): engaging older adults in policy activities to improve food and physical environments. Transl Behav Med. 2012;2(2):249–53.

Gauvin F, McKinlay J, Markle-Reid M, Ganann R, McAiney C, Heald-Taylor G, et al. Panel summary: engaging older adults with complex health and social needs, and their caregivers, to improve hospital-to-home transitions in Ontario. Hamilton: McMaster Health Forum; 2019.

Chappell NL, Maclure M, Brunt H, Hopkinson J, Mullett J. Seniors’ views of medication reimbursement policies: bridging research and policy at the point of policy impact. Can Public Policy Anal Polit. 1997;23:114.

Harrison A, Hall M, Money A, Mueller J, Waterson H, Verma A. Engaging older people to explore the age-friendliness of a rural community in Northern England: a photo-elicitation study. J Aging Stud. 2021;58: 100936.

O’Keefe E, Hogg C. Public participation and marginalized groups: the community development model: public participation and marginalized groups. Health Expect. 1999;2(4):245–54.

Spiers G, Boulton E, Corner L, Craig D, Parker S, Todd C, et al. What matters to people with multiple long-term conditions and their carers? Postgrad Med J. 2021;99:159–65.

Degeling C, Barratt A, Aranda S, Bell R, Doust J, Houssami N, et al. Should women aged 70–74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6): e021174.

Jowsey T, Yen L, Wells R, Leeder S. National Health and Hospital Reform Commission final report and patient-centred suggestions for reform. Aust J Prim Health. 2011;17(2):162.

Kaambwa B, Lancsar E, McCaffrey N, Chen G, Gill L, Cameron ID, et al. Investigating consumers’ and informal carers’ views and preferences for consumer directed care: a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2015;140:81–94.

World Bank Group. Strategic Framework for Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in World Bank Group Operations. Washington, DC: © World Bank; 2014. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21113

Carman KL, Mallery C, Maurer M, Wang G, Garfinkel S, Yang M, et al. Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: results from a randomized trial. Soc Sci Med. 2015;133:11–20.

Fishkin JS, Rosell SA, Shepherd D, Amsler T. ChoiceDialogues and deliberative polls: two approaches to deliberative democracy. Natl Civ Rev. 2004;93(4):55–63.

Degeling C, Carter SM, Rychetnik L. Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Soc Sci Med. 2015;131:114–21.

Degeling C, Rychetnik L, Street J, Thomas R, Carter SM. Influencing health policy through public deliberation: lessons learned from two decades of citizens’/community juries. Soc Sci Med. 2017;179:166–71.

Lorenz LS, Kolb B. Involving the public through participatory visual research methods. Health Expect. 2009;12(3):262–74.

Mysyuk Y, Huisman M. Photovoice method with older persons: a review. Ageing Soc. 2020;40(8):1759–87.

UNECE. Meaningful participation of older persons and civil society in policymaking|UNECE. 2021. https://unece.org/statistics/documents/2021/08/meaningful-participation-older-persons-and-civil-society-policymaking . Accessed 31 Mar 2023.

Bailey C, Forster N, Douglas B, Webster Saaremets C, Salamon E. Housing voices: using theatre and film to engage people in later life housing and health conversations. Hous Care Support. 2019;22(4):181–92.

Bacsu J, McIntosh T, Viger M, Johnson S, Jeffery B, Novik N. Supporting older adults’ engagement in health-care programs and policies: findings from a rural cognitive health study. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2019;38(3):209–23.

Ellen M, Shach R, Kok M, Fatta K. There is much to learn when you listen: exploring citizen engagement in high- and low-income countries. World Health Popul. 2017;17(3):31–42.

Pinto JM, Neri AL. Trajectories of social participation in old age: a systematic literature review. Rev Bras Geriatr E Gerontol. 2017;20(2):259–72.

Hebert R. An urgent need to improve life conditions of seniors. J Nutr Health Aging. 2010;14(8):711–4.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Citizensinformation.ie. Citizens’ Assembly. Citizensinformation.ie. https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/irish_constitution_1/citizens_assembly.html . Accessed 20 Feb 2023.

Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(2):239–51.

Graffigna G, Barello S, Bonanomi A, Lozza E. Measuring patient engagement: development and psychometric properties of the Patient Health Engagement (PHE) Scale. Front Psychol. 2015;6:274.

Bombard Y, Baker GR, Orlando E, Fancott C, Bhatia P, Casalino S, et al. Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):98.

Timotijevic L, Raats MM. Evaluation of two methods of deliberative participation of older people in food-policy development. Health Policy. 2007;82(3):302–19.

Bui CN, Coyle CE, Freeman A. Promoting self-advocacy among older adults: lessons from Boston’s senior civic academy. J Appl Gerontol. 2021;40(4):452–8.

Smith KE, Macintyre AK, Weakley S, Hill SE, Escobar O, Fergie G. Public understandings of potential policy responses to health inequalities: evidence from a UK national survey and citizens’ juries in three UK cities. Soc Sci Med. 2021;291: 114458.

Creswell J, Poth C. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications; 2016.

Fife-Schaw, C., & Rowe, G. Monitoring and modelling consumer perceptions of food-related risks. A report for the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, University of Surrey, Guildford. 1995.

Thomas R, Sims R, Degeling C, Street JM, Carter SM, Rychetnik L, et al. CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries – Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996–2015. Health Expect. 2017;20(4):626–37.

Paul C, Nicholls R, Priest P, McGee R. Making policy decisions about population screening for breast cancer: the role of citizens’ deliberation. Health Policy. 2008;85(3):314–20.

