how to write a science article review

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

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

• < Previous

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

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

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

• Permissions Icon Permissions

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

• narrative discourse

Society of Breast Imaging members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2631-6129
• Print ISSN 2631-6110
• Copyright © 2024 Society of Breast Imaging
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

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

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 08 October 2018

How to write a thorough peer review

• Mathew Stiller-Reeve 0

Mathew Stiller-Reeve is a climate researcher at NORCE/Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway, the leader of SciSnack.com, and a thematic editor at Geoscience Communication .

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Scientists do not receive enough peer-review training. To improve this situation, a small group of editors and I developed a peer-review workflow to guide reviewers in delivering useful and thorough analyses that can really help authors to improve their papers.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06991-0

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged. You can get in touch with the editor at [email protected].

Related Articles

Engage more early-career scientists as peer reviewers

Help graduate students to become good peer reviewers

• Peer review

Can AI be used to assess research quality?

Nature Index 18 SEP 24

The human costs of the research-assessment culture

Career Feature 09 SEP 24

Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized

News 04 SEP 24

Rise of ChatGPT and other tools raises major questions for research

My identity was stolen by a predatory conference

Correspondence 17 SEP 24

Science-policy advisers shape programmes that solve real-world problems

Career Feature 18 SEP 24

The grassroots organizations continuing the fight for Ukrainian science

Career Feature 11 SEP 24

Faculty Positions at the Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

CMLR's goal is to advance machine learning-related research across a wide range of disciplines.

Beijing, China

Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

Faculty Positions at Huairou campus of Peking University

The Beijing Laser Accelerator Innovation Center at Peking University invites applications for Applied Physics faculty, including tenured positions.

Peking University (PKU)

Independent Researcher

Dallas, Texas (US)

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern Medical Center)

Head of the Translational Cancer Research Laboratory

Northwell Health has formed a strategic partnership with the NCI-designated Cancer Center at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL). The institutions...

Manhasset, New York

Tenure-Track Faculty Positions in Human Genetics

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

Quick links

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

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

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

Affiliation.

• 1 Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiology, Boston, MA, USA.
• PMID: 38416900
• DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbad028

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

Keywords: manuscript; research; scientific review article; writing.

© Society of Breast Imaging 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Practical Steps to Writing a Scientific Manuscript. Grimm LJ, Harvey JA. Grimm LJ, et al. J Breast Imaging. 2022 Dec 11;4(6):640-648. doi: 10.1093/jbi/wbac059. J Breast Imaging. 2022. PMID: 38416993
• Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. Picardi N. Picardi N. Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3. Ann Ital Chir. 2016. PMID: 28474609
• Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Gasparyan AY, et al. Rheumatol Int. 2011 Nov;31(11):1409-17. doi: 10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3. Epub 2011 Jul 29. Rheumatol Int. 2011. PMID: 21800117 Review.
• Tips and tricks for writing a scientific manuscript. Marmotti A, Peretti GM, Mangiavini L, de Girolamo L, Tarella C, Bonasia DE, Mattia S, Tellini A, Bellato E, Agati G, Blonna D, Castoldi F. Marmotti A, et al. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Jul-Aug;34(4 Suppl. 3):441-449. Congress of the Italian Orthopaedic Research Society. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020. PMID: 33261307
• Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Information Literacy. Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, Ghasemi A. Bahadoran Z, et al. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2022 Aug 12;20(3):e128701. doi: 10.5812/ijem-128701. eCollection 2022 Jul. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2022. PMID: 36407030 Free PMC article. Review.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

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

How to Write a Scientific Review Article

By Leila Haery

Choose the topic and outline the organization of the review

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

Get the journal’s submission rules for review articles

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

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

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

Start reading!

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

Just start writing

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

No really, just start writing!

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

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

Curate and present some useful data

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

Offer your perspective

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

Edit and rewrite, then repeat

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

Get feedback

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

Submit your article!

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

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

Additional Resources on the Addgene Blog

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

Resources on Addgene.org

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

Topics: Scientific Sharing , Scientific Publishing

Leave a Comment

Add Comment

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

Follow Addgene on Social

Addgene is a nonprofit plasmid repository.

We store and distribute high-quality plasmids from your colleagues.

• Cookies & Privacy Policy
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7 Writing a Literature Review

Hundreds of original investigation research articles on health science topics are published each year. It is becoming harder and harder to keep on top of all new findings in a topic area and – more importantly – to work out how they all fit together to determine our current understanding of a topic. This is where literature reviews come in.

In this chapter, we explain what a literature review is and outline the stages involved in writing one. We also provide practical tips on how to communicate the results of a review of current literature on a topic in the format of a literature review.

7.1 What is a literature review?

Literature reviews provide a synthesis and evaluation  of the existing literature on a particular topic with the aim of gaining a new, deeper understanding of the topic.

Published literature reviews are typically written by scientists who are experts in that particular area of science. Usually, they will be widely published as authors of their own original work, making them highly qualified to author a literature review.

However, literature reviews are still subject to peer review before being published. Literature reviews provide an important bridge between the expert scientific community and many other communities, such as science journalists, teachers, and medical and allied health professionals. When the most up-to-date knowledge reaches such audiences, it is more likely that this information will find its way to the general public. When this happens, – the ultimate good of science can be realised.

A literature review is structured differently from an original research article. It is developed based on themes, rather than stages of the scientific method.

In the article Ten simple rules for writing a literature review , Marco Pautasso explains the importance of literature reviews:

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications. For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively. Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests. Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read. For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way (Pautasso, 2013, para. 1).

An example of a literature review is shown in Figure 7.1.

Video 7.1: What is a literature review? [2 mins, 11 secs]

Watch this video created by Steely Library at Northern Kentucky Library called ‘ What is a literature review? Note: Closed captions are available by clicking on the CC button below.

Examples of published literature reviews

• Strength training alone, exercise therapy alone, and exercise therapy with passive manual mobilisation each reduce pain and disability in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review
• Traveler’s diarrhea: a clinical review
• Cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders: literature review and research recommendations for global mental health epidemiology

7.2 Steps of writing a literature review

Writing a literature review is a very challenging task. Figure 7.2 summarises the steps of writing a literature review. Depending on why you are writing your literature review, you may be given a topic area, or may choose a topic that particularly interests you or is related to a research project that you wish to undertake.

Chapter 6 provides instructions on finding scientific literature that would form the basis for your literature review.

