Specifies the number of studies evaluated orselected
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
Formulation of researchable questions | Select answerable questions |
Disclosure of studies | Databases, and key words |
Evaluation of its quality | Quality criteria during selection of studies |
Synthesis | Methods interpretation, and synthesis of outcomes |
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).
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.
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
I | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies |
II | Randomized controlled study | Crross-sectional study in consecutive patients | Initial cohort study | Prospective cohort study |
III | One of the following: Non-randomized experimental study (ie. controlled pre-, and post-test intervention study) Comparative studies with concurrent control groups (observational study) (ie. cohort study, case-control study) | One of the following: Cross-sectional study in non-consecutive case series; diagnostic case-control study | One of the following: Untreated control group patients in a randomized controlled study, integrated cohort study | One of the following: Retrospective cohort study, case-control study (Note: these are most prevalently used types of etiological studies; for other alternatives, and interventional studies see Level III |
IV | Case series | Case series | Case series or cohort studies with patients at different stages of their disease states |
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.
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.
If you can’t imagine how to cope with writing an article review, don’t worry, we are going to help you with this task. We are going to discuss what is an article review and how to write it, and you will find a useful article review example. With the help of this guide, prepared by our essay writer service , you will cope with article review writing faster.
Knowing the definition of an article review is necessary for all who are going to write it. A review of an article is a necessary condition for adequate perception of the text for further use of the provisions formulated in it. Today, a large number of scientific printed and electronic articles are published. In a vast amount of information, you need to learn how to select and analyze the studies that have real scientific value and relevance.
The purpose of an analytical evaluation of an article written by another author is to determine the applicability of the hypotheses, theories, and calculations outlined in it for the reviewer’s own developments. Any science is a process of searching and applying relevant information to create new knowledge. Therefore, specialized journals are an indispensable source of information through which scientists exchange the results of their own searches.
Writing a review involves analysis. Analysis is a way to study the structural elements of a phenomenon, process, or object. Scientific publication must be logically structured. In this regard, it lends itself to analytical analysis and evaluation.
The methodology for analyzing a scientific article may differ depending on its thematic focus. For example, a study published in a physics and mathematics edition is dealt with differently than in a journal with a humanitarian direction. But there are general principles that must be followed.
An article review outline is drawn up taking into account the following key elements:
When analyzing, it is also necessary to take into account the specific type of article. For example, an analytical review in philosophy will be very different from a review in applied engineering.
Experienced scientists develop their own method of reviewing articles. For novice researchers, the following tips will be useful:
When choosing and analyzing a scientific article for writing a review, you should pay attention to:
Only extensive experience in analyzing numerous scientific texts will help a novice scientist develop his or her own style and learn to express the thoughts within the framework of the article review.
If you look for article topics that you can analyze, then you have compiled a list of the most interesting ones.
Citation styles like MLA and APA can be a real headache when it comes to article review writing. You must correctly express your thoughts, analyze them, and bring them into a coherent form. In addition, you also need to ensure your citing is done correctly. At first glance, this detail may seem inconsequential, but incorrect formatting can be the reason why you get a low grade for your article review.
The good news is that both an MLA and APA format article review have very subtle differences. This means that you don’t need to learn a completely different way of highlighting your sources. If you understand the small differences, you will make your article review writing much easier. However, these similar features can bring you some troubles, since they are the ones that confuse people.
For both an MLA and APA style article review, formatting requires similar information, which must include: author’s name, source name, publisher, and publication year. However, the order in which this information is organized is slightly different from each other.
If you are using APA format for citations, you should pay more attention to punctuation, as it differs from MLA format. You also need to include a publication place. APA citations should be written in this way: the author’s last name, his or her initials. (Year of publication). Title of source in italics. (Number of edition). Publication place: Publisher.
Example: Blunt, B. (2021). The Greatest Articles in the World . (2nd ed.). Italy: Pizza Publications.
If you are using MLA format style, your citation should be written in this way: Author’s last name, his or her first name. Name of source in italics. Number of edition, publisher, year of publication.
Example: Blunt, Bill. The Greatest Articles in the World . 2nd ed, Pizza Publications, 2021.
Academic reviews attract close attention from the scientific community today, since they are synthesized knowledge that guides and informs researchers in the relevant field. Many peer-reviewed journals have begun to introduce this type of publication into their editorial policy, actively working with authors, attracting those who have mastered the international methodologies of different types of reviews.
In terms of format, most reviews follow the IMRAD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) to varying degrees. Introduction describes the relevance of the study and justifies the need for writing a review. If reviews on a similar topic were previously published, the author analyzes them and builds arguments for conducting a new review. The introduction ends with research questions.
The Methods section reproduces the methodology in detail, including procedures for searching, selecting sources, checking them for relevance, and methods for analyzing the literature. When using more sophisticated statistical, quantitative, and qualitative methods, either a reference is made to the appropriate methodology, if it is widely used and known, or the entire process is described in detail so that any scientist can repeat the study.