Gauvin F. Citizen panels program. London: McMaster Health Forum; 2017.

Abelson J, Bombard Y, Gauvin FP, Simeonov D, Boesveld S. Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(3):282–9.

Löhr K, Weinhardt M, Sieber S. The “world café” as a participatory method for collecting qualitative data. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19:160940692091697.

Farrell DM, Suiter J, Harris C. ‘Systematizing’ constitutional deliberation: the 2016–18 citizens’ assembly in Ireland. Ir Polit Stud. 2019;34(1):113–23.

van den Broek-Altenburg E, Atherly A. Using discrete choice experiments to measure preferences for hard to observe choice attributes to inform health policy decisions. Health Econ Rev. 2020;10(1):18.

Peng Y, Jiang M, Shen X, Li X, Jia E, Xiong J. Preferences for primary healthcare services among older adults with chronic disease: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:1625–37.

Shaw PA. Photo-elicitation and photo-voice: using visual methodological tools to engage with younger children’s voices about inclusion in education. Int J Res Method Educ. 2021;44(4):337–51.

Ronzi S, Pope D, Orton L, Bruce N. Using photovoice methods to explore older people’s perceptions of respect and social inclusion in cities: opportunities, challenges and solutions. SSM Popul Health. 2016;2:732–45.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Thomas Vandendriessche and Chayenne Van Meel, librarians at KU Leuven and Ruth Suhami, a librarian at Tel-Aviv University.

This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 812656. The sponsors had no role in the project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Policy and Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel

Opeyemi Rashidat Kolade, Joshua Porat-Dahlerbruch, Rustem Makhmutov & Moriah Esther Ellen

Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, 3000, Louvain, Belgium

Opeyemi Rashidat Kolade & Theo van Achterberg

Department of Acute and Tertiary Care, School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, 336 Victoria Building, 3500 Victoria Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA

Joshua Porat-Dahlerbruch

Institute for Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Straße 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany

Rustem Makhmutov

Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Moriah Esther Ellen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm that study conception and design was by ME and TvA. OK prepared the initial draft of the manuscript with substantial contributions from JP-D. RM performed a secondary review of full-text articles. OK developed the data extraction instrument. OK and RM performed the piloting of the data extraction instrument. All authors contributed to the title and abstract article screening and data analysis, reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moriah Esther Ellen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical review is not required, as the scoping review is a form of secondary data analysis that synthesizes data from publicly available sources.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix s1..

A Multidimensional Framework for Patient and Family Engagement in Health and Healthcare by Carman et al. [ 25 ].

Additional file 2: Appendix S2.

Search strategy.

Additional file 3: Appendix S3.

Data charting table.

Additional file 4: Appendix S4.

Definition of terms.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kolade, O.R., Porat-Dahlerbruch, J., Makhmutov, R. et al. Strategies for engaging older adults and informal caregivers in health policy development: A scoping review. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 26 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01107-9

Download citation

Received : 25 April 2023

Accepted : 12 January 2024

Published : 19 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01107-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Older adults
  • Informal caregivers
  • Family carers
  • Involvement
  • Participation
  • Policy-making
  • Decision-making
  • Health policy development

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

  • Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
  • General enquiries: [email protected]

what is a research article review

what is a research article review

Journal of Materials Chemistry B

Plant-derived exosomes: a green approach for cancer drug delivery.

ORCID logo

* Corresponding authors

a Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Laboratory, Department of Genetic Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District - 603 203, Tamil Nadu, India E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected]

Plant-derived exosomes (PDEs) are natural extracellular vesicles (EVs). In the current decade, they have been highlighted for cancer therapeutic development. Cancer is a global health crisis and it requires an effective, affordable, and less side effect-based treatment. Emerging research based on PDEs suggests that they have immense potential to be considered as a therapeutic option. Research evidences indicate that PDEs’ internal molecular cargos show impressive cancer prevention activity with less toxicity. PDEs-based drug delivery systems overcome several limitations of traditional drug delivery tools. Extraction of PDEs from plant sources employ diverse methodologies, encompassing ultracentrifugation, immunoaffinity, size-based isolation, and precipitation, each with distinct advantages and limitations. The core constituents of PDEs comprise of lipids, proteins, DNA, and RNA. Worldwide, a few clinical trials on plant-derived exosomes are underway, and regulatory affairs for their use as therapeutic agents are still not understood with clarity. This review aims to comprehensively analyze the current state of research on plant-derived exosomes as a promising avenue for drug delivery, highlighting anticancer activity, challenges, and future orientation in effective cancer therapeutic development.

Graphical abstract: Plant-derived exosomes: a green approach for cancer drug delivery

  • This article is part of the themed collection: Journal of Materials Chemistry B Recent Review Articles

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

what is a research article review

S. Madhan, R. Dhar and A. Devi, J. Mater. Chem. B , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3TB02752J

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • v.25(3); 2014 Oct

Logo of ejifcc

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Jacalyn kelly.

1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Tara Sadeghieh

Khosrow adeli.

2 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

3 Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding publication of this article.

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?

Peer Review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” ( 1 ). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication.

HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW

The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece ( 2 ). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Physician ( 2 ). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients’ medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient ( 2 ).

The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public ( 3 ). At this time, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science ( 3 ). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method ( 3 ). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results ( 4 ). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 ( 5 ), however, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research ( 6 ). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Royal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: “Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author.” ( 7 ). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the “Committee on Papers” to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions ( 6 ).

Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period ( 7 ). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal’s standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.

IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal ( 8 ). The Institute for Scientific Information ( ISI ) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.

OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1 ). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ejifcc-25-227-g001.jpg

Overview of the review process

When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study’s scope ( 9 ). If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1 .

WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?

Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) ( 7 ). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.

WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?

Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on one’s resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher’s involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions ( 11 ). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field ( 5 ).

ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?

A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review ( 12 ). One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?

On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper ( 12 ), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the “Sense About Science” survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper ( 12 ).

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED

Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed ( 13 ). After logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled ‘refereed’) reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.

THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.

Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so ( 14 ).

The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time ( 14 ). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.

The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill ( 15 ). The introduction identifies the study’s purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions ( 15 ). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.

The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be used it to repeat the experiment ( 15 ). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer’s job to identify what details need to be added.

The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation ( 15 ). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant ( 15 ). The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.

The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies ( 15 ). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research ( 15 ). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.

The references are found at the end of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.

Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal’s standards for publication,

and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field ( 16 ) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ejifcc-25-227-g002.jpg

How a peer review evaluates a manuscript

To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW

The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another’s identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer’s identity is kept private, but the author’s identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review ( 2 ). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors ( 2 ). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite ( 2 ). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author’s work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their relationship with a superior ( 2 ). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value ( 12 ). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review ( 7 ).

Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review ( 7 ). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed ( 2 ). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author ( 2 ). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first ( 2 ).

Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work ( 2 ). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea ( 12 ), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review ( 7 ). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias ( 2 ).

Masking the author’s identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review ( 17 ). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the ‘intervention’ arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts ( 17 ). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors ( 17 ). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had different results ( 18 ). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher ( 18 ). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter ( 17 ). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality ( 17 ).

In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site ( 10 ). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had experience with post-publication review ( 7 ). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media ( 19 ). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed ( 19 ). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print ( 19 ). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the ‘arXiv’ developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists ( 19 ). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.

PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS

Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner ( 20 ). Nevertheless, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall’s List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing ( 21 ). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes ( 21 ). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an effective peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.

JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES

Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% ( 7 ). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review ( 7 ). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision ( 7 ).

SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM

Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be ‘dissatisfied’ ( 7 ). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that ‘scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review’ ( 7 ). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review ‘provides control in scientific communication’ ( 7 ).

HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY

The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject ( 22 ):

1) Be professional

Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it.

2) Be pleasant

If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, but do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.

3) Read the invite

When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the email, respond to the link.

4) Be helpful

Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer’s perspective.

5) Be scientific

The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don’t fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as part of the review.

6) Be timely

Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.

7) Be realistic

The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.

8) Be empathetic

Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.

Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.

10) Be organised

A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well as for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.

In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor’s and author’s shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect ( 11 ). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think about the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively ( 11 ). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers’ papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process ( 11 ). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science ( 11 ).

The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about ( 23 ). If there is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor ( 23 ). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague’s help, and approval must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions ( 23 ). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process ( 23 ). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers ( 23 ).

COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question ( 24 ). It is also common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables ( 24 ). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do not control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied ( 24 ). Another common fault is the author’s failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers ( 24 ). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence ( 24 ). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand ( 24 ). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing ( 24 ). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources section.

CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW

A major criticism of peer review is that there is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, ‘Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain’ ( 25 ). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers ( 7 ). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.

Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees ( 26 ). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers ( 26 ). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer ( 26 ). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) ( 26 ). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php ( 26 ).

Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, ‘The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt’ ( 27 ). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue ( 27 ).

It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected by their peers upon review ( 28 ). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information ( 28 ). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.

Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all ( 29 ). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard ( 29 ). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as “peer-reviewed”, they rarely publish any high quality research ( 29 ). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense ( 29 ). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review ( 30 ).

Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists’ time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid ( 31 ). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue ( 32 ). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs ( 32 ). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper ( 32 ). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published first.

RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW

F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review ( 32 ). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times ( 32 ). It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work first ( 32 ). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters ( 32 ).

PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences ( 33 ). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of ‘impact ’, ‘novelty’ or ‘interest’ ( 34 ). It works on a “lifetime publishing plan” model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication ( 34 ). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article ( 34 ). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish ( 34 ).

Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system ( 35 ). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research ( 35 ). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again ( 35 ). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the right match. This process could take months or even years ( 35 ). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time before their paper is published ( 35 ). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard ( 35 ). The majority of the author’s fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium ( 35 ). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate ( 35 ). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper ( 35 ). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report ( 35 ). The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them ( 35 ). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time ( 35 ). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected ( 35 ). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers ( 35 ).

According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality ( 32 ). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection ( 32 ). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled ( 32 ). In Keith Collier’s opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement ( 35 ). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact ( 35 ). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for “cascading” and shared peer review ( 35 ).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Peer review has become fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.

Cart

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

People Probably Like You More Than You Think

  • Erica Boothby,
  • Gus Cooney,
  • Adam Mastroianni,
  • Andrew Reece,
  • Gillian Sandstrom

what is a research article review

A research-backed argument for why we underestimate the impression we make on others.

Do people understand the impressions they make on others or do their anxieties lead them to assume the worst? Across nearly 10 years of research and tens of thousands of observations, the authors have come to this answer: people underestimate how much others like them, and this bias has important implications for how people work together.

Initial conversations can have an outsized impact on how relationships develop over time. Naturally, people often dwell on the impressions they might have made the minute they finish speaking with someone for the first time: “Did they like me or were they just being polite?” “Was my pitch funny or offensive?” “Are they deep in thought or deeply bored?”