Once you have your topic and have accessed the literature, the next stages (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) are challenging. Next, we look at these important cognitive skills student scientists will need to develop and employ to successfully write a literature review, and provide some guidance for navigating these stages.

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation are three essential skills required by scientists  and you will need to develop these skills if you are to write a good literature review ( Figure 7.3 ). These important cognitive skills are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.

The first step in writing a literature review is to analyse the original investigation research papers that you have gathered related to your topic.

Analysis requires examining the papers methodically and in detail, so you can understand and interpret aspects of the study described in each research article.

An analysis grid is a simple tool you can use to help with the careful examination and breakdown of each paper. This tool will allow you to create a concise summary of each research paper; see Table 7.1 for an example of  an analysis grid. When filling in the grid, the aim is to draw out key aspects of each research paper. Use a different row for each paper, and a different column for each aspect of the paper ( Tables 7.2 and 7.3 show how completed analysis grid may look).

Before completing your own grid, look at these examples and note the types of information that have been included, as well as the level of detail. Completing an analysis grid with a sufficient level of detail will help you to complete the synthesis and evaluation stages effectively. This grid will allow you to more easily observe similarities and differences across the findings of the research papers and to identify possible explanations (e.g., differences in methodologies employed) for observed differences between the findings of different research papers.

Table 7.1: Example of an analysis grid

Table 7.3: Sample filled-in analysis grid for research article by Ping and colleagues

Source: Ping, WC, Keong, CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41. Used under a CC-BY-NC-SA licence.

Step two of writing a literature review is synthesis.

Synthesis describes combining separate components or elements to form a connected whole.

You will use the results of your analysis to find themes to build your literature review around. Each of the themes identified will become a subheading within the body of your literature review.

A good place to start when identifying themes is with the dependent variables (results/findings) that were investigated in the research studies.

Because all of the research articles you are incorporating into your literature review are related to your topic, it is likely that they have similar study designs and have measured similar dependent variables. Review the ‘Results’ column of your analysis grid. You may like to collate the common themes in a synthesis grid (see, for example Table 7.4 ).

Step three of writing a literature review is evaluation, which can only be done after carefully analysing your research papers and synthesising the common themes (findings).

During the evaluation stage, you are making judgements on the themes presented in the research articles that you have read. This includes providing physiological explanations for the findings. It may be useful to refer to the discussion section of published original investigation research papers, or another literature review, where the authors may mention tested or hypothetical physiological mechanisms that may explain their findings.

When the findings of the investigations related to a particular theme are inconsistent (e.g., one study shows that caffeine effects performance and another study shows that caffeine had no effect on performance) you should attempt to provide explanations of why the results differ, including physiological explanations. A good place to start is by comparing the methodologies to determine if there are any differences that may explain the differences in the findings (see the ‘Experimental design’ column of your analysis grid). An example of evaluation is shown in the examples that follow in this section, under ‘Running performance’ and ‘RPE ratings’.

When the findings of the papers related to a particular theme are consistent (e.g., caffeine had no effect on oxygen uptake in both studies) an evaluation should include an explanation of why the results are similar. Once again, include physiological explanations. It is still a good idea to compare methodologies as a background to the evaluation. An example of evaluation is shown in the following under ‘Oxygen consumption’.

7.3 Writing your literature review

Once you have completed the analysis, and synthesis grids and written your evaluation of the research papers , you can combine synthesis and evaluation information to create a paragraph for a literature review ( Figure 7.4 ).

The following paragraphs are an example of combining the outcome of the synthesis and evaluation stages to produce a paragraph for a literature review.

Note that this is an example using only two papers – most literature reviews would be presenting information on many more papers than this ( (e.g., 106 papers in the review article by Bain and colleagues discussed later in this chapter). However, the same principle applies regardless of the number of papers reviewed.

The next part of this chapter looks at the each section of a literature review and explains how to write them by referring to a review article that was published in Frontiers in Physiology and shown in Figure 7.1. Each section from the published article is annotated to highlight important features of the format of the review article, and identifies the synthesis and evaluation information.

In the examination of each review article section we will point out examples of how the authors have presented certain information and where they display application of important cognitive processes; we will use the colour code shown below:

This should be one paragraph that accurately reflects the contents of the review article.

Introduction

The introduction should establish the context and importance of the review

Body of literature review

The reference section provides a list of the references that you cited in the body of your review article. The format will depend on the journal of publication as each journal has their own specific referencing format.

It is important to accurately cite references in research papers to acknowledge your sources and ensure credit is appropriately given to authors of work you have referred to. An accurate and comprehensive reference list also shows your readers that you are well-read in your topic area and are aware of the key papers that provide the context to your research.

It is important to keep track of your resources and to reference them consistently in the format required by the publication in which your work will appear. Most scientists will use reference management software to store details of all of the journal articles (and other sources) they use while writing their review article. This software also automates the process of adding in-text references and creating a reference list. In the review article by Bain et al. (2014) used as an example in this chapter, the reference list contains 106 items, so you can imagine how much help referencing software would be. Chapter 5 shows you how to use EndNote, one example of reference management software.

Click the drop down below to review the terms learned from this chapter.

Copyright note:

• The quotation from Pautasso, M 2013, ‘Ten simple rules for writing a literature review’, PLoS Computational Biology is use under a CC-BY licence. 
• Content from the annotated article and tables are based on Schubert, MM, Astorino, TA & Azevedo, JJL 2013, ‘The effects of caffeinated ‘energy shots’ on time trial performance’, Nutrients, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2062–2075 (used under a CC-BY 3.0 licence ) and P ing, WC, Keong , CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41 (used under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence ). 

Bain, A.R., Morrison, S.A., & Ainslie, P.N. (2014). Cerebral oxygenation and hyperthermia. Frontiers in Physiology, 5 , 92.

Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149.

How To Do Science Copyright © 2022 by University of Southern Queensland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

Writing a good review article

• 3 minute read
• 97.3K 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?

How to Write the Results Section: Guide to Structure and Key Points

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

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

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

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

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

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

How to Write a Scientific Review Article

In the biosciences, review articles written by researchers are valuable tools for those looking for a synopsis of several research studies in one place without having to spend time finding the research and results themselves. A well-presented review paper provides the reader with unbiased information on studies within the discipline and presents why the results of some research studies are or are not valid. In addition, institutions that fund research tend to use review articles to help them decide whether further research is necessary; however, their value is only as good as the objectives achieved and how the results are communicated.