In the Results section, which can be combined with discussion of the results, groups of articles identified in the process of content analysis are analyzed, generalizations are made, and information about trends, gaps, objectivity, and other results is synthesized.
Review titles usually have two parts. The first part reveals the research topic. The second part (after the colon) specifies the type of review. Such a title helps readers to immediately identify the type of publication when searching.
The number of sources in the review depends on how much you cover the topic. It is common for subject field reviews to include hundreds of titles. Since not all sources are cited or included in the description of the results, often a complete list of all selected articles is presented in the form of an appendix.
If you have never written this type of academic paper, it is recommended to get acquainted with journal review samples. They will give you a better understanding of how to write your own review. We present an article review sample that will be extremely helpful to you.
Marketing Means Manipulating Customers Into Purchasing Something They Do Not Need
Marketing is among the most crucial elements of any enterprise. The article “Manipulation in Marketing: How It’s Used, and How to Use It ethically” by Scott Oldford focuses on the prevalence of manipulation in the current marketing strategies and how enterprises can ethically use them. People can be manipulated to believe in things they did not think through modern targeting in marketing, where the meanings have been interpreted as anyone, including business owners, marketers, government, and the media. Giving a deeper insight into the manipulation in marketing will help understand what is right, what should not be done, and how things should be done during marketing.
The article begins by focusing on the various marketing methods, including social media marketing, which is dominant during this era. The dominance of this kind of marketing leads to unsuspecting or unaware users who subconsciously take in information from various sources, including billboards, newspapers, magazines, commercials on television, and social media, such as YouTube and Facebook, without comprehending the content. The article describes the manipulation used by giant companies such as Coca-Cola that have dominated the market for years (Oldford). Coca-Cola manipulates its customers by ensuring they are present almost everywhere, including newspaper ads, TV commercials, and billboards, forming a bond with its users. While many companies may not see the essence of this form of marketing, it is a profound and proven way of persuasion.
Institutions and businesses continue to target groups in a given population as they understand individuals get attached to particular interests, political beliefs, and hobbies. With the current accessibility to algorithms in various platforms such a Facebook and Google, businesses and individuals can aim, re-aim, and manipulate the target population. For example, media can influence individuals to believe in new campaigns and agendas. Hence, companies need to understand how they can control their audiences each day. Also, individuals in marketing need to realize that they should incorporate manipulation in their marketing, as it is the sole method of creating raving fans who can buy goods and services without distorting their trust in an enterprise.
Since manipulation is a component of today’s marketing, businesses need to understand how to do it right. When manipulation in marketing is done correctly, it positively impacts the business and target audience. The article emphasizes that when a product is genuine and has a real noticeable influence on the user, such manipulation is desirable. For manipulation through marketing, enterprises need to have a deep comprehension of their audiences to ensure they do not partake in activities that can hurt their relationships (Sinha, et al. 38). Helping one’s customers involves manipulating them so that they can find the solutions to satisfy their needs (Busuttil 32). However, when manipulating, one must focus on the relevance to ensure that the business gives a significant value by providing the consumer with what they need. Enterprises also need to remain intimate by the continuous provision of value, remaining real, and building trust. They should also be omnipresent to ensure that they are always on the mind of their customers.
Summarily, the article brings out the best version of manipulation in marketing. It presents its advantageous side to both the consumers and enterprises, ensuring a symbiotic relationship. Understanding how to do it remains the most crucial test that any business or individual needs to take.
Works Cited
Busuttil, Laurie R. “Toward a Practical Theology of Marketing: A Five Ps Approach to the Business of Persuasion.” Journal of Biblical Integration in Business 20.2 (2017). Oldford, Scott. “Manipulation in Marketing: How It’s Used, and How to Use It Ethically.” Entrepreneur , 2018, https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/321611. Sinha, Moumita, Jennifer Healey, Faran Ahmad, Varun Gupta, and Niloy Ganguly. “Persuasion: What Jane Austin Would Have Written.” Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in Affective Computing. PMLR, 2020.
Reviews as a genre of scientific communication are a universal mechanism for the dissemination and clarification of knowledge about the problem under study, allowing not only to determine the boundaries of a specific problem field and identify the main trends in its study but also to localize gaps in existing knowledge within its framework.
The use of reviews allows you to get the most objective understanding of the degree of study of the analyzed issues at the international level. This allows you to reduce information gaps in the field of scientific communication. Writing reviews requires a thorough approach from authors within the framework of a given methodology, based on attention to detail, in-depth knowledge of the language as a tool for international scientific communication, and an understanding of the impact that a qualitative review can have on the international scientific community. Hence the objectivity of the author, the depth of the review, and the scientific logic of its presentation are the criteria that significantly determine its scientific value.
If you find yourself in the situation where you don’t know how to write this type of paper, you can order an example of an article review from EssayShark paper writer . Of course, this sample will be well structured, unique, and sources will be correctly cited. But the main thing is that after receiving an article review from our term paper writing service , you will know how to write it yourself without any issues.
Photo by StockSnap from Pixabay
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Our website uses secure cookies. More details
Get professional help from best writers right from your phone
Learn how to write a review article.
