research paper review report

How to Structure a Review Report

How-to-structure-a-review-report.

Helen Eassom, Copywriter, Wiley

January 18, 2018

If you’re new to peer reviewing, deciding how to put together a review report can be tricky. We’ve put together the following tips and advice to help you get started. Remember, if you’ve been given a formal report format to follow, you should do so. A formal report format will often contain a variety of questions, followed by sections where you can enter your comments. Try to answer as many of these questions as you can.

But what if you haven’t received a formal report format to follow? You might want to consider structuring your report around three main sections: summary, major issues, and minor issues. Let’s look at each of these sections in a little more detail:

In this section, you should make a brief summary of what the paper is about and what the main findings are.

  • Begin with any positive feedback you have – if you start off on a positive note, authors will be more likely to read your review. However, if you are recommending that the paper be rejected, just be careful not to overwhelm the author with negative feedback.
  • Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge. What is the significance of the work? Is it novel, or does it confirm existing theories or findings?
  • Give an indication of the main strengths of the work, its quality, and how complete it is.
  • Outline any major flaws you come across and make a note of any special considerations. For example, have any previously held theories been overlooked?

Major Issues

In this section, you’ll need to state any major flaws you find in the work, and how severe their impact is upon the paper. Major flaws might include:

  • Similar work having been published already without any acknowledgment from the authors of the paper.
  • If the authors’ work presents findings that challenge current thinking, is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all of the work that contradicts their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
  • Any major presentational problems – any figures and tables, the language used, and the manuscript structure should all be clear enough for you to accurately assess the work.
  • Ethical issues – you might want to consider disclosing these in a confidential comments section if you are unsure.

If any major revisions are required to the paper, make sure you clearly outline what these are.

Minor Issues

Finally, you should state any other minor issues that you’ve come across when reviewing the paper. These might include:

  • Any instances where meaning is ambiguous. Could these be corrected?
  • Incorrect references – should other references be cited instead, or in addition? State if you think references are excessive, limited, or biased in any way.
  • Any factual, numerical or unit errors – indicate clearly what these are.
  • Incorrect, inappropriate or insufficient labelling of tables and figures.

Don’t forget the purpose of your report; your aim should ultimately be to help the authors improve their work. Be polite and clear throughout, and remember to be both constructive and objective.

For further tips on putting together a review report, or to find out more about peer review in general, take a look at our reviewer resources pages.

Do you have any further advice on structuring a review report? Let us know in the comments below!

Image credit: mrmohock/Shutterstock

research paper review report

How peer review makes you a better researcher – takeaways from a Wiley webinar

research paper review report

Introducing Wiley’s Better Peer Review Self-Assessment

research paper review report

Wiley's Better Peer Review Assessment: 5 Essential Standards

research paper review report

Integrity: An Essential Area for Better Peer Review

research paper review report

Finding new, robust and practical ways to add transparency to peer review: The Clinical Genetics story

research paper review report

Why We Launched Wiley's CME for Peer Reviewers Program

research paper review report

Recognition for Review: Wiley's Partnership with Publons, One Year Later

research paper review report

Over 1.5 Million Wiley Reviews on Publons! How Peer Reviewers are Getting Recognition

research paper review report

Celebrating 1 Million Wiley Reviews on Publons

research paper review report

6 Tips for Surviving Peer Review

Related articles.

Recently our colleagues hosted a webinar on how peer review makes you a better researcher.

Discover the Wiley Better Peer Review Self-Assessment - designed for you if you’re a member of a journal team as an editor, a managing editor or a publisher 

What is Better Peer Review?

The purpose of scientific and scholarly literature is the communication and curation of a definitive report of conducted research.

What does better peer review look like? We begin by considering the whole peer review publishing process, not just the act of peer review itself.

Reiner Veitia, editor-in-chief of the journal Clinical Genetics, Publons, and ScholarOne – introduces a new, more robust and automated option for researchers to choose transparent peer review

An overview of Wiley's Continuing Medical Education for Reviewers program.

Following the expansion of Wiley's partnership with Publons, we look back on some of the milestones achieved, along with a few testimonials from Publons users.

Learn about how reviewers for Wiley journals are getting recognition for their peer reviews

Wiley is excited to share that over 1,000,000 review records from Wiley journals have been added on Publons.

This infographic neatly summarizes the peer review process, the types of decision and reasons for rejection, as well as six top tips for surviving peer review!

research paper review report

Watch our Webinar on Trust in Peer Review

Watch our webinar hosted by Wiley and Sense about Science - Trust in Peer Review: What It Means and Why it Matters.

research paper review report

Transparent Review at the European Journal of Neuroscience: Experiences One Year on

Paul Bolam and John Foxe, Editors of the European Journal of Neuroscience, reflect on the decision to institute a transparent peer review system for the journal.

FOR INDIVIDUALS

FOR INSTITUTIONS & BUSINESSES

WILEY NETWORK

ABOUT WILEY

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Governance

Leadership Team

Cookie Preferences

Copyright @ 2000-2024  by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., or related companies. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.

Rights & Permissions

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

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.

  • PLOS Biology
  • PLOS Climate
  • PLOS Complex Systems
  • PLOS Computational Biology
  • PLOS Digital Health
  • PLOS Genetics
  • PLOS Global Public Health
  • PLOS Medicine
  • PLOS Mental Health
  • PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
  • PLOS Pathogens
  • PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
  • PLOS Collections

How to Write a Peer Review

research paper review report

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.

Review Outline

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.

research paper review report

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

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.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

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.

Major vs. minor issues

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:

  • Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
  • Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
  • Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
  • Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

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

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.