The objective of a review should be “to achieve an organization and synthesis of past work around the chosen theme in order to accelerate the accumulation and assimilation of recent knowledge into the existing body of knowledge.” Importantly, a review should present results clearly and accurately—good writing is essential and must follow a strict set of rules.

In 1996, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM), which focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies, was created during a conference involving a group of scientists, clinicians, and statisticians. The QUOROM statement, checklist, and flow diagram were introduced to researchers to help them better organize their reviews and ensure that specific criteria were followed. QUOROM was later updated and renamed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) with the same values and criteria.

Types of Review Articles

A review article is not an original study. It examines previous studies and compiles their data and evidence.

Based on their structure and formulation, literature reviews are broadly classified as-

• Narrative or Traditional Literature Reviews – This is the classic literature review that summarizes the collated literature relevant to the thesis body.
• Scoping Reviews – Scoping reviews involves systematic searching of all the material on the topic and replicate your searches. This enables the researcher to fill in any gaps that appear in results.
• Systematic Literature Reviews – It is a methodical approach to collate and synthesize all relevant data about a predefined research question.
• Cochrane Reviews – These are internationally recognized systematic reviews for human health care and policy.

Although narrative reviews can be useful, they are not in depth and do not necessarily analyze data or study-group sizes for determining whether results are valid. Systematic reviews , on the other hand, are more detailed and involve a more comprehensive literature search—they are the “gold standard” of review articles. A meta-analysis is a quantitative systematic review. It combines data from several studies to reach a conclusion that is statistically stronger than any in the single studies, mainly because of having more study subjects and more diversity among subjects.

A good review usually concentrates on a theme, such as different theories, information on the progress of developing a new medical device, or how past developments influence new discoveries. A review might also ask that more resources be used to continue research in that specific field.

There are  advantages and disadvantages to writing a review . In addition to having more available data, other advantages include confirmatory data analysis and that reviews are considered to be an evidence-based resource. Some of the disadvantages are they are more time consuming and not all studies will provide the requisite amount of data. In addition, statistical functions and interpretations are more complex and authors must ensure that the populations from each study and all studies combined are heterogeneous.

Literature Searches

Previous reviews on the chosen theme using Google Scholar can provide information on any new findings, and the following points should be considered when conducting searches:

• The author and any possible conflicting interests
• The purpose of the article
• The author’s hypothesis and whether it is supported
• How the literature will contribute to your topic
• Whether opinions expressed by the author(s) are correct

Once the inclusion and exclusion criteria have been identified based on these points, authors are ready to prepare their paper. Sources such as Popular Science and WebMD.com should be avoided. These sources, among others, are not allowed to be used as sources for review articles. Authors must ensure that the sources are legitimate research studies and that they are similar in nature (e.g., all randomized controlled trials).

Manuscript Preparation

Maximum length can vary depending on the author guidelines from the journal to which you are submitting, so authors must always check those guidelines before they begin. As a general rule, most journals ask that a specific font and size be used (e.g., Times New Roman, 12 point), that 1.0-inch margins be used on all four sides, and 1.5 line spacing be used.

The article structure should contain very specific sections, which might vary slightly according to different science disciplines. In scientific writing, the IMRAD structure (introduction, methods, results, and discussion)  is a standard format adopted by a majority of academic journals. Although specific author guidelines might vary, in most cases, the review paper should contain the following sections:

• Main title (possibly, short title)
• Zurich-Basel Plant Science Center suggests providing titles which are 8 to 12 words in length
• The title must contain key elements of the subject matter .
• Author names and affiliations should be included
• Corresponding author details should be mentioned
• Main points, or a synthesis , of the project should be outlined
• Subheadings should be included if required (e.g., objective, methods, results, and conclusions)
• The length of the abstract should be between 200 and 250 words
• No citations included within the abstract
• Acronyms and abbreviations should be included only if used more than once

Introduction

• Background information on the topic should be discussed
• Introduction must address the objective (research question)
• Text should be written in present tense

Materials and Methods

• Should be written in past tense
• Should provide information necessary to repeat the review
• Search strategies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data sources and geographical information, characteristics of study subjects, and statistical analyses used should be included
• Authors must include all the results
• Their relevance to the objective should be mentioned
• Results must include heterogeneity of the study groups or samples
• Statistical significance should be mentioned
• Background information and objective can be reiterated
• Results and their relevance clearly and concisely discussed

Conclusions

• This section should discuss the objective discussed in the introduction This section should discuss the implications of the findings, interpretations, and identify unresolved questions

Study Limitations

• An assessment of whether the studies were adequate to reach a conclusion that can be applied to a much larger group, stating reasons
• Suggestions for future studies should be provided

Acknowledgements

• Authors may thank the people or institutions who have supported the work

  References

• Only those references cited in the text should be listed
• 50 to 100 references are allowed
• Internet sources are usually not allowed

Very informative and helped in me understanding the do and donts of writing a review…. A big motivational and knowledgeable article for those qho want to get motivation to begin the process of ones thought into practical work and take the first stwp in this regard

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Improving Your Chances of Publication in International Peer-reviewed Journals

Types of literature reviews Tips for writing review articles Role of meta-analysis Reporting guidelines

Introduction to Review Articles: Writing Systematic and Narrative Reviews

综述文章简介：如何撰写系统综述与叙述性综述文章

学术出版中综述文章的概述和意义 不同类型文献综述的比较分析 写好系统综述与叙述性综述的技巧 整合分析（meta-analysis）的作用

了解国际SCI期刊对综述论文作者的要求

综述论文的种类-系统综述与叙述性综述 PRISMA 检核表及流程图 综述论文的组成 为您的综述选择合适的期刊以发表

How to Author a Review Article

Systematic and Non-Systematic Reviews PRISMA Flowcharts and Checklists Parts of a Review Article Drafting a…

What Is a Systematic Review in Research?

Systematic Review: Structure and Process

New Physics Framework by Dan S. Correnti: A Book Review

How Scholarly Book Review Differs from an Article Review

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Reporting Research
• Industry News
• Publishing Research
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

Which among these features would you prefer the most in a peer review assistant?

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

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a review article?

In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. Before asking ‘how,’ the question of ‘why’ is more important when starting to write a review. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. A ‘methodological filter’ is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.