  • Erica Boothby is a postdoctoral researcher at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, where she teaches negotiations. Her research broadly focuses on social connection and the psychological barriers that inhibit connection, with consequences for people’s personal and professional lives. Prior to arriving at the Wharton School, Erica completed her PhD at Yale University and worked at Cornell University’s Behavioral Economics and Decision Research Center.
  • GC Gus Cooney is a social psychologist who studies conversation and social interaction. He teaches Negotiations at the Wharton School.
  • AM Adam Mastroianni is a social psychologist and research scholar at Northwestern University. He teaches negotiations to MBAs and executives and writes the popular science newsletter  Experimental History .
  • AR Andrew Reece is a behavioral data scientist at BetterUp.
  • Gillian Sandstrom is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Sussex. Her research focuses on how to make difficult conversations a little easier (e.g., talking about cancer, miscarriage, bereavement) and how to encourage people to talk to strangers.

Partner Center

Research on intercropping from 1995 to 2021: a worldwide bibliographic review

  • Review Article
  • Published: 26 February 2024

Cite this article

  • Yurui Tang 1   na1 ,
  • Yurong Qiu 1   na1   nAff2 ,
  • Yabing Li 1 , 3 ,
  • Huasen Xu 4 &
  • Xiao-Fei Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5530-1578 1 , 3  

Background and aims

Intercropping or crop mixture is an agroecological strategy to optimize resource-use efficiency and crop yield. In recent decades, therefore, intercropping has gained increasing attention as a more sustainable land management alternative to monoculture-oriented intensive agriculture. However, few studies have attempted to perform a comprehensive and systematic review on this subject from a bibliometric perspective.

This study carried out a quantitative bibliometric analysis to explore the characteristics of publications, research hotspots, and future frontiers regarding intercropping globally from 1995 to 2021. Data of the publications were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection database.

A total of 7574 publications in intercropping research were identified. The research field of intercropping entered a rapid development stage in 2007, with Chinese scholars and research institutes contributing the most. The two journals with the highest h-index and global total citations are Field Crops Research and Plant and Soil. Research themes on intercropping have evolved over time, with the focus shifting from yield and plant interspecific interactions to sustainable agriculture. Moreover, keyword analysis showed that research frontiers were mainly concentrated on sustainable intensification, microbial community, climate change adaptation, biodiversity, and soil fertility.

Conclusions

The intercropping field continues to develop, attracting the attention of scholars around the world, and the research topics are booming as the research output increases. Future research will pay more attention to long-term agricultural sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

what is a research article review

Aguilar J, Gramig GG, Hendrickson JR, Archer DW, Forcella F, Liebig MA (2015) Crop species diversity changes in the United States: 1978–2012. PLoS ONE 10:e0136580. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136580

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Altieri MA, Nicholls CI, Henao A, Lana MA (2015) Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron Sustain Dev 35:869–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2

Article   Google Scholar  

Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr 11:959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Assefa Y, Yadav S, Mondal MK, Bhattacharya J, Parvin R, Sarker SR, Rahman M, Sutradhar A, Prasad PVV, Bhandari H, Shew AM, Jagadish SVK (2021) Crop diversification in rice-based systems in the polders of Bangladesh: yield stability, profitability, and associated risk. Agr Syst 187:102986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102986

Bedoussac L, Journet EP, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Naudin C, Corre-Hellou G, Jensen E, Prieur L, Justes E (2015) Ecological principles underlying the increase of productivity achieved by cereal-grain legume intercrops in organic farming. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:911–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0277-7

Beillouin D, Ben-Ari T, Malezieux E, Seufert V, Makowski D (2021) Positive but variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Global Change Biol 27:4697–4710. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15747

Bommarco R, Kleijn D, Potts SG (2013) Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol Evol 28:230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Mutz R (2021) Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases. Hum Soc Sci Commun 8:224. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w

Brooker RW, Bennett AE, Cong WF, Daniell TJ, George TS, Hallett PD, Hawes C, Iannetta PPM, Jones HG, Karley AJ, Li L, McKenzie BM, Pakeman RJ, Paterson E, Schoeb C, Shen J, Squire G, Watson CA, Zhang C, Zhang F, Zhang J, White PJ (2015) Improving intercropping: a synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol 206:107–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13132

Brooker RW, Karley AJ, Newton AC, Pakeman RJ, Schöb C, Pugnaire F (2016) Facilitation and sustainable agriculture: a mechanistic approach to reconciling crop production and conservation. Funct Ecol 30:98–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12496

Brooker RW, George TS, Homulle Z, Karley AJ, Newton AC, Pakeman RJ, Schob C (2021) Facilitation and biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships in crop production systems and their role in sustainable farming. J Ecol 109:2054–2067. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13592

Bybee-Finley KA, Ryan MR (2018) Advancing intercropping research and practices in industrialized agricultural landscapes. Agriculture 8:80. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8060080

Cassman KG, Grassini P (2020) A global perspective on sustainable intensification research. Nat Sustain 3:262–268. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0507-8

Chauhan BS, Singh RG, Mahajan G (2012) Ecology and management of weeds under conservation agriculture: a review. Crop Prot 38:57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2012.03.010

Cong WF, Hoffland E, Li L, Six J, Sun JH, Bao XG, Zhang FS, van der Werf W (2015) Intercropping enhances soil carbon and nitrogen. Global Change Biol 21:1715–1726. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12738

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Corre-Hellou G, Dibet A, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Crozat Y, Gooding M, Ambus P, Dahlmann C, von Fragstein P, Pristeri A, Monti M, Jensen ES (2011) The competitive ability of pea-barley intercrops against weeds and the interactions with crop productivity and soil N availability. Field Crops Res 122:264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.04.004