General guidelines for effective feedback

research paper review report

  • Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
  • Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
  • Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
  • Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
  • Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

research paper review report

Don’t

  • Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.
  • Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you don’t need to do their work for them.
  • Use the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
  • Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
  • Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

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.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

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…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

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.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

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!

  • Getting started as a reviewer
  • Responding to an invitation
  • Reading a manuscript
  • Writing a peer review

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…

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Reviewing with Empathy

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

  • What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
  • How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
  • Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
  • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
  • If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
  • If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

  • Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
  • The use of a discredited method
  • Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

  • The sampling in analytical papers
  • The sufficient use of control experiments
  • The precision of process data
  • The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
  • The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
  • That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

  • Insufficient data
  • Unclear data tables
  • Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
  • Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

  • Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
  • Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
  • Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

  • Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
  • Are the methods used appropriate?
  • Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

  • Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
  • Try to group similar concerns or praise together
  • If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
  • Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

  • Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
  • Any factual errors
  • Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

  • Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
  • Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
  • Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
  • Is the paper an appropriate length?
  • Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

  • Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
  • Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
  • Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

  • Sets out the argument
  • Summarizes recent research related to the topic
  • Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
  • Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
  • Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

  • Control experiments
  • Repeated analyses
  • Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

  • Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
  • The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
  • Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

  • They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
  • They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
  • Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
  • The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

  • The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
  • The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
  • There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

  • Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
  • Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
  • If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
  • References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

  • Helpful to the reader
  • Fair to competing authors
  • Not over-reliant on self-citation
  • Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

  • Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
  • Highlight important findings sufficiently?
  • Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

  • Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
  • Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
  • Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
  • Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
  • Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
  • State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

  • Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
  • Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
  • Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
  • If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
  • Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
  • Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

  • Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
  • Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
  • Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
  • Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

  • Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
  • Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
  • Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
  • If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
  • Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

  • Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
  • Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
  • Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

  • SpringerLink shop

Writing a reviewer report

Whether you recommend accepting or rejecting the manuscript, keep in mind that one of your goals is to help the authors improve this and future manuscripts—not to make them give up in despair. Avoid overly negative wording or personal comments, point out the main strengths of the manuscript as well as its weaknesses, and suggest specific ways to fix the problems you identify. Also, avoid making overly brief and direct comments, as these can give your report an unfriendly tone. Reviewers for most journals are anonymous, so if anonymity is important to you, avoid comments that could make your identity obvious to the authors.

If the editor sent specific instructions for the reviewer report, or a form to fill out as part of the review, you should write your report in the requested format. If you received no specific instructions, the reviewer report should be divided into two parts:

  • comments to be read only by the editor, and
  • comments to be read by both the editor and the authors.

Comments for only the editor:

In this section, give the editor your recommendation for the manuscript and, more importantly, your reasons behind it. These usually have to do with the manuscript’s scientific soundness, novelty, quality, importance, and suitability for the journal. Editors take many factors into consideration when deciding whether a paper is right for their journal so providing evidence or reasoning for your recommendation is extremely helpful.

TIP: Recommendations are usually one of the following: accept manuscript in its current form, publish with minor changes, publish only if major improvements are made, or to reject the paper.

Comments for both the editor and authors:

In this section, write a detailed report reviewing the different parts of the manuscript. Start with the short summary of the manuscript you wrote after your first reading. Then, in a numbered list, explain each of the issues you found that need to be addressed. Divide the list into two sections: major issues and minor issues. First, write about the major issues, including problems with the study’s method or analysis. Next, write about the minor issues, which might include tables or figures that are difficult to read, parts that need more explanation, and suggestions to delete unnecessary text. If you think the English language of the manuscript is not suitable for publication, try to give specific examples so that the authors know what and how to address the problems. Be as specific as you can about the manuscript’s weaknesses and how to address them. If the manuscript has line numbers, include the page and line number(s) specific to the part of the study you are discussing. This will help both the authors and the editor, who may later need to judge if the authors have fixed the problems in their revised manuscript. For example, instead of, “ The explanation of the proposed mechanism is not clear. ” You might write,  “The explanation of the proposed mechanism should be more detailed. Consider referring to the work of Li and Smith, et al. (2008) and Stein and Burdak, et al. (2010). ”

Keep in mind that the authors – and even the editor – may not be native English speakers. Read over your comments after you finish writing them to check that you’ve used clear, simple wording, and that the reasons for your proposed changes are clear.

Back  │  Next

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

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • CAREER FEATURE
  • 04 December 2020
  • Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

research paper review report

  • Research management

How to network with the brightest minds in science

How to network with the brightest minds in science

Career Feature 26 JUN 24

What it means to be a successful male academic

What it means to be a successful male academic

Career Column 26 JUN 24

Is science’s dominant funding model broken?

Is science’s dominant funding model broken?

Editorial 26 JUN 24

How I’m using AI tools to help universities maximize research impacts

How I’m using AI tools to help universities maximize research impacts

World View 26 JUN 24

The strategy behind one of the most successful labs in the world

The strategy behind one of the most successful labs in the world

Comment 26 JUN 24

‘It can feel like there’s no way out’ — political scientists face pushback on their work

‘It can feel like there’s no way out’ — political scientists face pushback on their work

News Feature 19 JUN 24

How climate change is hitting Europe: three graphics reveal health impacts

How climate change is hitting Europe: three graphics reveal health impacts

News 18 JUN 24

Twelve scientist-endorsed tips to get over writer’s block

Twelve scientist-endorsed tips to get over writer’s block

Career Feature 13 JUN 24

PostDoc Researcher, Magnetic Recording Materials Group, National Institute for Materials Science

Starting date would be after January 2025, but it is negotiable.