The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines. [ 1 , 2 ] The institutions which provide financial support for further investigations resort to these reviews to reveal the need for these researches. [ 3 ] As is the case with all other researches, the value of a review article is related to what is achieved, what is found, and the way of communicating this information. A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published in 1985, and 1986, and revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria. [ 4 ] In 1996 an international group that analyzed articles, demonstrated the aspects of review articles, and meta-analyses that had not complied with scientific criteria, and elaborated QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) statement which focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies. [ 5 ] Later on this guideline was updated, and named as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). [ 6 ]

Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic. [ 7 , 8 ] Since it is a result of a more detailed literature surveying with relatively lesser involvement of author’s bias, systematic reviews are considered as gold standard articles. Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. In both of them detailed literature surveying is performed. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated (ie. meta-analysis). [ 8 ]

Before inquring for the method of preparation of a review article, it is more logical to investigate the motivation behind writing the review article in question. The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements:

• The question(s) to be dealt with
• Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions.
• To synthetize available, but quite different researches

For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined. Discussions should be conducted with colleagues in the same area of interest, and time should be reserved for the solution of the problem(s). Though starting to write the review article promptly seems to be very alluring, the time you spend for the determination of important issues won’t be a waste of time. [ 9 ]

The PRISMA statement [ 6 ] elaborated to write a well-designed review articles contains a 27-item checklist ( Table 1 ). It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible.

PRISMA statement: A 27-item checklist

Contents and format

Important differences exist between systematic, and non-systematic reviews which especially arise from methodologies used in the description of the literature sources. A non-systematic review means use of articles collected for years with the recommendations of your colleagues, while systematic review is based on struggles to search for, and find the best possible researches which will respond to the questions predetermined at the start of the review.

Though a consensus has been reached about the systematic design of the review articles, studies revealed that most of them had not been written in a systematic format. McAlister et al. analyzed review articles in 6 medical journals, and disclosed that in less than one fourth of the review articles, methods of description, evaluation or synthesis of evidence had been provided, one third of them had focused on a clinical topic, and only half of them had provided quantitative data about the extend of the potential benefits. [ 10 ]

Use of proper methodologies in review articles is important in that readers assume an objective attitude towards updated information. We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions. Firstly, we can be prejudiced during selection of research articles or these articles might be biased. To minimize this risk, methodologies used in our reviews should allow us to define, and use researches with minimal degree of bias. The second problem is that, most of the researches have been performed with small sample sizes. In statistical methods in meta-analyses, available researches are combined to increase the statistical power of the study. The problematic aspect of a non-systematic review is that our tendency to give biased responses to the questions, in other words we apt to select the studies with known or favourite results, rather than the best quality investigations among them.

As is the case with many research articles, general format of a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion ( Table 2 ).

Structure of a systematic review

Preparation of the review article

Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]

Steps of a systematic review

The research question

It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).

Finding Studies

In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.

Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.

While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.

One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.

Evaluation of the Quality of the Study

As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.

A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]

Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question

Formulating a Synthesis

Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.

• Accessibility Tools
• Current Students
• The University
• Student Services
• Centre for Academic Success
• The Academic Skills Lab
• Dissertation skills

How to start a literature review

• Swansea University DSA Assessment Centre
• Student Support Services
• Digital Skills
• How Writing a Research Blog can help you ace your Dissertation
• What to do with all of those notes
• Find Writing Difficult? Don’t Suffer Alone
• Academic Writing
• Presentation Skills
• Study Skills
• Inclusive Student Support Services
• Reaching Wider

Written by: Katherine Watson

Starting a literature review can be a daunting task. A literature review is a foundational aspect of a dissertation, but you may also be asked to produce a standalone literature review. You may be unfamiliar with the term literature review, and the first thing to note is that it is not that different to essays you are used to writing….

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a critical summary of existing work on a chosen topic. Importantly, it is not a list or description of ALL texts relevant to your topic. Your literature review should pick up on important ideas, debates, theories, methods and omissions across this body of literature. Rather than repeating or re-wording this information, a literature review represents your own evaluations and comparisons between these texts and should highlight your key take-aways from those readings.

What are the main functions of a literature review?

• Demonstrate that you have read widely on your topic and have a strong understanding.
• Recognise existing work.
• (In the context of a dissertation) Create the foundation for your research and justify the direction, methods and questions you pursue.
• (In the context of a dissertation) Introduce the background concepts and theories which will underpin your discussion chapter.

Step 1: Gathering literature

• Key words / search terms. Devise several key words or search terms that encapsulate your research topic.
• Use online research engines. Input your key words into free online search engines. iFind  by Swansea University is a great place to start. Other options include Google Scholar, ResearchGate, ScienceDirect and Social Science Research Network. There are also discipline specific search engines such as PubMed Central for healthcare and science. There are pros and cons to different search engines in terms of their coverage and accuracy, so it’s worth using at least two to gain access to a fuller range of literature. Be very systematic!
• Check bibliographies. Utilise the bibliography of relevant journal articles or books to gather even more references. This can be particularly useful for locating older publications which may not be flagged on search engines.
• Talk to a librarian. Librarians are experts in conducting literature searches. If you are lost about where and how to find literature contact them early and discuss the questions you’re asking, the problem you’re addressing and area you’re working on. They may be able to suggest online databases, journals and books.

Step 2: Organising literature

• Start collating an accurate record of sources on a Word document or Excel spreadsheet. Be sure to note the title, author(s), and date. You may copy and paste the abstract and key words or write your own summary. However, keep space to add your own evaluation of the literature (see below).
• Create a logical structure whether that be chronological or thematic. The advantage of creating a table in an Excel spreadsheet is that you can reorder your sources according to when they were published or another criterion.

Step 3: Critical reading

It is important to be selective, you don’t have time to read everything. Tips on how to be a more effective and efficient reader can be found on  Read Right, Write Right.

While the body of literature may be large, you will typically find repetition and common ground between texts. Make a note of these similarities, as well as where approaches or arguments diverge and contrast.

Weed out any sources which are not relevant after your reading and consolidate your list/table of core literature.

Step 4: Critical analysis

This is your opportunity to elaborate on your record of core literature by producing your own summary and reflection of the texts. Return to any notes you’ve written already and re-read relevant sections of the texts if necessary. Don’t just repeat their arguments (though you may note down a small number of quotations). Keep your focal topic at the front of your mind!