Crews TE, Peoples MB (2004) Legume versus fertilizer sources of nitrogen: ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agr Ecosyst Environ 102:279–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.018

Crossley MS, Burke KD, Schoville SD, Radeloff VC (2021) Recent collapse of crop belts and declining diversity of US agriculture since 1840. Global Change Biol 27:151–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15396

Duchene O, Vian J-F, Celette F (2017) Intercropping with legume for agroecological cropping systems: complementarity and facilitation processes and the importance of soil microorganisms. A review. Agr Ecosyst Environ 240:148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.019

Ehrmann J, Ritz K (2014) Plant: soil interactions in temperate multi-cropping production systems. Plant Soil 376:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-1921-8

Feng C, Sun Z, Zhang L, Feng L, Zheng J, Bai W, Gu C, Wang Q, Xu Z, van der Werf W (2021) Maize/peanut intercropping increases land productivity: a meta-analysis. Field Crops Res 270:108208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108208

Franco JG, King SR, Volder A (2018) Component crop physiology and water use efficiency in response to intercropping. Eur J Agron 93:27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.11.005

Fustec J, Lesuffleur F, Mahieu S, Cliquet J-B (2010) Nitrogen rhizodeposition of legumes. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:57–66. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009003

Gaba S, Lescourret F, Boudsocq S, Enjalbert J, Hinsinger P, Journet EP, Navas ML, Wery J, Louarn G, Malezieux E, Pelzer E, Prudent M, Ozier-Lafontaine H (2015) Multiple cropping systems as drivers for providing multiple ecosystem services: from concepts to design. Agron Sustain Dev 35:607–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0272-z

Garcia-Barrios L, Dechnik-Vazquez YA (2021) How multispecies intercrop advantage responds to water stress: a yield-component ecological framework and its experimental application. Front Agr Sci Eng 8:416–431. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021412

Gaudin ACM, Tolhurst TN, Ker AP, Janovicek K, Tortora C, Martin RC, Deen W (2015) Increasing crop diversity mitigates weather variations and improves yield stability. PLoS ONE 10:e0113261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113261

Grames EM, Stillman AN, Tingley MW, Elphick CS (2019) An automated approach to identifying search terms for systematic reviews using keyword co-occurrence networks. Methods Ecol Evol 10:1645–1654. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13268

Gu C, Bastiaans L, Anten NPR, Makowski D, van der Werf W (2021) Annual intercropping suppresses weeds: a meta-analysis. Agr Ecosyst Environ 322:107658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107658

Haddaway NR, Woodcock P, Macura B, Collins A (2015) Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv Biol 29:1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12541

Han R, Zhou B, Huang Y, Lu X, Li S, Li N (2020) Bibliometric overview of research trends on heavy metal health risks and impacts in 1989–2018. J Clean Prod 276:123249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123249

Haunschild R, Bornmann L, Marx W (2016) Climate change research in view of bibliometrics. PLoS ONE 11:e0160393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160393

Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Huang L, Zhou M, Lv J, Chen K (2020) Trends in global research in forest carbon sequestration: a bibliometric analysis. J Clean Prod 252:119908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119908

Hufnagel J, Reckling M, Ewert F (2020) Diverse approaches to crop diversification in agricultural research. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 40:2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00617-4

Isbell F, Adler PR, Eisenhauer N, Fornara D, Kimmel K, Kremen C, Letourneau DK, Liebman M, Polley HW, Quijas S, Scherer-Lorenzen M (2017) Benefits of increasing plant diversity in sustainable agroecosystems. J Ecol 105:871–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12789

Jensen ES, Carlsson G, Hauggaard-Nielsen H (2020) Intercropping of grain legumes and cereals improves the use of soil N resources and reduces the requirement for synthetic fertilizer N: a global-scale analysis. Agron Sustain Dev 40:1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-0607-x

Kleinberg J (2003) Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Min Knowl Dsicov 7:373–397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024940629314

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Li J, Liu J (2020) Science mapping of tunnel fires: a scientometric analysis-based study. Fire Technol 56:2111–2135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-00969-z

Li L, Li SM, Sun JH, Zhou LL, Bao XG, Zhang HG, Zhang FS (2007) Diversity enhances agricultural productivity via rhizosphere phosphorus facilitation on phosphorus-deficient soils. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:11192–11196. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704591104

Li L, Zhang L, Zhang F (2013) Crop mixtures and the mechanisms of overyielding. In: Levin SA (ed) Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2nd edn. Academic, Waltham, pp 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-384719-5.00363-4

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Li L, Tilman D, Lambers H, Zhang FS (2014) Plant diversity and overyielding: insights from belowground facilitation of intercropping in agriculture. New Phytol 203:63–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12778

Li B, Li YY, Wu HM, Zhang FF, Li CJ, Li XX, Lambers H, Li L (2016) Root exudates drive interspecific facilitation by enhancing nodulation and N 2 fixation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:6496–6501. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523580113

Li C, Hoffland E, Kuyper TW, Yang Y, Li H, Zhang C, Zhang F, van der Werf W (2020a) Yield gain, complementarity and competitive dominance in intercropping in China: A meta-analysis of drivers of yield gain using additive partitioning. Eur J Agron 113:125987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2019.125987

Li C, Hoffland E, Kuyper TW, Yu Y, Zhang C, Li H, Zhang F, van der Werf W (2020b) Syndromes of production in intercropping impact yield gains. Nat Plants 6:653–660. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0680-9