What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.
Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.
To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.
To explain the current state of knowledge.
To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.
To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.
There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.
Make sure you check the aims and scope of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.
Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.
Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.
Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field.
As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.”
When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.”
For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences, read advice from NCBI .
Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative.
For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title and our researcher’s guide to search engine optimization .
Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact.
Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.
Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.
Angus Crake, researcher
As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.
Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission.
You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.
Find out more about how Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.
Differences in... | ||
---|---|---|
Presents the viewpoint of the author | Critiques the viewpoint of other authors on a particular topic | |
New content | Assessing already published content | |
Depends on the word limit provided by the journal you submit to | Tends to be shorter than a research article, but will still need to adhere to words limit |
Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:
Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?
Have you defined the scope of your article?
Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?
Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?
Did you start with an overview of the topic?
Have you presented a critical discussion?
Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?
Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?
Taylor & Francis Editing Services offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.
How to edit your paper
Writing a scientific literature review
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Methodology
Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.
What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .
There are five key steps to writing a literature review:
A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.
Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes
What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.
When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:
Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.
Discover proofreading & editing
Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.
You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.
Download Word doc Download Google doc
Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .
If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .
Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.
Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:
You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.
Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.
You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.
For each publication, ask yourself:
Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.
You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.
As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.
It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.
To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:
This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.
There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).
The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.
Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.
If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.
For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.
If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:
A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.
You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.
Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.
The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.
Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.
As you write, you can follow these tips:
In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.
When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !
This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.
Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.
Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Statistics
Research bias
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .
It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.
There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:
Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.
The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .
A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .
An annotated bibliography is a list of source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a paper .
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/
Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.
✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts
When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.
When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?
This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.
Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.
Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.
Here’s how your outline might look:
In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.
It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.
What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:
Confidential comments for the editors.
Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.
This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.
Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors. If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.
Get this outline in a template
Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.
If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.
In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.
Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments
✗ Before
“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”
✓ After
“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”
“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”
“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”
“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”
“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”
You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.
What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.
What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”
What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”
What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”
What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”
Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.
Be sure you turn in your report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.
You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!
The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …
The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …
There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…
Mastering the art of crafting a review essay – a comprehensive guide for writers.
Writing a review essay can be a challenging task, but with the right approach and structure, you can create a comprehensive and insightful piece of writing that engages your readers. Whether you are reviewing a book, a movie, a restaurant, or any other type of work, a well-written review essay can provide valuable insights and opinions that help your audience make informed decisions.
As you begin the process of writing a review essay, it is important to first understand the purpose of the review and the expectations of your audience. A review essay is not just a summary of the work you are reviewing; it is an analysis and evaluation that considers the strengths and weaknesses of the work, as well as its overall impact and significance.
In order to write a comprehensive review essay, you should start by introducing the work you are reviewing and providing some context for your review. This could include information about the author, director, or creator of the work, as well as the genre or category to which the work belongs. This introduction should also include your thesis statement, which outlines the main point or argument of your review.
A review essay includes several key elements that are essential for creating a comprehensive and effective review. These elements help the reader gain a clear understanding of the subject matter and provide valuable insights and analysis. Here are some key elements to consider when writing a review essay:
Provide an overview of the topic and the importance of the review. | |
Summarize the main points, arguments, and key findings of the work being reviewed. | |
Provide an in-depth analysis and critical evaluation of the work’s strengths and weaknesses. | |
Compare the reviewed work with other relevant works in the field to provide context and perspective. | |
Conclude by summarizing the main points and offering your final thoughts on the work. |
When selecting a topic for your review essay, consider the following tips:
Look for a subject that you are passionate about or curious to learn more about. This will make the writing process more engaging and enjoyable. | |
Make sure the topic is not too broad or too narrow. Find a balance that allows you to explore the subject in-depth without overwhelming yourself. | |
Look for recent publications, news articles, and scholarly sources to see what topics are trending or have sufficient research material available. | |
If you are having trouble choosing a topic, seek guidance from your instructor or supervisor. They may provide suggestions or insights to help you narrow down your options. | |
Write down a list of potential topics that interest you and align with the assignment requirements. Consider the pros and cons of each topic before making a final decision. |
By following these tips, you can choose a topic that will allow you to write a comprehensive and engaging review essay.
When writing a comprehensive review essay, it is crucial to employ effective research strategies to gather relevant information and support your arguments. Here are some key research strategies to consider:
1. Conduct a thorough literature review: Start by exploring existing literature on the topic you are reviewing. Look for scholarly articles, books, and other sources that provide valuable insights and information.
2. Use a variety of sources: It is essential to gather information from diverse sources to ensure a well-rounded review. Consider using academic journals, reputable websites, and other reliable sources.
3. Take notes and organize information: Keep track of important points, quotes, and data as you conduct your research. Organize your notes in a systematic way to facilitate the writing process.
4. Analyze and synthesize the information: Once you have gathered sufficient information, analyze and synthesize the key findings to identify trends, patterns, and varying perspectives on the topic.