The questions listed below can be used as prompts to get you thinking critically:

• What are the main theories/concepts/methods/approaches being used? How are they justified? What are its key features?
• Are the conclusions logical and well supported?
• Does the information fit with what you already know?
• Does it contradict or dispute other evidence or arguments?
• Are there gaps or limitations? Has the author overlooked or misunderstood anything?
• How can you use this in your own work?

As you think, WRITE !  What to do with all of those notes  will help you process your ideas, and these notes will likely find their way into your literature review as your start to write it up formally.

How to Write a Review Article

A scientific review article is a type of academic paper that provides a comprehensive and systematic summary and analysis of existing research on a particular topic within the scientific literature. unlike original research articles, which present new data and findings, review articles aim to synthesize and critically evaluate the existing knowledge on a specific subject., when reading or , writing a review article consider:.

Comprehensive Literature Review : The primary purpose of a review article is to offer a thorough overview of the current state of knowledge on a given topic. This involves summarizing and synthesizing information from a wide range of relevant research studies.

Critical Analysis: Review articles often involve critical analysis and evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of various studies. Authors may discuss methodological approaches, experimental designs, limitations, and potential biases of the research they review.

Organization: Review articles typically have a well-organized structure. They may start with an introduction to the topic, followed by sections that cover different aspects or subtopics related to the main theme. The article may conclude with a summary of the current state of the field and suggestions for future research directions.

Citations: Review articles heavily rely on citations to other scientific papers. They provide a comprehensive list of references, allowing readers to explore the original studies for more in-depth information.

Objective Tone: While review articles may include the authors’ interpretations and insights, they generally maintain an objective and unbiased tone. The goal is to present a balanced overview of the existing literature.

Target Audience: Review articles are valuable for both experts in the field and those seeking an introduction to a specific topic. They can serve as educational resources for students, researchers, and professionals.

Review articles play a crucial role in advancing scientific knowledge by synthesizing and summarizing existing research, identifying trends, and highlighting gaps in current understanding. They are often published in academic journals, and their importance lies in providing researchers with a comprehensive resource for staying informed about developments in their field.

Factors to Consider When Writing a Review Article

Writing a scientific review article involves a systematic process to ensure a comprehensive and well-organized presentation of existing research on a particular topic. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you write a scientific review article:

Choose a Topic:

• Select a topic that is relevant, interesting, and has enough existing research to warrant a review.
• Ensure that the topic is not too broad; focus on a specific aspect to maintain depth and coherence.

Conduct a Literature Review :

• Thoroughly search and review existing literature on the chosen topic.
• Use academic databases, journals, and other reputable sources to gather relevant studies and articles.
• Take detailed notes on key findings, methodologies, and conclusions from each study.

Organize Your Material :

• Develop a clear structure for your review article. Common structures include chronological, thematic, or methodological organization.
• Create an outline to guide the flow of your article, including sections for the introduction, main body, and conclusion.

Write the Introduction:

• Provide background information on the topic to contextualize your review.
• Clearly state the objective or purpose of your review article.
• Introduce the scope and boundaries of your review.

Write the Main Body:

• Organize the main body based on your chosen structure. For each section, present a balanced and comprehensive overview of the existing literature.
• Group studies with similar findings or themes together.
• Critically analyze and compare studies, identifying common trends, disagreements, or gaps in the literature.

Include Subheadings:

• Use subheadings to break down your review into manageable sections.
• Subheadings can be based on themes, methodologies, or any other relevant categorization.

Provide Clear Transitions:

• Ensure smooth transitions between paragraphs and sections to maintain the logical flow of your review.
• Use transitional phrases to guide the reader from one point to the next.

Include Citations:

• Cite all the relevant studies you discuss in your review. Follow a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).
• Use in-text citations and compile a comprehensive reference list.

Write the Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings from your review.
• Discuss the implications of the reviewed studies and identify areas that need further research.
• Conclude with a concise statement of the current state of knowledge in the field.

Revise and Edit:

• Review your article for clarity, coherence, and conciseness.
• Check for grammatical and formatting errors.
• Seek feedback from peers or mentors to improve the quality of your review.

Format Your Manuscript:

• Follow the formatting guidelines of the target journal.
• Pay attention to details such as font, spacing, and citation style.

Submit for Peer Review:

• Submit your review article to a reputable scientific journal.
• Address any feedback or revisions requested during the peer review process.

Writing a scientific review article requires careful planning, attention to detail, and a critical evaluation of the literature. Remember to maintain objectivity, provide a synthesis of existing knowledge, and contribute insights that will benefit the scientific community.

Article Review of “Use of an Automated Bilingual Digital Health Tool to Reduce Unhealthy Alcohol Use Among Latino Emergency Department Patients

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness between an automated bilingual computerized alcohol screening and intervention (AB-CASI) digital health tool versus standard care for reduction of ROH consumption in US adult Latino population affected by unhealthy drinking at the ED. According to the World Health Organization, “alcohol-related visits to EDs increased by 61.6%, including increases of more than 51% for acute alcohol-related visits and more than 75% for chronic alcohol-related visits” from 2006 to 2014 (World Health Organization, 2018) . Screening and counseling programs inside the emergency department like the ED-SBIRT (ED screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment) has been linked to reductions of ROH consumption and adverse consequences. This randomized clinical study analysed the effectiveness of AB-CASI versus standard care among 840 self-identified adult Latino patients in the ED with unhealthy drinking habits from 2014 to 2020 at the ED of a major tertiary care center in the US. The AB-CASI group received alcohol screening and a brief negative interview (BNI) in their preferred language while the standard care group received standard emergency medical care with information concerning recommended follow-up. The AB-CASI group showed a significant reduction (3.2; 95% CI, 2.7-3.8) compared to the standard care group (4.0; 95% CI, 3.4-4.7) at 12 months in number of drinking episodes within the last 28 days at 12 months after randomization.