Tsukuba, Japan (JP)

National Institute for Materials Science

research paper review report

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions in the fields of energy and resources.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

School of Sustainable Energy and Resources at Nanjing University

research paper review report

Postdoctoral Associate- Statistical Genetics

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

research paper review report

Senior Research Associate (Single Cell/Transcriptomics Senior Bioinformatician)

Metabolic Research Laboratories at the Clinical School, University of Cambridge are recruiting 3 senior bioinformatician specialists to create a dynam

Cambridge, Cambridgeshire (GB)

University of Cambridge

research paper review report

Cancer Biology Postdoctoral Fellow

Tampa, Florida

Moffitt Cancer Center

research paper review report

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

Quick links

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

logo

  • Conferences
  • Editorial Process
  • Recent Advances
  • Sustainability
  • Academic Resources

Jack Nash

How to Write the Perfect Peer Review Report: An Interview

The peer review report is crucial to the academic publishing process. Providing feedback to authors and confirming the validity and significance of the research in question are important not just for the author, but for the whole academic community. However, there is no definitive way to structure and write these reports. While there are report writing guidelines on the  MDPI website , each individual reviewer may choose to focus more on different aspects of the manuscripts than others, leading to differing reports—which can be very useful in helping authors to improve their manuscripts. In this peer review report interview, we provide with everything you need to know.

Why Should You Peer Review for MDPI?

At MDPI, we like to recognise reviewers who go above and beyond in providing high-quality, constructive peer review reports, by considering them for Outstanding Reviewer Awards for each journal. These annual awards provide winners with a cash prize, certificate and a 50% discount to all submissions in the award’s journal for the entire year.

Peer review report interview

We spoke to two of the winners of  Forests ’ 2021 Outstanding Reviewer Award , Prof. Dr. Stelian Alexandru Borz, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania, and Dr. Maricar Aguilos, North Carolina State University, NC, USA, about what makes a good peer review report.

What is the first thing you look for when starting to write a peer review report?

S.A.B: [I read] the paper carefully first, then I give it some time (usually 1–2 days) and try to think about its usefulness/imagine how I would approach the same problem.

M.A.: I will look at the title first and see if it is captivating/exciting. I can already imagine what I would expect from the content from the title itself. I hide the authors’ affiliations as much as possible because I don’t want my judgment to be clouded. This is to avoid biases in my reviews. Then I look for the research questions, objectives, expected output, and novelties. Then I would see if these have been achieved or addressed in the results and discussion.

How do you structure your peer review reports?

S.A.B.: Most commonly by following the same sections used by the authors, where I am reading each section carefully, then I think about the potential connections between the information from different sections; then I am emphasizing the point-by-point comments and balance the pros and cons of each section in a general comment per section. Based on these, I build my overall comment on the paper and I try to evaluate its usefulness.

M.A.: I write down my major or minor comments as I read through (Abstract to Conclusion) so that I won’t be going back and forth. I usually use a table with two columns (one for line/s number/s references and a second for the comments). I put my general comments after on the main concerns/flaws/drawbacks that the authors must address. Sometimes, if I have enough time when I review a paper, I prepare a sample figure for authors to follow, and even write R codes for them to use if in the methods they use R statistical tool.

Why do you participate in MDPI’s peer review process?

S.A.B: It helps me keep in touch with the latest research in an efficient way and it also acknowledges my work with vouchers and recognition. By reading and reviewing a lot for MDPI, I have found myself at the forefront of new ideas for my own research on many occasions.

M.A.: As a researcher, I feel my jury duty is to serve the scientific community to advance science, especially in my field. I think I am part of a collective effort, and if I just sit down and do my science, I am not contributing enough. I have to serve my fellow researchers. Participation in the review process is one of these callings. Although I am not a native English speaker, it does not stop me from reviewing manuscripts. I have enough background knowledge to help the authors improve their work. Like many authors, I can feel their anxiety after submitting the paper. That is why I always make sure that I promptly send my reviews.

What is the most common error you see in manuscripts when you review them?

S.A.B.: Depends on the case. A common mistake I found is that many authors place information in irrelevant sections. For example, information that should belong to the Materials and Methods section can be found in Results. Another typical mistake (depends also on the case) is that many fail to write a proper abstract.

M.A.: Grammatical errors and spelling are the most common mistakes. In some instances, since authors usually know their studies and data very well, they sometimes fail to relay their story in a manner that is understandable to readers unfamiliar with what they are doing. For example, they forget to clearly describe how they did the experiment/measurements, thinking everybody already knows what they are doing.

In tables, authors usually make minor mistakes such as with units; in the graphs, often there are errors in measurement units. In figures, sometimes the legend and x-and-y axes labels are too small, or the figure or table is often very complicated to understand.

How important are features outside of the main text (such as References, Back Matter and Abstract) to your peer review reports?

S.A.B.: Very important. I usually check the references of my reviews, at least those to which I have access, or I am not aware of. Similar to any other reader, the first impression that a manuscript gives is through its abstract. It really needs to be convincing.

M.A.: If I am doubtful, or especially if the author being cited is famous enough that I know the manuscript that I am reviewing may have viewed the notions differently, I check these cited papers outright. So, the Reference section matters to me. Although I do not check one by one, I only open references that I need to check to shed light on any doubts. The References section also helps me assess the quality of their referred statements and the reliability/credibility of their discussions. High-impact papers matter most, rather than those that were only obtained from unverified online resources or non-peer-reviewed materials.

The Importance of Constructive Feedback

Above everything, a peer review report needs to be constructive and highlight the strengths as well as areas for improvement. Surface-level criticisms such as spelling or grammar mistakes may seem useful, however the specific technical feedback is of greater value. Anyone can spot a spelling mistake, but only a scientist would see a mistake in methodology. We need you – Academics, to help maintain research integrity in the literature published in MDPI journals. Find out how to get involved with the peer review process on the following website (https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers).

