Writing Scientific Review Paper

Krishna Misra
IIITAllahabad

Jan. 28, 2022

Review paper
► Reviews bring data together helping the readers draw new and definite
conclusions.
► Review differs from a scientific paper as it reports work from several
sources rather than a single experiment or a research program.
► Reviews are published in journals , conference proceedings also a common
form of University training.
► Reviews are given in short form in the introduction section of research
papers and in expanded form in literature review section of
thesis/dissertation.
► A review has to be critical i.e. a comparison and contrast information
published by different authors.
► The conclusion of a review article must indicate the gaps in the existing
knowledge in that specific field thus suggesting the new areas of
research.
Structure of a review paper
A review consists of ,
⮚ Introduction
⮚ Main body including general discussion
⮚ Conclusion
⮚ References
❖ Introduction is similar to that of a paper i.e . You state
here about the problem and why you are writing the
review
❖ Conclusion and references are also similar to that of a
paper
❖ Difference is only in the main body of the review.
 Before writing a review
► For writing a review you should have your own
publications in that specific field.

► Sometimes editors request an author to write a review

or else you may write to the editor giving your specific
reasons for writing the review.

► Literature search is extremely important before

starting to write a review
How to start writing a review article?
► First split the body of your review into different themes
or topics

► Each topic should be split into sections and headings, to

make the reader understand your reasoning.

► Put all the topics in logical order.

► Start with general topics, then come to specific ones,

but relate the specific ones back with general ones in
the discussion
Example of sequence of topics
In a review on “Antioxidants and human health” you may have the following
headings,
1. Introduction: What are you reviewing and why?
2. Influence of nutrition on human health
3. Nutrient requirements of humans
4. What are Antioxidants?
(a) How ROS (reactive oxygen species) and RNS (reactive nitrogen species)
are formed and their role in human body
(b) Mechanism of action of antioxidants
(C) Natural sources of antioxidants
5. General discussion: Antioxidants for a balanced diet
6. Conclusion:
Here we start with general situation (human health) to specific situation
(requirement of antioxidants) and tie both together for general discussion.
Content should reflect contrasting results
► In a research paper you have a hypothesis which is accepted or
rejected based on your experimental result.
► In a review you have a theory or a message which you support
or contradict based on published results
► While reviewing literature you form a theory, but you have to
convince the reader to accept your view with sound arguments
supported by good evidence.
► Do not give simple statements agreeing with your idea but
mention supporting evidence with at least couple of
references.
► Do not omit any reference which gives contradictory results.
Try to explain the reason e.g different experimental set ups
► Never give irrelevant references even if these agree with your
idea.
How to manipulate writing different
observations of authors
► Never report insignificant results
► Never copy portions of paper contradicting original author,
unless you intend to give a new angle to the data.
► Suppose John (2003) wrote “ The age span of North Koreans
is 100 years while that of South Koreans is 95 years” , Do,nt
write that Koreans live upto 100 years.
► If a later report by Smith (2012) says that North Koreans live
longer than South Koreans due to cold climate, then you
can write, “ Climatic conditions in Korea decide age span”.
► Always cite experimental data which supports your idea,
e.g. In mice……(Pathak et.al 1999).Similar results were
found in rats but only in males(Aggarwal et.al 2015)
 Quantitative data
► Instead giving a simple statement like “Ingredient X
increased the fuel efficiency” you must give details of
data e.g. Fuel efficiency increased from 15.5 km/l to
20.3 km/l when X was added (0.5 ppm).

► Combine data of similar studies from different papers

in the form of table or figure, instead of giving every
single one separately.

► If you do a statistical analysis of data from different

studies , consult a statistician
 References
► Give minimum references.

► Only key references must be cited

► In case a review is available , you can omit the references

already given in that review

► Avoid secondary references like text books which do not give

experimental results.

► If you are citing a review as reference, check the original

paper since the reviewer might have misinterpreted the data
 How to write your review
►The review writing needs planning like any
other scientific writing.
►Literature review will leave you with lots of
index cards (or electronic equivalent)each
having key words.
►Arrange this data in order of your review topics
or headings.
►Under each topic arrange cards according to
the subheadings
►If you feel that there is some gap , go back to
literature search and fill it up
►Arrange all papers in correct order
 How to Start writing
► Start writing first the main body of the review , section wise.
► Start with the most important section first
► Ideas can be moved from one section to another but do not duplicate
information .
► Check each section and make sure that you have given enough evidence to
support your arguments (agreeing and disagreeing both if appropriate)
► After completing all sections go through the whole write up to make sure
that there is coherence between all sections.
► One or two sentences may be added to link one section with another
► Write general discussion (if needed) ,introduction and conclusion in this
sequence.
► Conclusion must refer to introduction , where you give the problem and
objectives.
► In conclusion you give the futuristic view and avenues for solving the
problem
A review is a critical comparison and contrast
information published by different authors in
a specific field

THANK YOU