In the United States, about one-third of all adults will meet the diagnostic of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 5 th edition (DSM-5) in their lifetime. Furthermore, it is estimated that around 15.1 million US adults meet these criteria in the previous 12 months (Witkiewitz et al., 2019) . In the United States, the Latino population represents the largest minority group with over 60 million people and are considered the fastest growing population in the country, second to Asian Americans. Many articles have described the risk factors present in the Latino population (psychological, social, cultural) leading to alcohol and substance misuse. The literature also shows a link between ethnic discrimination and higher risk of alcohol use disorder. In fact, Kcomt et al. demonstrates that ethnic discrimination is associated with past-year AUD in the Latino population and the association is even greater in sexual minority Latino adults experiencing ethnic and sexual discrimination concomitantly (Kcomt et al., 2023) . Pathological alcohol use worsens the global burden of disease and a correlation has been established between alcohol consumption and over 200 health conditions (World Health Organization, 2018) . In a large retrospective population study conducted in Canada, the increase in rates of ED consultations linked to alcohol use was 4.4 times greater than the increase in rates of overall ED visits between 2003 and 2016 (Myran et al., 2019) . With the increase in alcohol related consultations in emergency rooms, it is important to educate and equip ourselves to better take care of our patients presenting with alcohol-related complaints. At present, few tools are used in the ED to screen patients for alcohol use. In a recent study, Uong et al. showed that no greater than 1 in 6 emergency department physicians screened their patients for excessive alcohol usage (Uong et al., 2022) . The current research aim was to “compare the effectiveness of an automated bilingual computerized alcohol screening and intervention (AB-CASI) digital health tool with standard care for the reduction of alcohol consumption among US adult Latino emergency department (ED) patients with unhealthy drinking” (Vaca et al., 2023) . The authors hypothesized that at 12 months, the AB-CASI group would experience less binge drinking episodes than the standard care group. They also hypothesized that the AB-CASI group would have a reduced mean number of weekly standard drinks over the last 28 days.

This study utilized an unblinded parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in both English and Spanish languages. It aimed to evaluate the efficacy of AB-CASI in reducing alcohol use among adult Latino ED patients compared to standard care. The study included self- identified adult Latino ED patients with unhealthy drinking habits. Exclusion criteria encompassed current enrollment in treatment programs, pregnancy and conditions that hindered interview use (psychotic, homicidal or suicidal thoughts). The AB-CASI intervention comprised an AUDIT assessment, brief negotiation interview (BNI) and culturally-tailored components. Participants received personalized plans and counseling referrals in their language. Participants in the standard care group received conventional emergency medical care, which included an informational sheet and the possibility of a social worker consultation.

The study procedure involved obtaining consent and a health quiz from ED patients self-identifying as Latino ethnicity with unhealthy drinking habits. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 1 month, 6 months and 12 months. These assessments included the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), timeline follow-back (TLFB), injury assessment, problem inventory, brief event data report and treatment services review, all administered by trained research assistants. The primary outcome measure was self-reported binge drinking episodes over the past 28 days at the 12-month mark. Secondary outcomes encompassed the mean weekly standard drinks and alcohol-related adverse health behaviors and consequences. Statistical analyses adhered to the intention-to-treat principle and were performed using version 9.4 of the SAS software.

A repeated-measures generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was employed with a negative binomial distribution to estimate the primary outcome differences between the AB-CASI and standard care groups. This GLMM simultaneously modeled the number of binge drinking episodes at baseline, 1 month, 6 months and 12 months. It adjusted the estimates of treatment effects based on the baseline number of binge drinking episodes. Fixed effects included intervention, time and their interaction, along with baseline covariates like sex, preferred language and alcohol dependence status. The analysis included all randomized participants and assumed that missing data occurred randomly. Linear contrasts were used to estimate intervention group differences at 1, 6 and 12 months with a significance level of 2-sided p = .05. Relative differences (RD) between groups, represented as the ratio of the mean number of binge drinking episodes in the last 28 days in the AB-CASI group to the standard care group were reported with 95% confidence intervals. Similar mixed-model analyses were conducted for secondary outcomes. To control inflated type 1 errors from multiple significance testing, the significance level for secondary outcomes was set at 2-sided p = .01. Subgroup analyses based on baseline factors, such as age, sex, biculturalism score and primary reason for ED visit, assessed the heterogeneity of treatment effects on the primary outcome. Biculturalism scores which measured levels of Hispanicism and Americanism were determined using the Bicultural Involvement Questionnaire – Short Version. These scores represented an approximation of different levels of acculturation.’

Primary Outcomes

In both the AB-CASI group and the standard care group, the mean number of binge drinking episodes within the last 28 days was 7.7 (95% CI, 6.9-8.7 for both groups) at baseline. In the AB-CASI group, this number decreased to 3.5 (95% CI, 3.0-4.2) at 1 month, 3.4 (95% CI, 2.9-4.1) at 6 months and 3.2 (95% CI, 2.7-3.8) at 12 months. Conversely, the standard care group showed a decrease to 3.9 (95% CI, 3.3-4.6) at 1 month, 3.1 (95% CI, 2.6-3.7) at 6 months and 4.0 (95% CI, 3.4-4.7) at 12 months. The number of binge drinking episodes within 28 days at 12 months after randomization was significantly lower in the AB-CASI group compared to the standard care group (RD, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99). The Relative Difference (RD) of 0.79 shows that the mean number of binge drinking episodes within the last 28 days in the AB-CASI group was 79% of the mean number in the standard care group.

Secondary Outcomes

In the AB-CASI group, the mean number of weekly standard drinks revealed a decrease from 22.8 (95% CI, 20.8-25.1) at baseline to 12.4 (95% CI, 10.8-14.1) at 1 month, 11.6 (95% CI, 10.1-13.4) at 6 months and 10.0 (95% CI, 8.6-11.5) at 12 months. In contrast, the standard care group recorded a mean number of weekly standard drinks of 22.8 (95% CI, 20.8-25.1) at baseline, which then dropped to 12.2 (95% CI, 10.7-13.9) at 1 month, 10.5 (95% CI, 9.1-12.1) at 6 months and 12.3 (95% CI, 10.7-14.1) at 12 months. At the 12-month mark, the mean number of weekly standard drinks in the AB-CASI group was 19% lower than in the standard care group (RD, 0.81; 99% CI, 0.64-1.02). However, this difference did not attain statistical significance. Additionally over the course of 12 months, the study found no substantial differences in alcohol-related adverse health behaviors and consequences between the two groups.

Exploratory Subgroup Analyses

The influence at 12 months of AB-CASI on the number of binge drinking episodes within the last 28 days was subject to modifications based on the participants age and the primary reason for their ED visit. Among those aged 25 years or older, binge drinking episodes were 30% lower in the AB-CASI group compared to those 25 years or younger (RD, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89).