For other information about writing peer review reports and to learn more about Peer Review Week , we encourage you to follow along with us as we learn more about all things peer review.

This peer review report interview was originally published February 22, 2022.

Related posts

What is academic editing

Editorial Process , Open Science , Academic Resources

What Are The Benefits of Academic Editing?

research paper review report

Academic Resources , Open Access , Open Science

Open Access in South Korea

research paper review report

Academic Resources , Journals , Open Science

Why Journal Metrics are Important and How to Use Them

Guide to word classes

Academic Resources , English Resources , Open Science

Author Services Guide To Word Classes

research paper review report

Rising Importance of Preprints for Open Access Funders

research paper review report

All You Need to Know About Open Access

research paper review report

Open Access in France

Importance of figures in academia

Why Figures Are Important In Academic Research

Author Services Guide To Prepositions

Author Services Guide To Prepositions

research paper review report

Open Access in India

' src=

This is really beneficial and handy. I’m a young researcher who is just getting started with peer review.

' src=

I have learned so many thjngs from this masterpiece. Thanks to the author.

' src=

Thanks for reading, Rameez!

' src=

Am interested to be peer reviewer and an author

Thanks for your comment and interest.

' src=

Good learning experiences me as a novice

Hi Michael, glad you found it useful.

' src=

This is very useful and helpful. As a young researcher, I am just beginning to engage in the peer review process. Indeed, l have learned alot from this. I look forward to reviewing for MDPI journals.

Hi Abdurrahman. Glad you found it useful. Thanks for reading the MDPI Blog!

Add comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Privacy Preference Center

Privacy preferences.

From sharing the latest MDPI blog news, to showcasing our most popular articles, the newsletters will keep you in the loop with everything good going on in the science world.

What is a review article?

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.

Why write a review article?

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.

Did you know? 

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.

How to write a review article

Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.

Check the journal’s aims and scope

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 your scope

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.” 

Finding sources to evaluate

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 . 

Writing your title, abstract and keywords

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 . 

Introduce the topic

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.

Include critical discussion

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.

What researchers say

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.

Use a critical friend

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.

What is the difference between a research article and a review article?

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

Before you submit your review article…

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?

research paper review report

Expert help for your manuscript

research paper review report

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.

Related resources

How to edit your paper

Writing a scientific literature review

research paper review report

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

  • How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

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:

  • Search for relevant literature
  • Evaluate sources
  • Identify themes, debates, and gaps
  • Outline the structure
  • Write your 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.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

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.

  • Quick Run-through
  • Step 1 & 2

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:

  • Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
  • Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
  • Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
  • Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
  • Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

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.

Literature review guide

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

research paper review report

Try for free

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.

  • Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
  • Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
  • Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
  • Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

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 .

Make a list of keywords

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.

  • Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
  • Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
  • Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

  • Your university’s library catalogue
  • Google Scholar
  • Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
  • Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
  • EconLit (economics)
  • Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

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:

  • What question or problem is the author addressing?
  • What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
  • What are the key theories, models, and methods?
  • Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
  • What are the results and conclusions of the study?
  • How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

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.

Take notes and cite your sources

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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:

  • Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
  • Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
  • Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
  • Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
  • Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

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.

  • Most research has focused on young women.
  • There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
  • But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

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).

Chronological

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.

Methodological

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:

  • Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
  • Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
  • Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

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:

  • Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
  • Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
  • Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
  • Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

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.

  • Sampling methods
  • Simple random sampling
  • Stratified sampling
  • Cluster sampling
  • Likert scales
  • Reproducibility

 Statistics

  • Null hypothesis
  • Statistical power
  • Probability distribution
  • Effect size
  • Poisson distribution

Research bias

  • Optimism bias
  • Cognitive bias
  • Implicit bias
  • Hawthorne effect
  • Anchoring bias
  • Explicit 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:

  • To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
  • To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
  • To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
  • To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
  • To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

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 .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved June 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

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

Academia Insider

Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast

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.

Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a budding scholar, these insights will streamline your writing journey.

Research Paper, Review Paper Format

PartsNotes
Title & AbstractSets the stage with a concise title and a descriptive abstract summarising the review’s scope and findings.
IntroductionLays the groundwork by presenting the research question, justifying the review’s importance, and highlighting knowledge gaps.
MethodologyDetails the research methods used to select, assess, and synthesise studies, showcasing the review’s rigor and integrity.
BodyThe core section where literature is summarised, analysed, and critiqued, synthesising evidence and presenting arguments with well-structured paragraphs.
Discussion & ConclusionWeaves together main points, reflects on the findings’ implications for the field, and suggests future research directions.
CitationAcknowledges the scholarly community’s contributions, linking to cited research and enriching the review’s academic discourse.

What Is A Review Paper?

Diving into the realm of scholarly communication, you might have stumbled upon a research review article.

This unique genre serves to synthesise existing data, offering a panoramic view of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic. 

research paper review report

Unlike a standard research article that presents original experiments, a review paper delves into published literature, aiming to: 

  • clarify, and
  • evaluate previous findings.

Imagine you’re tasked to write a review article. The starting point is often a burning research question. Your mission? To scour various journals, piecing together a well-structured narrative that not only summarises key findings but also identifies gaps in existing literature.

This is where the magic of review writing shines – it’s about creating a roadmap for future research, highlighting areas ripe for exploration.

Review articles come in different flavours, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses being the gold standards. The methodology here is meticulous, with a clear protocol for selecting and evaluating studies.