Li L, Werf WVD, Zhang F (2021a) Crop diversity and sustainable agriculture: mechanisms, designs and applications. Front Agr Sci Eng 8:359–361. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021417

Li XF, Wang ZG, Bao XG, Sun JH, Yang SC, Wang P, Wang CB, Wu JP, Liu XR, Tian XL, Wang Y, Li JP, Wang Y, Xia HY, Mei PP, Wang XF, Zhao JH, Yu RP, Zhang WP, Che ZX, Gui LG, Callaway RM, Tilman D, Li L (2021b) Long-term increased grain yield and soil fertility from intercropping. Nat Sustain 4:943–950. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00767-7

Lichtenberg EM, Kennedy CM, Kremen C, Batary P, Berendse F, Bommarco R, Bosque-Perez NA, Carvalheiro LG, Snyder WE, Williams NM, Winfree R, Klatt BK, Astrom S, Benjamin F, Brittain C, Chaplin-Kramer R, Clough Y, Danforth B, Diekoetter T, Eigenbrode SD, Ekroos J, Elle E, Freitas BM, Fukuda Y, Gaines-Day HR, Grab H, Gratton C, Holzschuh A, Isaacs R, Isaia M, Jha S, Jonason D, Jones VP, Klein A-M, Krauss J, Letourneau DK, Macfadyen S, Mallinger RE, Martin EA, Martinez E, Memmott J, Morandin L, Neame L, Otieno M, Park MG, Pfiffner L, Pocock MJO, Ponce C, Potts SG, Poveda K, Ramos M, Rosenheim JA, Rundlof M, Sardinas H, Saunders ME, Schon NL, Sciligo AR, Sidhu CS, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, Vesely M, Weisser WW, Wilson JK, Crowder DW (2017) A global synthesis of the effects of diversified farming systems on arthropod diversity within fields and across agricultural landscapes. Global Change Biol 23(11):4946–4957. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13714

Lithourgidis A, Dordas C, Damalas C, Vlachostergios D (2011) Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Aust J Crop Sci 5:396–410

Google Scholar  

Liu X, Zhang L, Hong S (2011) Global biodiversity research during 1900–2009: a bibliometric analysis. Biodivers Conserv 20:807–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9981-z

Liu K, Guan X, Li G, Duan M, Li Y, Hong Y, Lin M, Fu R, Yu F (2022a) Publication characteristics, topic trends and knowledge domains of karst ecological restoration: a bibliometric and knowledge mapping analysis from 1991 to 2021. Plant Soil 475:169–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05345-0

Liu Z, Cheng Y, Hai Y, Chen Y, Liu T (2022b) Developments in congenital scoliosis and related research from 1992 to 2021: a thirty-year bibliometric analysis. World Neurosurg 164:e24–e44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2022.02.117

Louarn G, Pereira-Lopès E, Fustec J, Mary B, Voisin A-S, de Faccio Carvalho PC, Gastal F (2015) The amounts and dynamics of nitrogen transfer to grasses differ in alfalfa and white clover-based grass-legume mixtures as a result of rooting strategies and rhizodeposit quality. Plant Soil 389:289–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2354-8

MacLaren C, Mead A, van Balen D, Claessens L, Etana A, de Haan J, Haagsma W, Jäck O, Keller T, Labuschagne J, Myrbeck Å, Necpalova M, Nziguheba G, Six J, Strauss J, Swanepoel PA, Thierfelder C, Topp C, Tshuma F, Verstegen H, Walker R, Watson C, Wesselink M, Storkey J (2022) Long-term evidence for ecological intensification as a pathway to sustainable agriculture. Nat Sustain 5:770–779. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00911-x

Malézieux E, Crozat Y, Dupraz C, Laurans M, Makowski D, Ozier-Lafontaine H, Rapidel B, Tourdonnet S, Valantin-Morison M (2009) Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:43–62. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007057

Mao G, Zou H, Chen G, Du H, Zuo J (2015) Past, current and future of biomass energy research: a bibliometric analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:1823–1833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.141

Marcos-Pérez M, Sánchez-Navarro V, Zornoza R (2023) Intercropping systems between broccoli and fava bean can enhance overall crop production and improve soil fertility. Sci Hortic 312:111834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2023.111834

Martin-Guay MO, Paquette A, Dupras J, Rivest D (2018) The new Green Revolution: sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Sci Total Environ 615:767–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.024

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Milojevic S (2015) Quantifying the cognitive extent of science. J Informetr 9:962–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.10.005

Mourao PR, Martinho VD (2020) Forest entrepreneurship: a bibliometric analysis and a discussion about the co-authorship networks of an emerging scientific field. J Clean Prod 256:120413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120413

Oerke EC (2005) Crop losses to pests. J Agr Sci 144:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021859605005708

Pan XY, Lv JL, Dyck M, He HL (2021) Bibliometric analysis of soil nutrient research between 1992 and 2020. Agriculture 11:223. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11030223

Pelzer E, Hombert N, Jeuffroy M-H, Makowski D (2014) Meta-analysis of the effect of nitrogen fertilization on annual cereal-legume intercrop production. Agron J 106:1775–1786. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj13.0590

Petticrew M, Roberts H (2006) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887

Book   Google Scholar  

Putnam AR, Duke WB (1978) Allelopathy in agroecosystems. Annu Rev Phytopathol 16:431–451. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.16.090178.002243

Raseduzzaman M, Jensen ES (2017) Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis. Eur J Agron 91:25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.09.009

Reckling M, Albertsson J, Vermue A, Carlsson G, Watson CA, Justes E, Bergkvist G, Jensen ES, Topp CFE (2022) Diversification improves the performance of cereals in European cropping systems. Agron Sustain Dev 42:118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00850-z