5. Evaluate the credibility of sources: Be critical of the sources you use in your review essay. Consider the author’s credentials, publication date, and methodology to determine the credibility of the information.
By following these research strategies, you can produce a comprehensive review essay that is well-informed and impactful.
When structuring your review essay, it is important to organize your thoughts and arguments in a clear and logical manner. Here are some key steps to help you create a well-structured review:
1. Introduction:
Start your review essay with an engaging introduction that provides an overview of the topic and sets the stage for the rest of the review. Clearly state your thesis or main argument in this section.
2. Summary of the Work:
Provide a brief summary of the work you are reviewing, including key points, arguments, and themes. This will give your readers a clear understanding of the work before you delve into your analysis.
3. Critical Analysis:
In this section, analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the work. Discuss any key themes, arguments, or ideas presented by the author and provide evidence to support your analysis.
4. Comparison and Contrast:
Consider how the work you are reviewing compares and contrasts with other works in the field. Discuss similarities and differences and highlight any unique contributions made by the author.
5. Conclusion:
Conclude your review essay by summarizing your main points and reiterating your thesis. Reflect on the significance of the work and its implications for the field.
By following these steps, you can create a well-structured review essay that is engaging and insightful for your readers.
A thesis statement is the central idea of your review essay, providing a concise summary of the main point you will be making. It should be specific, clear, and arguable to engage your readers and guide your writing process. A strong thesis statement sets the tone for the entire essay and informs readers about the focus and perspective of your review.
When writing a comprehensive review essay, it is crucial to thoroughly analyze and evaluate the sources you use. This involves assessing the credibility, relevance, and reliability of each source to ensure that your essay is well-supported and based on sound evidence.
Credibility: Consider the author’s qualifications, the publication date, and the reputation of the source. Look for sources from reputable publishers, academic journals, or experts in the field.
Relevance: Evaluate how well each source contributes to your overall argument and thesis. Make sure the information provided is directly related to the topic you are discussing.
Reliability: Check for bias, misinformation, or inaccuracies in the sources you use. Cross-reference information from multiple sources to verify its accuracy and consistency.
By carefully analyzing and evaluating your sources, you can ensure that your review essay is well-researched and persuasive.
When writing a review essay, it is essential to develop a coherent argument that ties together the various aspects of your analysis. Your argument should be clear, logical, and supported by evidence from the text or material you are reviewing. To develop a coherent argument, consider the following strategies:
1. | Begin by crafting a strong thesis statement that clearly presents your main argument or point of view. This statement should guide the rest of your review and provide a roadmap for your readers. |
2. | Organize your review essay in a logical manner, with each paragraph or section contributing to the overall argument. Use transitions to connect your ideas and ensure a smooth flow of thought. |
3. | Support your argument with specific evidence from the text, examples, or other sources. Analyze and interpret this evidence to demonstrate how it relates to your thesis statement and reinforces your argument. |
4. | Acknowledge and address potential counterarguments to your thesis. Anticipating and refuting opposing viewpoints can strengthen your argument and demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the topic. |
5. | Conclude your review essay by summarizing your main argument and restating the significance of your analysis. Leave your readers with a lasting impression and encourage further reflection on the topic. |
By following these steps and developing a coherent argument, you can write a comprehensive review essay that engages your readers and effectively communicates your insights and analysis.
Editing and proofreading are crucial steps in the writing process. After completing a comprehensive review essay, it is essential to carefully edit and proofread your work to ensure clarity, correctness, and coherence.
Here are some techniques to help you polish your review essay:
By incorporating these editing and proofreading techniques , you can elevate the quality of your comprehensive review essay and ensure that your ideas are effectively communicated to your readers.
How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.
Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts
This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.
Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.
A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.
There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.
A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.
Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.
Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.
Introduction:
Conclusion:
Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:
Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .
As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.
Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:
The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.
In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology, Louisiana State University
H. Colleen Sinclair receives funding from the Department of Defense.
View all partners
The problem of misinformation isn’t going away – and may be getting worse, in the wake of the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump . Internet platforms like Facebook and X have taken some steps to curb its spread and say they are working on doing more. But no method yet introduced has been completely successful at removing all misleading content from social media. The best defense, then, is self-defense.
Misleading or outright false information – broadly called “misinformation” – can come from websites pretending to be news outlets, political propaganda or “ pseudo-profound ” reports that seem meaningful but are not. Disinformation is a type of misinformation that is deliberately generated to maliciously mislead people. Disinformation is intentionally shared, knowing it is false, but misinformation can be shared by people who don’t know it’s not true , especially because people often share links online without thinking .
Emerging psychology research has revealed some tactics that can help protect our society from misinformation. Here are seven strategies you can use to avoid being misled, and to prevent yourself – and others – from spreading inaccuracies.
The best inoculation against what the World Health Organization is calling the “ infodemic ” is to understand the tricks that agents of disinformation are using to try to manipulate you.
One strategy is called “ prebunking ” – a type of debunking that happens before you hear myths and lies. Research has shown that familiarizing yourself with the tricks of the disinformation trade can help you recognize false stories when you encounter them, making you less susceptible to those tricks.