For the latter group, the point estimate for binge drinking episodes was 40% higher (RD, 1.40;95% CI, 0.85-2.31; P = .01 for interaction) in the AB-CASI group compared to the standard care group. However, the 95% confidence intervals had large variability due to small size of the subgroup aged 25 or younger (n = 176).

Additionally, the magnitude of the reduction associated with AB-CASI was more pronounced in participants whose ED visit was primarily related to alcohol issues (RD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.86) as compared to those with primary medical-related reasons (RD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.05) or primary psychiatric-related reasons (RD, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.05-2.18; P = .04 for interaction).

This study is the first US randomized controlled trial of Emergency Department Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (ED-SBIRT) using an automated bilingual digital health tool. The research question aimed to compare the effectiveness of an automated bilingual computerized alcohol screening and intervention (AB-CASI) digital health tool with standard care for reducing alcohol consumption among US adult Latino emergency department (ED) patients with unhealthy drinking habits.

AB-CASI emerged as a more effective intervention, outperforming standard care by reducing the average number of binge drinking episodes within 28 days by 21%. This 21% reduction equals to almost a full episode which is clinically significant given the adverse effects of binge drinking on end organs.

The study’s limitations include its confinement to a single ED in the US with a study population primarily of Puerto Rican descent therefore lacking heterogeneity in the studied population. Subjects’ unavailability for follow-up creates attrition bias which can modify the results of the study. Furthermore, the use of DSM-IV criteria for AUD instead of the DSM-V criteria is a notable limitation with the updated version of the DSM being used today.

However, the results of this study hold substantial significance. They underscore the burden of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) in the United States and reveal critical alcohol-related health disparities within the Latino community, the country’s largest ethnic minority group. The AB-CASI tool offers a quick and cost-effective means to address these disparities, especially among unilingual individuals. Implementing adapted ED-SBIRT within emergency departments also proves to be a more cost-effective approach compared to delivering SBIRT in other outpatient medical settings.

In summary, this study sheds light on the effectiveness of ED-SBIRT using AB-CASI in reducing alcohol consumption among Latino ED patients with unhealthy drinking habits. It carries implications for public health by demonstrating a feasible, efficient and cost-effective approach to addressing AUD and its associated disparities within the Latino population, while also serving as an example for bilingual, digital health interventions in emergency care.

About the author

Kcomt, L., Boyd, C.J., Evans-Polce, R.J., Veliz, P., Engstrom, C., West, B.T., McCabe, S.E., 2023. Ethnic Discrimination, Sexual Orientation Discrimination, and DSM-5 Alcohol Use Disorder Among U.S. Latino or Hispanic Adults. J. Homosex. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2023.2217516

Myran, D.T., Hsu, A.T., Smith, G., Tanuseputro, P., 2019. Rates of emergency department visits attributable to alcohol use in Ontario from 2003 to 2016: a retrospective population-level study. CMAJ 191, E804–E810. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.181575

Uong, S., Tomedi, L.E., Gloppen, K.M., Stahre, M., Hindman, P., Goodson, V.N., Crandall, C., Sklar, D., Brewer, R.D., 2022. Screening for Excessive Alcohol Consumption in Emergency Departments: A Nationwide Assessment of Emergency Department Physicians. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. JPHMP 28, E162–E169. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001286

Vaca, F.E., Dziura, J., Abujarad, F., Pantalon, M., Hsiao, A., Reynolds, J., Maciejewski, K.R., Field, C.A., D’Onofrio, G., 2023. Use of an Automated Bilingual Digital Health Tool to Reduce Unhealthy Alcohol Use Among Latino Emergency Department Patients. JAMA Netw. Open 6, e2314848. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.14848 Witkiewitz, K., Litten, R.Z., Leggio, L., 2019. Advances in the science and treatment of alcohol use disorder. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax4043. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax4043 World Health Organization, 2018. Global status report on alcohol and health 2018. World Health Organization, Geneva

Our Location

• 5250 Old Orchard Rd Suite 300 Skokie, IL 60077
• +1 847 983 3672

Monday – Friday 9 AM – 5 PM EST

Conduct Science

• Become a Partner
• Social Media
• Career/Academia
• Privacy Policy
• Shipping & Returns
• Request a quote

Customer service

• Account Details
• Lost Password

DISCLAIMER: ConductScience and affiliate products are NOT designed for human consumption, testing, or clinical utilization. They are designed for pre-clinical utilization only. Customers purchasing apparatus for the purposes of scientific research or veterinary care affirm adherence to applicable regulatory bodies for the country in which their research or care is conducted.

• Science Writing
• All Applied Health Sciences Databases
• All Biology Databases
• All Chemistry Article Databases
• All Computer Science Databases
• All Math Databases
• All Nursing Databases
• All Physics Databases
• All Psychology Databases
• All Sport Management Databases

Importance of Citation

• Quoting and Paraphrasing From the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Writer's Handbook.
• Plagiarism Overview From the OWL (Online Writing Lab) at Purdue.
• NY Times article: Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age August 1, 2010 Students believe they can use without attribution materials they find on websites where authorship is not stated.

DEI Resources in STEM fields

• Black Past: STEM people hidden no more

What is "Science Writing?"

At first glance, science writing seems simple. It's writing about  topics related to science and can include works of creative nonfiction, nature essays, or scientific articles. But science writing is different from scientific writing. While scientific writing is usually intended for a specialized audience of scientists and researchers, science writing brings important scientific discoveries into the lives of the general public in creative and meaningful ways. Pieces of science writing can be very different from one another and can come in a number of formats. They can be long or short, detailed or generalized. They can be articles, books, videos, essays, podcasts, and more. 

This page serves as a guide for discovering credible science writing sources and connecting various fields of study. Scientists, students, educators, and writers can use it to find articles, videos, books, and other examples of science writing to support their interests. Whether you are an avid reader or an aspiring science writer, this guide is for you!

How to use this guide

• Use the green side menu to navigate to databases for further scientific research resources. 
• To read about science topics, explore the tabs in the Science Writing "Reader's Guide."
• To learn more on writing about science, explore the tabs in Science Writing "Writer's Guide."