Renard D, Tilman D (2019) National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571:257–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1316-y

Rockström J, Williams J, Daily G, Noble A, Matthews N, Gordon L, Wetterstrand H, DeClerck F, Shah M, Steduto P, de Fraiture C, Hatibu N, Unver O, Bird J, Sibanda L, Smith J (2017) Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 46:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6

Romanelli JP, Meli P, Naves RP, Alves MC, Rodrigues RR (2021) Reliability of evidence-review methods in restoration ecology. Conserv Biol 35:142–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13661

Song L, Niu Z, Chen S, Zhao S, Qiu Z, Wang Y, Hua X, Ding Z, Ma Q (2023) Effects of pea-tea intercropping on rhizosphere soil microbial communities. Plant Soil. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-06321-y

Stomph T, Dordas C, Baranger A, de Rijk J, Dong B, Evers J, Gu C, Li L, Simon J, Jensen ES, Wang Q, Wang Y, Wang Z, Xu H, Zhang C, Zhang L, Zhang W-P, Bedoussac L, van der Werf W (2020) Designing intercrops for high yield, yield stability and efficient use of resources: are there principles? Adv Agron 160:1–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2019.10.002

Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01014

van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

van der Werf W, Li C, Cong W-F, Zhang F (2020) Intercropping enables a sustainable intensification of agriculture. Front Agr Sci Eng 7:254–256. https://doi.org/10.15302/j-fase-2020352

Wang GZ, Li XG, Xi XQ, Cong W-F (2022) Crop diversification reinforces soil microbiome functions and soil health. Plant Soil 476:375–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05436-y

Weih M, Karley A, Newton A, Kiær L, Scherber C, Rubiales D, Adam E, Ajal J, Brandmeier J, Pappagallo S, Villegas-Fernández A, Reckling M, Tavoletti S (2021) Grain yield stability of cereal-legume intercrops is greater than sole crops in more productive conditions. Agriculture 11:255. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11030255

Weston LA, Duke SO (2003) Weed and crop allelopathy. Crit Rev Plant Sci 22:367–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/713610861

Wu J, Bao X, Zhang J, Lu B, Zhang W, Callaway RM, Li L (2022) Temporal stability of productivity is associated with complementarity and competitive intensities in intercropping. Ecol Appl 33:e2731. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2731

Xu Z, Li C, Zhang C, Yu Y, van der Werf W, Zhang F (2020) Intercropping maize and soybean increases efficiency of land and fertilizer nitrogen use; a meta-analysis. Field Crops Res 246:107661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107661

Xue YF, Xia HY, Christie P, Zhang Z, Li L, Tang CX (2016) Crop acquisition of phosphorus, iron and zinc from soil in cereal/legume intercropping systems: a critical review. Ann Bot 117:363–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcv182

Yin W, Chai Q, Zhao C, Yu A, Fan Z, Hu F, Fan H, Guo Y, Coulter JA (2020) Water utilization in intercropping: a review. Agric Water Manage 241:106335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106335

Yu Y, Stomph TJ, Makowski D, van der Werf W (2015) Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: a meta-analysis. Field Crops Res 184:133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.010

Yu Y, Stomph TJ, Makowski D, Zhang LZ, van der Werf W (2016) A meta-analysis of relative crop yields in cereal/legume mixtures suggests options for management. Field Crops Res 198:269–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.08.001

Yu RP, Yang H, Xing Y, Zhang WP, Lambers H, Li L (2022) Belowground processes and sustainability in agroecosystems with intercropping. Plant Soil 476:263–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05487-1

Zhang F, Li L (2003) Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant Soil 248:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022352229863

Zhang WP, Liu GC, Sun JH, Fornara D, Zhang LZ, Zhang FF, Li L (2016) Temporal dynamics of nutrient uptake by neighboring plant species: evidence from intercropping. Funct Ecol 31:469–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12732

Zhang Y, Pu S, Lv X, Gao Y, Ge L (2020) Global trends and prospects in microplastics research: a bibliometric analysis. J Hazard Mater 400:123110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123110

Zhou XG, Zhang JY, Rahman MKU, Gao DM, Wei Z, Wu FZ, Dini-Andreote F (2023) Interspecific plant interaction via root exudates structures the disease suppressiveness of rhizosphere microbiomes. Mol Plant 16:849–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2023.03.009

Zhuang Y, Liu X, Nguyen T, He Q, Hong S (2013) Global remote sensing research trends during 1991–2010: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 96:203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0918-z

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31901127) and National Key Laboratory of Cotton Bio-breeding and Integrated Utilization, Institute of Cotton Research of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CB2023C02). We thank the staff members of our laboratory for their critical reading and comments on the manuscript. We also thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their efforts on the manuscript.

Author information

Present address: Cotton Research Institute, Shanxi Agricultural University, Yuncheng, 044000, China

Yurui Tang and Yurong Qiu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

National Key Laboratory of Cotton Bio-breeding and Integrated Utilization, Institute of Cotton Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Anyang, 455000, China

Yurui Tang, Yurong Qiu, Yabing Li & Xiao-Fei Li

Zhengzhou Research Base, National Key Laboratory of Cotton Bio-breeding and Integrated Utilization, School of Agricultural Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001, China

Yabing Li & Xiao-Fei Li

College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding, 071001, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yabing Li or Xiao-Fei Li .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Hans Lambers.