This rigorous approach ensures that your review is more than just an overview; it’s a critical analysis that adds depth to the understanding of the subject.

Crafting a good review requires mastering the art of citation. Every claim or observation you make needs to be backed by relevant literature. This not only lends credibility to your work but also provides a treasure trove of information for readers eager to delve deeper.

Types Of Review Paper

Not all review articles are created equal. Each type has its methodology, purpose, and format, catering to different research needs and questions.

Systematic Review Paper

First up is the systematic review, the crème de la crème of review types. It’s known for its rigorous methodology, involving a detailed plan for:

  • identifying,
  • selecting, and
  • critically appraising relevant research. 

The aim? To answer a specific research question. Systematic reviews often include meta-analyses, where data from multiple studies are statistically combined to provide more robust conclusions. This review type is a cornerstone in evidence-based fields like healthcare.

Literature Review Paper

Then there’s the literature review, a broader type you might encounter.

Here, the goal is to give an overview of the main points and debates on a topic, without the stringent methodological framework of a systematic review.

Literature reviews are great for getting a grasp of the field and identifying where future research might head. Often reading literature review papers can help you to learn about a topic rather quickly.

review paper format

Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviews allow for a more flexible approach. Authors of narrative reviews draw on existing literature to provide insights or critique a certain area of research.

This is generally done with a less formal structure than systematic reviews. This type is particularly useful for areas where it’s difficult to quantify findings across studies.

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are gaining traction for their ability to map out the existing literature on a broad topic, identifying:

  • key concepts,
  • theories, and
Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews have a more exploratory approach, which can be particularly useful in emerging fields or for topics that haven’t been comprehensively reviewed before.

Each type of review serves a unique purpose and requires a specific skill set. Whether you’re looking to summarise existing findings, synthesise data for evidence-based practice, or explore new research territories, there’s a review type that fits the bill. 

Knowing how to write, read, and interpret these reviews can significantly enhance your understanding of any research area.

What Are The Parts In A Review Paper

A review paper has a pretty set structure, with minor changes here and there to suit the topic covered. The format not only organises your thoughts but also guides your readers through the complexities of your topic.

Title & Abstract

Starting with the title and abstract, you set the stage. The title should be a concise indicator of the content, making it easier for others to quickly tell what your article content is about.

As for the abstract, it should act as a descriptive summary, offering a snapshot of your review’s scope and findings. 

Introduction

The introduction lays the groundwork, presenting the research question that drives your review. It’s here you:

  • justify the importance of your review,
  • delineating the current state of knowledge and
  • highlighting gaps.

This section aims to articulate the significance of the topic and your objective in exploring it.

Methodology

The methodology section is the backbone of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, detailing the research methods employed to select, assess, and synthesise studies. 

review paper format

This transparency allows readers to gauge the rigour and reproducibility of your review. It’s a testament to the integrity of your work, showing how you’ve minimised bias.

The heart of your review lies in the body, where you:

  • analyse, and
  • critique existing literature.

This is where you synthesise evidence, draw connections, and present both sides of any argument. Well-structured paragraphs and clear subheadings guide readers through your analysis, offering insights and fostering a deeper understanding of the subject.

Discussion & Conclusion

The discussion or conclusion section is where you weave together the main points, reflecting on what your findings mean for the field.

It’s about connecting the dots, offering a synthesis of evidence that answers your initial research question. This part often hints at future research directions, suggesting areas that need further exploration due to gaps in existing knowledge.

Lastly, the citation list is your nod to the scholarly community, acknowledging the contributions of others. Each citation is a thread in the larger tapestry of academic discourse, enabling readers to delve deeper into the research that has shaped your review.

Tips To Write An Review Article Fast

Writing a review article quickly without sacrificing quality might seem like a tall order, but with the right approach, it’s entirely achievable. 

Clearly Define Your Research Question

Clearly define your research question. A focused question not only narrows down the scope of your literature search but also keeps your review concise and on track.

By honing in on a specific aspect of a broader topic, you can avoid the common pitfall of becoming overwhelmed by the vast expanse of available literature. This specificity allows you to zero in on the most relevant studies, making your review more impactful.

Efficient Literature Searching

Utilise databases specific to your field and employ advanced search techniques like Boolean operators. This can drastically reduce the time you spend sifting through irrelevant articles.

Additionally, leveraging citation chains—looking at who has cited a pivotal paper in your area and who it cites—can uncover valuable sources you might otherwise miss.

Organise Your Findings Systematically

Developing a robust organisation strategy is key. As you gather sources, categorize them based on themes or methodologies. This not only aids in structuring your review but also in identifying areas where research is lacking or abundant.

Tools like citation management software can be invaluable here, helping you keep track of your sources and their key points. We list out some of the best AI tools for academic research here. 

research paper review report

Build An Outline Before Writing

Don’t underestimate the power of a well-structured outline. A clear blueprint of your article can guide your writing process, ensuring that each section flows logically into the next.

This roadmap not only speeds up the writing process by providing a clear direction but also helps maintain coherence, ensuring your review article delivers a compelling narrative that advances understanding in your field.

Start Writing With The Easiest Sections

When it’s time to write, start with sections you find easiest. This might be the methodology or a particular thematic section where you feel most confident.

Getting words on the page can build momentum, making it easier to tackle more challenging sections later.

Remember, your first draft doesn’t have to be perfect; the goal is to start articulating your synthesis of the literature.

Learn How To Write An Article Review

Mastering the review paper format is a crucial step towards efficient academic writing. By adhering to the structured components outlined, you can streamline the creation of a compelling review article.