Researchers at the University of Cambridge have developed an online game called “ Bad News ,” which their studies have shown can improve players’ identification of falsehoods .
In addition to the game, you can also learn more about how internet and social media platforms work , so you better understand the tools available to people seeking to manipulate you. You can also learn more about scientific research and standards of evidence , which can help you be less susceptible to lies and misleading statements about health-related and scientific topics.
The prebunking approach works for people across the political spectrum, but it turns out that people who underestimate their biases are actually more vulnerable to being misled than people who acknowledge their biases.
Research has found people are more susceptible to misinformation that aligns with their preexisting views. This is called “ confirmation bias ,” because a person is biased toward believing information that confirms what they already believe.
The lesson is to be particularly critical of information from groups or people with whom you agree or find yourself aligned – whether politically, religiously, or by ethnicity or nationality. Remind yourself to look for other points of view , and other sources with information on the same topic.
It is especially important to be honest with yourself about what your biases are . Many people assume others are biased, but believe they themselves are not – and imagine that others are more likely to share misinformation than they themselves are.
Media outlets have a range of biases. The Media Bias Chart describes which outlets are most and least partisan as well as how reliable they are at reporting facts .
You can play an online game called “ Fakey ” to see how susceptible you are to different ways news is presented online.
When consuming news, make sure you know how trustworthy the source is – or whether it’s not trustworthy at all . Double-check stories from other sources with low biases and high fact ratings to find out who – and what – you can actually trust, rather than just what your gut tells you .
Also, be aware that some disinformation agents make fake sites that look like real news sources – so make sure you’re conscious of which site you are actually visiting. Engaging in this level of thinking about your own thinking has been shown to improve your ability to tell fact from fiction.
When most people go online, especially on social media, they’re there for entertainment, connection or even distraction . Accuracy isn’t always high on the priority list. Yet few want to be a liar , and the costs of sharing misinformation can be high – to individuals, their relationships and society as a whole. Before you decide to share something, take a moment to remind yourself of the value you place on truth and accuracy .
Thinking “is what I am sharing true?” can help you stop the spread of misinformation and will encourage you to look beyond the headline and potentially fact-check before sharing.
Even if you don’t think specifically about accuracy, just taking a pause before sharing can give you a chance for your mind to catch up with your emotions. Ask yourself whether you really want to share it, and if so, why . Think about what the potential consequences of sharing it might be.
Research shows that most misinformation is shared quickly and without much thought . The impulse to share without thinking can even be more powerful than partisan sharing tendencies. Take your time. There is no hurry. You are not a breaking-news organization upon whom thousands depend for immediate information.
People often share things because of their gut reactions, rather than the conclusions of critical thinking. In a recent study , researchers found that people who viewed their social media feed while in an emotional mindset were significantly more likely to share misinformation than those who went in with a more rational state of mind.
Anger and anxiety , in particular, make people more vulnerable to falling for misinformation.
Stand up to misinformation publicly. It may feel uncomfortable to challenge your friends online, especially if you fear conflict. The person to whom you respond with a link to a Snopes post or other fact-checking site may not appreciate being called out.
But evidence shows that explicitly critiquing the specific reasoning in the post and providing counterevidence like a link about how it is fake is an effective technique .
Even short-format refutations – like “this isn’t true” – are more effective than saying nothing. Humor – though not ridicule of the person – can work, too. When actual people correct misinformation online , it can be as effective , if not more so , as when a social media company labels something as questionable.
People trust other humans more than algorithms and bots, especially those in our own social circles. That’s particularly true if you have expertise in the subject or are a close connection with the person who shared it.
An additional benefit is that public debunking notifies other viewers that they may want to look more closely before choosing to share it themselves. So even if you don’t discourage the original poster, you are discouraging others.
If you see someone else has posted that a story is false, don’t say “well, they beat me to it so I don’t need to.” When more people chime in on a post as being false, it signals that sharing misinformation is frowned upon by the group more generally .
Stand with those who stand up. If you don’t and something gets shared over and over, that reinforces people’s beliefs that it is OK to share misinformation – because everyone else is doing it, and only a few, if any, are objecting.
Allowing misinformation to spread also makes it more likely that even more people will start to believe it – because people come to believe things they hear repeatedly , even if they know at first they’re not true .
There is no perfect solution. Some misinformation is harder to counter than others , and some countering tactics are more effective at different times or for different people. But you can go a long way toward protecting yourself and those in your social networks from confusion, deception and falsehood.
This is an updated version of an article originally published March 18, 2021.
Welcome to Turnitin’s new website for guidance!
In 2024, we migrated our comprehensive library of guidance from https://help.turnitin.com to this site, guides.turnitin.com. During this process we have taken the opportunity to take a holistic look at our content and how we structure our guides.
This page is here to help you orientate yourself with these changes and update your resources
We have restructured the content to help you navigate it more efficiently.
We are consolidating numerous pages to make our individual guides more valuable as well as removing duplicated content.
