Publication Review Club Guidelines

These guidelines are designed to support Fellowship Programme participants who have
undertaken to write a publication review.

“The capacity to take art personally makes one a critic.” George B Shaw

1. Preliminary information

Full reference, title in full, author, date of publication, place, publisher and ISBN

2. Introduction
State the topic of the publication and its general thesis to give the reader a context
for the publication. This should cover the main themes of the publication, and give an
overview as to the general subject matter.

3. Development
This section should outline how the author develops these key themes and what the
reviewer has learned from them. Publication authors’ arguments have to made clear
before your own reviewing, criticizing or evaluation is attempted. Your arguments
have to be supported by relevant literature, quotes from publication or your own
experience. At this point you should state whether or not you agree or disagree with
the authors, and if you found it useful in your reflection on the development of
arguments in your own practice area. It is important to show that you understand the
content of the article and that you have engaged with it to think critically about your
own viewpoints. Furthermore, if you have identified any gaps in the authors’
handling or analysis of the topic, please indicate your view point in this section.

4. Conclusion
This should sum up the main points from the previous section and should include but
not be limited to:
• summary of your assessment of the material
• reflections on the extent the publication contributed to your own
understanding of the topic
• importance of the topic to healthcare quality and safety

Word count for publication review: 500-750 words and two relevant quotes from the text

Learning aims: critical thinking, comprehension and evaluation skills, academic writing