Embracing these guidelines not only speeds up the writing process but also enhances the clarity and impact of your work, ensuring your contributions to scholarly discourse are both valuable and timely.

research paper review report

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

research paper review report

2024 © Academia Insider

research paper review report

How to write a review report

Below you will find our 10-step guide with links and resources on how to write reviews for journals. Some elements may be applicable to other review activities (i.e., preprints, conferences, grants) and you are welcome to adapt them. At the end of the page we also provided links to external guides on the same topic.

research paper review report

  • Check the reviewer guidelines
  • Read the paper
  • Check data and declarations
  • Check reporting adherence
  • Develop your comments
  • Specify major vs minor comments
  • Support your statements
  • Add any confidential comments
  • Respect transparency
  • Finalise the report

EASE 10-step guide

1.   check the reviewer guidelines.

Check the journal’s reviewer guidelines which will outline what reviewing for this journal entails and the journal’s peer review model (e.g. closed or open review). If you have any questions or uncertainties about the journal’s review approach, communicate with the editor before you start. In particular, make sure to check whether the journal allows you to use generative AI or other automated tools to assist in preparing your review report and/or whether the journal allows you to  and co-review it with a colleague.

Several examples of reviewer guidelines can be found here:

  • GIE Journal’ ‘How to review’ A light read, from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, covering the basic dos and don’ts of peer review with 13 rules offering some sound advice.
  • PLOS One – Guidelines for Reviewers This comprehensive guide provides best practices for reviewers, including specifics of reviewing registered reports, lab and study protocols.

2.   Read the paper

Read the paper in full and make comments; it sometimes helps to read the paper first and comment on a second read. Focus on important study aspects the journal requests your input on, or consider the following:

  • Any serious flaws to the hypothesis, methods, results or conclusions?
  • Are the sample size and the statistical methods applied appropriate?
  • Does the data support the conclusions?
  • Does the reporting allow you to fully understand the research?
  • Are there any concerns related to research integrity?

3.   Check data and declarations

Check information about the authors and the study provided with the paper e.g. competing interests, author contributions, ethical approval. Is sufficient data provided or accessible to enable a full review of the study? If applicable, is a protocol for the study available?

4.   Check reporting adherence

Check the reporting: where relevant, does the information provided allow the work to be reproduced and replicated? Do the aims and analyses match the pre-specified study protocol (if applicable)? Are any limitations discussed?

Reporting guidelines for specific study types can help assess if the paper reports the necessary information, you can find a wide range of reporting guidelines for different study types at the EQUATOR network . A couple of widely adopted reporting guidelines are CONSORT for clinical trials and PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

5.   Develop your comments

You can develop free-text comments, or use a structured format following manuscript sections – Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion. Some journals will ask you to follow specific templates.

Ensure the comments are clear, concise and constructive, and remember to be kind to the authors when providing your feedback.

6.   Specify major vs minor comments

Specify whether issues raised are:

Major: items fundamental to the study that must be addressed and might need re-review

Minor: improvements or clarifications that do not affect the overall conclusions.

7.   Support your statements

Be specific so that the requests are clear for the authors; justify any recommendations or critiques with evidence and examples.

8.   Add any confidential comments

Many journals will have a section in their review form for confidential comments to the editor, that is, comments to raise with the editor but which will not be included in the review shared with the author. Consider whether you have any comments you’d like to share only with the editor, items in this section may include ethical concerns about the study or competing interests to declare as a reviewer.

9. Respect transparency

Some journals publish the reviews with accepted articles. If the journal does not publish reviews but you’d like to share your review publicly, you can request their permission to post it as a comment on the article (or the preprint, if applicable) or via a third-party platform such as Publons, Zenodo or ScienceOpen.

If the review provides an option to sign your review, consider whether you would like to sign your report; note that some journals operate peer review models that require reviewers to sign their reviews (e.g. the BMJ).

10.   Finalise the report

Re-read the report to check for clarity, and to ensure the tone is professional and respectful. If requested by the journal, provide your recommendation on publication (e.g. accept, revision, reject). Once ready, submit your review.

Additional guides on how to write review reports can be found here:

Detailed journal guides:

  • Participating in the Peer Review Process

Publisher guides:

  • How to conduct a review by Elsevier
  • How to write a peer review by Clarivate
  •  Dr Esther Freeman: How to become a peer reviewer

Examples of (structured peer review) templates can be found here:

  • Peer review report template by Authorea
  • Excellence in Peer Review checklist by Taylor and Francis
  • Peer Review templates by CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology journal
  • PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
  • EDIT Edit this Article
  • EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
  • Browse Articles
  • Learn Something New
  • Quizzes Hot
  • This Or That Game
  • Train Your Brain
  • Explore More
  • Support wikiHow
  • About wikiHow
  • Log in / Sign up
  • Education and Communications
  • Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,118,680 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

  • Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
  • Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
  • Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

Step 1 Understand what an article review is.

  • Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
  • An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
  • An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

Step 2 Think about the organization of the review article.

  • Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
  • Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
  • Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

Step 3 Preview the article.

  • Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
  • Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

Step 4 Read the article closely.

  • Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

Step 5 Put the article into your words.

  • With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
  • After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
  • Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

Step 6 Write an outline of your evaluation.

  • What does the article set out to do?
  • What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
  • Are the central concepts clearly defined?
  • How adequate is the evidence?
  • How does the article fit into the literature and field?
  • Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
  • How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

Step 1 Come up with...

  • For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

Step 3 Identify the article.

  • For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

Step 4 Write the introduction.

  • Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
  • End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

Step 5 Summarize the article.

  • Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
  • Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

Step 6 Write your critique.

  • Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
  • The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
  • Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
  • Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

Step 7 Conclude the article review.