For example, our Similarity Report guidance on help.turnitin is repeated in numerous places to cater for each individual integration and license type. On guides.turnitin this content will exist in a single place to allow for users of all integrations and licenses to find it easily. We have made slight modifications to these guides to help you understand which guides are pertinent to you and your institution.
Our guidance search has greatly improved
As a result of our content restructure, the search functionality for guides.turnitin has improved. Use the search bar at the top of any page to locate the guidance you’re searching for.
Dedicated student and administrator guidance hubs
Visit the Student hub area to locate student guidance. For students who access Turnitin via an LMS or VLE, check out the subsection Submitting to Turnitin .
Visiting the Administrator hub area to locate administrator guidance and release notes.
iThenticate and Crossref Similarity Check guidance is now located on a separate site
To improve the experience for our iThenticate and Crossref Similiarity Check customers we have move their help content onto a separate help site, guides.ithenticate.com . This will improve the search for all users.
We have also created an orientation page for this site to help users become acclimatised.
Some guidance is no longer grouped within the LMS umbrella
Some guidance which was previously provided under each LMS has been moved to sections that reflect those workflows’ outcomes. Use the table below as a cheatsheet to quickly locate guidance.
Student guidance | |
LMS guidance for administrators and instructors | |
Similarity Report and AI Writing guidance | |
Creating PeerMark assignments guidance | |
Creating and managing QuickMarks, rubrics and grading PeerMark assignments guidance | |
User profile guidance for administrators and instructors |
|
Administrator account settings and migration help | |
Release notes and known issues |
Violence stalks the president who has rejoiced in violence to others.
Listen to more stories on hark
When a madman hammered nearly to death the husband of then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump jeered and mocked . One of Trump’s sons and other close Trump supporters avidly promoted false claims that Paul Pelosi had somehow brought the onslaught upon himself through a sexual misadventure.
After authorities apprehended a right-wing-extremist plot to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump belittled the threat at a rally. He disparaged Whitmer as a political enemy. His supporters chanted “Lock her up.” Trump laughed and replied , “Lock them all up.”
Fascism feasts on violence. In the years since his own supporters attacked the Capitol to overturn the 2020 election—many of them threatening harm to Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence—Trump has championed the invaders, would-be kidnappers, and would-be murderers as martyrs and hostages. He has vowed to pardon them if returned to office. His own staffers have testified to the glee with which Trump watched the mayhem on television.
Now the bloodshed that Trump has done so much to incite against others has touched him as well. The attempted murder of Trump—and the killing of a person nearby—is a horror and an outrage. More will be learned about the man who committed this appalling act, and who was killed by the Secret Service. Whatever his mania or motive, the only important thing about him is the law-enforcement mistake that allowed him to bring a deadly weapon so close to a campaign event and gain a sight line of the presidential candidate. His name should otherwise be erased and forgotten.
It is sadly incorrect to say, as so many have, that political violence “has no place” in American society. Assassinations, lynchings, riots, and pogroms have stained every page of American political history. That has remained true to the present day. In 2016 , and even more in 2020, Trump supporters brought weapons to intimidate opponents and vote-counters. Trump and his supporters envision a new place for violence as their defining political message in the 2024 election. Fascist movements are secular religions. Like all religions, they offer martyrs as their proof of truth. The Mussolini movement in Italy built imposing monuments to its fallen comrades. The Trump movement now improves on that: The leader himself will be the martyr in chief, his own blood the basis for his bid for power and vengeance.
Christopher R. Browning: A new kind of fascism
The 2024 election was already shaping up as a symbolic contest between an elderly and weakening liberalism too frail and uncertain to protect itself and an authoritarian, reactionary movement ready to burst every barrier and trash every institution. To date, Trump has led only a minority of U.S. voters, but that minority’s passion and audacity have offset what it lacks in numbers. After the shooting, Trump and his backers hope to use the iconography of a bloody ear and face, raised fist, and call to “Fight!” to summon waverers to their cause of installing Trump as an anti-constitutional ruler, exempted from ordinary law by his allies on the Supreme Court.
Other societies have backslid to authoritarianism because of some extraordinary crisis: economic depression, hyperinflation, military defeat, civil strife. In 2024, U.S. troops are nowhere at war. The American economy is booming, providing spectacular and widely shared prosperity. A brief spasm of mild post-pandemic inflation has been overcome. Indicators of social health have abruptly turned positive since Trump left office after years of deterioration during his term. Crime and fatal drug overdoses are declining in 2024; marriages and births are rising. Even the country’s problems indirectly confirm the country’s success: Migrants are crossing the border in the hundreds of thousands, because they know, even if Americans don’t, that the U.S. job market is among the hottest on Earth.
Yet despite all of this success, Americans are considering a form of self-harm that in other countries has typically followed the darkest national failures: letting the author of a failed coup d’état return to office to try again.