Science Writing - Reader's Guide

• Author Search
• Periodicals
• Recent Books and Ebooks
• Science in the News

Try browsing the library shelves for science writing material in these areas, or explore the Science Writing collection online.

• Q 130-141 Women in Science
• Q 143 General Science Biographies 
• Q 148-149 African American Scientists
• QA 75-76 Computer Science
• QB Astronomy 
• QD 71-142 Analytical Chemistry
• QD 146-197 Inorganic Chemistry
• QD 415 -436 Biochemistry
• QE 701-760 Paleontology 
• QH Biology/Natural History,
• QM Human anatomy 
• QP Physiology
• QR Microbiology
• RC 321-576 Psychology/Psychiatry
• S Agriculture
• TX Food Science

Searching for science writing materials can be difficult because they span a broad range of topics. Here are some authors to search for to help get you started. 

Nature Writing

• Susan Fenimore Cooper (1813-1894)
• Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
• John Muir (1838-1914)

Conservation

• Aldo Leopold  (1887- 1948)
• Rachel Carson  (1907-1964)
• James Lovelock (1919 - )
• E.O. Wilson (1929 - 2021)
• Oliver Sacks (1933 - 2015)

Natural Science

• Carl Sagan (1934 -1996)
• Richard Dawkins  (1941 - )
• Stephen Hawking (1942-2018)
• Michio Kaku (1947- )
• Dava Sobel  (1947-)
• Bill Bryson (1951 - )
• Sy Montgomery (1958 - )
• Mary Roach (1959 - )
• Hannah Holmes (1963 - )
• Peter Wohlleben (1964 - )
• Carl Zimmer (1966 - ) 
• Rebecca Skloot (1972 - )
• Ed Yong (1981 - )
• Nature This link opens in a new window Journal articles and news in science and technology.
• Cell Cell is a peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing research papers across a broad range of disciplines within the life sciences including but not limited to cell biology, molecular biology, neuroscience, immunology, virology and microbiology, cancer, human genetics, systems biology, signaling, and disease mechanisms and therapeutics
• Parkside Journal of Science Parkside journal containing independently conducted research done by students of UW-Parkside, reviews of current scientific articles, interviews of faculty members pertaining to their work.
• Scientific American Science magazine that covers research, ideas and knowledge in science, health, technology, the environment and society.
• Science The Science family of journals is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s oldest and largest general science organization. Covering a variety of science related topics.
• Science and Nature Writing Collection Explore more books online in the Science and Nature Writing Collection

• Access World News Research Collection This link opens in a new window International, national, and regional news. Date coverage varies by newspaper.
• New York Times Academic Pass This link opens in a new window Anyone with a valid UWP email address can sign up for free access to the NYTimes.com website and smartphone apps. Please read registration instructions. Navigate to the Science page to read the latest science news articles.
• Points of View Reference Center (EBSCO) This link opens in a new window Sources on contemporary controversial topics. The previous interface includes a list of potential research areas .
• Science Podcast A weekly podcast featuring the latest scientific research and stories from the journal Science and its sister journals.
• Nature Podcast The Nature Podcast brings you the best stories from the world of science each week. We cover everything from astronomy to zoology, highlighting the most exciting research from each issue of the Nature journal. We meet the scientists behind the results and provide in-depth analysis from Nature's journalists and editors.
• Big Biology Big Biology is a podcast that tells the stories of scientists tackling some of the biggest unanswered questions in biology. Hosted by biologists Marty Martin and Art Woods.
• Body Stuff Podcast created to dispel medical myths and misinformation hosted by Dr. Jen Gunter OB/GYN and pain medicine physician.
• Hand Made A podcast that explores all things material hosted by materials scientist and engineer, Dr. Anna Ploszajski
• Hidden Brain Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.
• Introduced A podcast that explores stories of aquatic invasive species in Wisconsin, like rusty crayfish, purple loosestrife and spiny waterfleas.
• The Pulse The Pulse is a podcast that takes you behind the doors of operating rooms, into the lab with some of the world’s foremost scientists, and back in time to explore life-changing innovations.
• Radiolab Science journalists explore topics in science from many different angles and viewpoints through in depth interviews and investigative reporting.
• Science and Nutrition The world’s top scientists explain the latest health, nutrition, and gut health research and translate it into practical advice to improve your health & weight.
• Science Clear and Vivid Host Alan Alda leads conversations with 10 guests discussing their lives as scientists and their scientific research, each sharing their point of view and experience about basic science and their personal stories – what got them interested in or involved in science and more.
• Science Friday Science, technology, and other cool stuff. It's brain fun, for curious people
• Science Vs Science journalists and fact checkers uncover what is fact and what is not.
• Short Wave Broadcast by NPR that explores discoveries, everyday mysteries, and the science behind the headlines in short episodes every weekday.
• Story Collider Podcast that explores personal stories about science told by people from all walks of life from scientists and doctors to comedians and artists.
• Lost Women of Science This podcast uncovers the life and work of women in science who have been forgotten and gives them recognition and credit for their contributions to the scientific world.
• Deep Look A series that focuses on the very small things of the natural world.
• Journey to the Microcosmos Real footage of microscopic organisms that inhabit the world narrated by science communicator Hank Green.
• Kurzgesagt: In a Nut Shell Short animated videos created to explain complex scientific topics such as black holes, neutron stars, or the human immune system.
• Physics Girl Physics Girl is a YouTube channel created by Dianna Cowern that adventures into the physical sciences with experiments, demonstrations, and cool new discoveries.
• Science Friday Science, technology, and other cool stuff. It's brain fun, for curious people.
• Veritasium Videos about science and education explored through interviews with scientists and demonstrations created by Derek Muller.
• Real Science Short documentaries on life science topics, an offshoot of Real Engineering.

• Nova Long-running science series that explores issues and discoveries in science and technology.
• Star Gazers A weekly television series on astronomy.
• TED Talks Short presentations on topics covering Technology, Entertainment, and Design.

Science Writing - Writer's Guide

• Education and Professional Organizations
• Browser Extensions

• MIT Science Writing Program
• Madison School of Journalism
• Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science
• National Association of Science Writers
• Open Access Button
• LibKey Nomad
• Next: All Applied Health Sciences Databases >>
• Last Updated: Sep 17, 2024 3:24 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uwp.edu/sciencewriting

University of Wisconsin-Parkside Library   |    Contact Us 900 Wood Road Kenosha, WI 53141 | (262) 595-3432