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tang, Y., Qiu, Y., Li, Y. et al. Research on intercropping from 1995 to 2021: a worldwide bibliographic review. Plant Soil (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06542-9

Download citation

Received : 04 May 2023

Accepted : 04 February 2024

Published : 26 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06542-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Bibliometrics
  • Species mixture
  • Global evolution
  • Research hotspots
  • Future prospects
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

IMAGES

  1. Sample Research Article Review

    what is a research article review

  2. How to Write a Research Article

    what is a research article review

  3. 🏆 How to write a review article. Tips for Students: How to Write an

    what is a research article review

  4. Literature review article example

    what is a research article review

  5. 16+ Article Review

    what is a research article review

  6. Reading and Analyzing Articles

    what is a research article review

VIDEO

  1. Choosing a Research Topic

  2. What is research

  3. How to write thesis record

  4. Finding HIGH-Impact Research Topics

  5. Secrets To Finding High-Impact Research Topics (I NEVER Revealed These Before)

  6. How To Get Your Article Published

COMMENTS

  1. Writing a Literature Review

    Writing a Literature Review. A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels ...

  2. 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.

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

    An article review is written for an audience who is knowledgeable in the subject instead of a general audience. When writing an article review, you will summarize the main ideas, arguments, positions, and findings, and then critique the article's contributions to the field and overall effectiveness. [2]

  4. How to write a review article?

    The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions.

  5. How to Write 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:

  6. How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

    A review article is a type of professional paper writing that demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.

  7. Writing Help: The Article Review

    For an article review, your task is to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. You are being asked to make judgments, positive or negative, about the content of the article. The criteria you follow to do this will vary based upon your particular academic discipline and the parameters of your assignment.

  8. Writing a good review article

    A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research. Types of review articles

  9. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

    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).

  10. Basics of Writing Review Articles

    A well-written review article must summarize key research findings, reference must-read articles, describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, depict unanswered questions, and suggest directions for future research ( 1 ).

  11. Systematic Review

    A review is an overview of the research that's already been completed on a topic. What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias. The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic: Formulate a research question Develop a protocol

  12. Review article

    A review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic within a certain discipline. [1] [2] A review article is generally considered a secondary source since it may analyze and discuss the method and conclusions in previously published studies.

  13. Review vs. research articles

    Exercise Science Review vs. research articles Review vs. Research Articles How can you tell if you are looking at a Research Paper, Review Paper or a Systematic Review? Examples and article characteristics are provided below to help you figure it out. Research Papers Review Papers Systematic Review Papers

  14. How to Review a Journal Article

    How to Review a Journal Article For many kinds of assignments, like a literature review, you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your qualified opinion and evaluation of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research.

  15. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis

    A systematic review collects all possible studies related to a given topic and design, and reviews and analyzes their results [ 1 ]. During the systematic review process, the quality of studies is evaluated, and a statistical meta-analysis of the study results is conducted on the basis of their quality. A meta-analysis is a valid, objective ...

  16. How to write a good scientific review article

    A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits.

  17. How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

    An article review is an academic paper that summarizes and critically evaluates the information presented in your selected article. The first thing you should note when approaching the task of an article review is that not every article is suitable for this assignment.

  18. How To Write an Article Review

    Definition of article review Why do students write article reviews Types of article review Structure and outline Step-by-step guide Article review format How to write a good article review Article review examples Learning how to write a review paper is not easy because it takes time to read and review the original content.

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

    An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars.

  20. What is a Review Article?

    A review article aims to: Extensive survey of published research articles about a specific topic, Critical appraising of research findings, summarize up-to-date research findings, Identify critical issues to be addressed, Written for experts and general audiences, Be a source of original research. Figure by Zhiyong Han, PhD

  21. (PDF) Writing a review article in 7 steps

    Review research is done on other research and covers concepts, experiments and data handled previously [29]. The most common form of review research is in the form of a literature review being 60% ...

  22. How to Write an Article Review: Types, Format, & Examples

    An article review is a critical evaluation and analysis of a piece of writing, typically an academic or journalistic article. It goes beyond summarizing the content; it involves an in-depth examination of the author's ideas, arguments, and methodologies.

  23. 'It depends': what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies

    This review updates and extends our previous review of systematic reviews of interventions designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice. To identify potentially relevant peer-reviewed research papers, we developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the Grimshaw et al. [ 9 ] and ...

  24. Strategies for engaging older adults and informal caregivers in health

    Engagement strategies. A total of 13 unique engagement strategies were reported across the 11 included articles. We adopted the World Bank Groups' categorization of citizen engagement being traditional consultation and feedback mechanisms, participatory mechanisms and citizen-led mechanisms [].For this review, we slightly adjusted these categories to traditional strategies, deliberative ...

  25. Plant-derived exosomes: a green approach for cancer drug delivery

    Plant-derived exosomes (PDEs) are natural extracellular vesicles (EVs). In the current decade, they have been highlighted for cancer therapeutic development. Cancer is a global health crisis and it requires an effective, affordable, and less side effect-based treatment. Emerging research based on PDEs suggests that Journal of Materials Chemistry B Recent Review Articles

  26. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A

    Peer Review is defined as "a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" ( 1 ). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals ...

  27. People Probably Like You More Than You Think

    Summary. Do people understand the impressions they make on others or do their anxieties lead them to assume the worst? Across nearly 10 years of research and tens of thousands of observations, the ...

  28. Research on intercropping from 1995 to 2021: a worldwide ...

    Table 3 shows the top 15 most co-cited articles from 1995 to 2021, 10 of them were review papers, while 5 were research papers. 3 of the 15 most co-cited articles in the field were from China, which is in line with the countries with the most published articles. 9 out of the 15 most co-cited articles were published in journals with a high ...