One reason this self-harm is nearing consummation is that American society is poorly prepared to understand and respond to radical challenges, once those challenges gain a certain mass. For nearly a century, “radical” in U.S. politics has usually meant “fringe”: Communists, Ku Kluxers, Black Panthers, Branch Davidians, Islamist jihadists. Radicals could be marginalized by the weight of the great American consensus that stretches from social democrats to business conservatives. Sometimes, a Joe McCarthy or a George Wallace would throw a scare into that mighty consensus, but in the past such challengers rarely formed stable coalitions with accepted stakeholders in society. Never gaining an enduring grip on the institutions of state, they flared up and burned out.
Trump is different. His abuses have been ratified by powerful constituencies. He has conquered and colonized one of the two major parties. He has defeated—or is on the way to defeating—every impeachment and prosecution to hold him to account for his frauds and crimes. He has assembled a mass following that is larger, more permanent, and more national in reach than any previous American demagogue. He has dominated the scene for nine years already, and he and his supporters hope they can use yesterday’s appalling event to extend the Trump era to the end of his life and beyond.
The American political and social system cannot treat such a person as an alien. It inevitably accommodates and naturalizes him. His counselors, even the thugs and felons, join the point-counterpoint dialogue at the summit of the American elite. President Joe Biden nearly wrecked his campaign because he felt obliged to meet Trump in debate. How could Biden have done otherwise? Trump is the three-time nominee of the Republican Party; it’s awkward and strange to treat him as an insurrectionist against the American state—though that’s what Trump was and is.
David Frum: Biden’s heartbreaking press conference
The despicable shooting at Trump, which also caused death and injury to others, now secures his undeserved position as a partner in the protective rituals of the democracy he despises. The appropriate expressions of dismay and condemnation from every prominent voice in American life have the additional effect of habituating Americans to Trump’s legitimacy. In the face of such an outrage, the familiar and proper practice is to stress unity, to proclaim that Americans have more things in common than that divide them. Those soothing words, true in the past, are less true now.
Nobody seems to have language to say: We abhor, reject, repudiate, and punish all political violence, even as we maintain that Trump remains himself a promoter of such violence, a subverter of American institutions, and the very opposite of everything decent and patriotic in American life.
The Republican National Convention, which opens this week, will welcome to its stage apologists for Vladimir Putin’s Russia and its aggression against U.S. allies. Trump’s own infatuation with Russia and other dictatorships has not dimmed even slightly with age or experience. Yet all of these urgent and necessary truths must now be subordinated to the ritual invocation of “thoughts and prayers” for someone who never gave a thought or uttered a prayer for any of the victims of his own many incitements to bloodshed. The president who used his office to champion the rights of dangerous people to own military-type weapons says he was grazed by a bullet from one such assault rifle.
Conventional phrases and polite hypocrisy fill a useful function in social life. We say “Thank you for your service” both to the decorated hero and to the veteran who barely escaped dishonorable discharge. It’s easier than deciphering which was which. We wish “Happy New Year!” even when we dread the months ahead.
Adrienne LaFrance: Thoughts, prayers, and Facebook rants aren’t enough
But conventional phrases don’t go unheard. They carry meanings, meanings no less powerful for being rote and reflexive. In rightly denouncing violence, we are extending an implicit pardon to the most violent person in contemporary U.S. politics. In asserting unity, we are absolving a man who seeks power through the humiliation and subordination of disdained others.
Those conventional phrases are inscribing Trump into a place in American life that he should have forfeited beyond redemption on January 6, 2021. All decent people welcome the sparing of his life. Trump’s reckoning should be with the orderly process of law, not with the bloodshed he rejoiced in when it befell others. He and his allies will exploit a gunman’s vicious criminality as their path to exonerate past crimes and empower new ones. Those who stand against Trump and his allies must find the will and the language to explain why these crimes, past and planned, are all wrong, all intolerable—and how the gunman and Trump, at their opposite ends of a bullet’s trajectory, are nonetheless joined together as common enemies of law and democracy.
More Stories
The Harris Gamble
This Crew Is Totally Beatable
Advertisement
Supported by
David Brooks
By David Brooks
Opinion Columnist, reporting from Milwaukee
In 2016, MAGA was just a slogan — or at best a spasm of resentments and instincts about issues like immigration. Over the last eight years, think tankers, activists and politicians have developed MAGA into a worldview, a worldview that now transcends Donald Trump.
Across the Western world, right-wing parties have ceased to be parties of the business elites and have become working-class parties. MAGA is the worldview that accords with this shifting reality. It has its roots in Andrew Jackson-style populism, but it is updated and more comprehensive. It is the worldview that represents one version of working-class interests and offers working-class voters respect.
JD Vance is the embodiment and one of the developers of this worldview — with his suspicion of corporate power, foreign entanglements, free trade, cultural elites and high rates of immigration. In Milwaukee this week, with Vance as Trump’s pick for vice president, it became clear how thoroughly MAGA has replaced Reaganism as the chief operating system of the Republican Party.
If Democrats want to beat MAGA, it’s not enough to say: Orange man bad. Talking endlessly about Jan. 6 does no good. If Democrats hope to win in the near future they have to take the MAGA worldview seriously, and respectfully make the case, especially to working-class voters, for something better.
At its best, what is MAGA, anyway?
Well, in any society, there is a legitimate tension between security and dynamism. In a volatile world, MAGA offers people security. It promises secure borders and secure neighborhoods. It offers protection from globalization, from the creative destruction of modern capitalism. It offers protection from an educated class that looks down on you and indoctrinates your children in school. It offers you protection from corporate predators. As Senator Josh Hawley argued in Compact magazine this week, “The C-suite long ago sold out the United States, shuttering factories in the homeland and gutting American jobs.”
To those who rightly feel buffeted by vast and destabilizing forces, Trump emerges as a kind of Aaron Sorkin character: “You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.” He offers security so people can get on with their lives.
A Timeline of Lies, Chaos and Damage: This Is Trump’s Record as President
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
COMMENTS
Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest. 4. Write the introduction.
Structure of a Scientific Review Article. Writing a high-quality scientific review article is "a balancing act between the scientific rigor needed to select and critically appraise original studies, and the art of telling a story by providing context, exploring the known and the unknown, and pointing the way forward" . The ideal scientific ...
Article Review vs. Response Paper . Now, let's consider the difference between an article review and a response paper: If you're assigned to critique a scholarly article, you will need to compose an article review.; If your subject of analysis is a popular article, you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper.; The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of ...
2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification. 3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review's introduction, briefly ...
To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work-deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole. Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain ...
Published on: March 22, 2024. This guide aims to demystify the review paper format, presenting practical tips to help you accelerate the writing process. From understanding the structure to synthesising literature effectively, we'll explore how to create a compelling review article swiftly, ensuring your work is both impactful and timely.
Here is a basic, detailed outline for an article review you should be aware of as a pre-writing process if you are wondering how to write an article review. Introduction. Introduce the article that you are reviewing (author name, publication date, title, etc.) Now provide an overview of the article's main topic.
For an article review, your task is to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. You are being asked to make judgments, positive or negative, about the content of the article. The criteria you follow to do this will vary based upon your particular academic discipline and the parameters of your ...
The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic. It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the ...
In addition to writing up research papers, writing review articles is a useful skill to develop early on in your career as a scientist, whether pursuing an academic career path or not. In any field of science, it's important to read widely to keep up to date with the latest developments, and writing a review article encourages you to critically ...
Synthesize Information: Go beyond summarizing sources to draw new insights and perspectives. Write Clearly and Concisely: Ensure that your essay is well-structured, with clear transitions and a logical flow of ideas. Review and Refine: Revise your essay for clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy.
Step 4: Summarize the Article. In this part of how to write an article review process, you'll need to quickly go over the main points and arguments from the article. Make it short but must cover the most important elements and the evidence that backs them up. Leave your opinions and analysis out of it for now.
Step 4: Make an Introduction. In your introduction, provide a brief overview of the title's subject and purpose. Capture the reader's attention and clearly state your thesis or main point related to the title. For instance, you might start your article review template like this.
Writing a compelling review article is about more than picking an interesting topic and gathering the latest references. It's an opportunity to share your views on the most recent trends in the area, discuss which hypotheses seem best supported or which technologies seem most promising, and even chart a course for how the field could develop ...
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.
Review titles usually have two parts. The first part reveals the research topic. The second part (after the colon) specifies the type of review. Such a title helps readers to immediately identify the type of publication when searching. The number of sources in the review depends on how much you cover the topic.
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom. Here's how your outline might look: 1. Summary of the research and your overall impression. In your own words, summarize what the manuscript ...
Here are some key elements to consider when writing a review essay: 1. Introduction: Provide an overview of the topic and the importance of the review. 2. Summary of the Work: Summarize the main points, arguments, and key findings of the work being reviewed. 3. Analysis and Evaluation:
Writing a Literature Review. A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels ...
Analyze, Summarize, & Critique. The first way to be successful with any type of analytical writing is to ask questions. In the same way that you would ask questions of a person you're trying to ...
Even kids know to speak up when they see something wrong. Mireya Acierto/DigitalVision via Getty Images 7. If you see someone else stand up, stand with them
Similarity Report and AI Writing guidance: Academic integrity tools: Creating PeerMark assignments guidance: Class and assignment management: Creating and managing QuickMarks, rubrics and grading PeerMark assignments guidance: Grading and feedback: User profile guidance for administrators and instructors: User profile settings
Writing personal statements and other essays for medical school can be daunting, as applicants have a limited number of words to discuss their personal stories and how they'll use their ...
I've been called a witch, a "nasty woman" and much worse. Harris will face unique additional challenges. But we shouldn't be afraid.
When a madman hammered nearly to death the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump jeered and mocked. One of Trump's sons and other close Trump supporters avidly promoted ...
We'd have had Bartlet drop out of the race and endorse whoever had the best chance of beating the guy. The problem in the real world is that there isn't a Democrat who is polling significantly ...
That reeks of panic in the Biden campaign. I wish they would champion the abundance agenda that people like Derek Thompson and my colleague Ezra Klein have been writing about. We need to build things.