  • This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
  • For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

Step 8 Proofread.

  • Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

research paper review report

You Might Also Like

Write Articles

  • ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
  • ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
  • ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
  • ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
  • ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
  • ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
  • ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
  • ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
  • ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
  • ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
  • ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

Jake Adams

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

  • Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

research paper review report

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

F. K.

Nov 27, 2018

Am I Smart Quiz

Featured Articles

How to Make Water Taste Better

Trending Articles

How to Plan and Launch a Fireworks Show

Watch Articles

Make Stamped Metal Jewelry

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Info
  • Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

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

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

  • Publications
  • Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • PLoS Comput Biol
  • v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Logo of ploscomp

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

  • interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
  • an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
  • a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

  • keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
  • keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
  • use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
  • define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
  • do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1003149.g001.jpg

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

  • discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
  • trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
  • incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

  • be thorough,
  • use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
  • look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

  • the major achievements in the reviewed field,
  • the main areas of debate, and
  • the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is the difference between research papers and review papers?

What is the Difference Between Research Papers and Review Papers?

Researchers often have to write different types of articles, from review papers to review papers and more, each with its own purpose and structure. This makes it critical for students and researchers to understand the nuances of good writing and develop the skills required to write various kinds of academic text. With so many different types of academic writing to pursue – scholarly articles, commentaries, book reviews, case reports, clinical study reports – it is common for students and early career researchers to get confused. So in this article, we will explain what is a review paper and what is a research paper, while summarizing the similarities and difference between review papers and research papers.

Table of Contents

What is a Review Paper ?

A review paper offers an overview of previously published work and does not contain any new research findings. It evaluates and summarizes information or knowledge that is already available in various published formats like journals, books, or other publications, all of which is referred to as secondary literature. Well-written review papers play a crucial role in helping students and researchers understand existing knowledge in a specific field or a research topic they are interested in. By providing a comprehensive overview of previous studies, methodologies, findings, and trends, they help researchers identify gaps in a specific field of study opening up new avenues for future research.

What is a Research Paper ?

A research paper is based on original research and primary sources of data. Unlike review papers, researchers writing research papers need to report new findings derived from empirical research or experimentation. It requires the author to draw inferences or make assumptions based on experiments, surveys, interviews, or questionnaires employed to collect and analyze data. Research papers also typically follow the recommended IMRAD format, which includes an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Through research papers, authors address a specific research question or hypothesis with the aim of contributing novel insights to the field.

Similarities between research papers and review papers

Research papers and review papers share several similarities, which makes it understandable that it is this pair of academic documents that are often most confused.

  • Research papers and review papers are written by scholars and intended for an academic audience; they’re written with the aim of contributing to the existing body of knowledge in a particular field and can be published in peer reviewed journals.
  • Both research papers and review papers require a comprehensive understanding of all the latest, relevant literature on a specific topic. This means authors must conduct a thorough review of existing studies, theories, and methodologies in their own subject and related areas to inform their own research or analysis.
  • Research papers and review papers both adhere to specific formatting and citation styles dictated by the target journal. This ensures consistency and allows readers to easily locate and reference the sources cited in the papers.

These similarities highlight the rigorous, scholarly nature of both research papers and review papers, which requires both research integrity and a commitment to further knowledge in a field. However, these two types of academic writing are more different than one would think.

Differences between research papers and review papers

Though often used interchangeably to refer to academic content, research papers and review papers are quite different. They have different purposes, specific structure and writing styles, and citation formats given that they aim to communicate different kinds of information. Here are four key differences between research papers and review papers:

  • Purpose: Review papers evaluate existing research, identify trends, and discuss the current state of knowledge on a specific topic; they are based on the study of previously published literature. On the other hand, research paperscontain original research work undertaken by the author, who is required to contribute new knowledge to the research field.
  • Structure: Research papers typically follow a structured format, including key sections like the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Meanwhile, review papers may have a more flexible structure, allowing authors to organize the content based on thematic or chronological approaches. However, they generally include an introduction, main body discussing various aspects of the topic, and a conclusion.
  • Methodology: Research papers involve the collection of data, experimentation, or analysis of existing data to answer specific research questions. However, review papers do not involve original data collection; instead, they extensively analyze and summarize existing studies, often using systematic literature review methods.
  • Citation style: Research papers rely on primary sources to support and justify their own findings, emphasizing recent and relevant research. Review papers incorporate a wide range of primary and secondary sources to present a comprehensive overview of the topic and support the evaluation and synthesis of existing literature.

In summary, it’s important to understand the key differences between research papers and review papers. By mastering the art of writing both research papers and review papers, students and researchers can make more meaningful contributions to their chosen disciplines. All the best!

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

Simple random sampling

Simple Random Sampling: Definition, Methods, and Examples

case study in research

What is a Case Study in Research? Definition, Methods, and Examples

Communicative Sciences and Disorders

  • Online Learners: Quick Links
  • ASHA Journals
  • Research Tip 1: Define the Research Question
  • Reference Resources
  • Evidence Summaries & Clinical Guidelines
  • Drug Information
  • Health Data & Statistics
  • Patient/Consumer Facing Materials
  • Images/Streaming Video
  • Database Tutorials
  • Crafting a Search
  • Cited Reference Searching
  • Research Tip 4: Find Grey Literature
  • Research Tip 5: Save Your Work
  • Cite and Manage Your Sources
  • Critical Appraisal
  • What are Literature Reviews?
  • Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews
  • Finding Systematic Reviews
  • Tutorials & Tools for Literature Reviews
  • Point of Care Tools (Mobile Apps)

Guidelines & Standards

Health sciences.

  • JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) is an international evidence-based healthcare research organization. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis is meant to provide authors with a comprehensive guide to conducting JBI systematic reviews. Types of systematic reviews covered in manual include: systematic reviews of qualitative evidence, systematic reviews of effectiveness, mixed methods systematics reviews and scoping reviews, among others.
  • Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (6th Edition) The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official guide that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
  • Cochrane Training On this site, you will find interactive learning resources and pathways as well as links to webinars, courses, and handbooks produced by the Cochrane Collaboration that relate to systematic review methods. Note that select resources on this site are limited to those with an existing Cochrane account while others are publicly available.
  • Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care [PDF, 1.6MB] Published by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, this guide outlines the methods and steps necessary to conduct a systematic review. It also addresses issues associated with reviews in specific areas, such as clinical tests, public health interventions, harm/adverse effects, economic evaluations, and how and why interventions work. Opens as PDF.
  • Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews This ebook, produced by the Institute of Medicine (2011), contains chapters on the following topics: Standards for initiating a systematic review -- Standards for finding and assessing individual studies -- Standards for synthesizing the body of evidence -- Standards for reporting systematic reviews -- Improving the quality of systematic reviews
  • Methods for the Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research in Systematic Reviews Article abstract: There is a growing recognition of the value of synthesising qualitative research in the evidence base in order to facilitate effective and appropriate health care. In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies.
  • PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies The PRESS Guideline provides a set of recommendations concerning the information that should be used by librarians and other information specialists when they are asked to evaluate electronic search strategies developed for systematic review (SR) and health technology assessment (HTA) reports.

Social Sciences

  • Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis This ebook, written by Littell, Corcoran, and Pillai (2008) and published by Oxford University Press, contains chapters on the following topics: Formulating a topic and developing a protocol -- Locating and screening studies -- Data extraction and study quality assessment -- Effect size metrics and pooling methods -- Assessing bias and variations in effects
  • Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide This ebook, written by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), contains chapters on the following topics: Why do we need systematic reviews? -- Starting the review : refining the question and defining the boundaries -- What sorts of studies do I include in the review? : deciding on the review's inclusion/exclusion criteria -- How to find the studies : the literature search -- How to appraise the studies : an introduction to assessing study quality -- Synthesizing the evidence -- Exploring heterogeneity and publication bias -- Disseminating the review -- Systematic reviews : urban myths and fairy tales
  • Finding and Evaluating Evidence: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Practice Part of the Pocket Guide to Social Work Research Method series, this ebook, written by Bronson and Davis (2012) and published by Oxford University Press, contains chapters on the following topics: Systematic reviews, evidence-based practice, and social work -- Asking the right questions, preparing a protocol, and finding the relevant research -- Critically appraising the quality and credibility of quantitative research for systematic reviews -- The art and science of managing and summarizing the available research -- Systematic reviews of qualitative research -- Assessing the quality of systematic reviews

Reporting Standards

  • Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. This website includes the PRISMA statement (which outlines guidelines for reporting), the PRISMA flow diagram, and the PRISMA checklist, as well as a link to a document containing the PRISMA statement's explanation and elaboration.

Writing & Registering a Review Protocol

Writing a protocol.

A protocol is a written document that acts as an a priori plan for your evidence synthesis project.  Beginning your project with a clear plan is important, even if the methods change along the way. 

If your methods (e.g., search queries, inclusion/eligibility criteria) do change after you finish your protocol, you should document those changes in your final manuscript. For instance, completed Cochrane reviews often have a section titled 'Differences between protocol and review’.

Protocols generally contain sections for:

  • Background literature review
  • Review question
  • Criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies
  • Types of studies, populations, interventions/exposures, outcome measures
  • Search strategy for identification of studies
  • Study selection methods
  • Assessment of methodological quality (if applicable)
  • Data extraction and synthesis
  • Timeframe for conducting the review

For systematic reviews , PRISMA provides guidance for preparing a protocol , as does the Joanna Briggs Institute's Manual for Evidence Synthesis .  

For scoping reviews , section 11.2 in the JBI Manual outlines protocol development

Registering a Protocol

Once you've written the protocol for your evidence synthesis, consider publishing or registering it.  Making the protocol publicly available, through publication or registration, improves research transparency, and can help avoid unnecessary duplication of work around the same review question.  

  • PROSPERO PROSPERO is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care, welfare, public health, education, crime, justice, and international development, where there is a health related outcome. It aims to provide a comprehensive listing of systematic reviews, registered at inception, to help avoid duplication and reduce opportunity for reporting bias by enabling comparison completed review with what was planned in the protocol.
  • OSF Registries Use the OSF (Open Science Framework) platform to preregister the protocol for your knowledge synthesis. OSF if a useful alternative to PROSPERO if you are not publishing a systematic review or a review of interventions with health-related outcomes. OSF is commonly used to register protocols for scoping reviews.

Publishing a Protocol

Many journals will publish a protocol for research, including systematic reviews.  See the 'Information for Authors' or 'Submissions' sections of journal's websites to determine what kind of articles they publish.  

Examples of Journals that Publish Protocols

  • BMC Journals Many journals in BioMed Central's portfolio publish protocols for evidence syntheses. In particular, check out the journal 'Systematic Reviews'.
  • JBI Evidence Synthesis The journal JBI Evidence Synthesis accepts manuscripts for evidence synthesis protocols, including systematic reviews of effects, reviews of qualitative evidence, scoping reviews and mix methods systematic reviews
  • JMIR Research Protocols JMIR Research Protocols publishes protocols for systematic reviews and scoping reviews.

McGill Library. (2022).  Guides: Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and Other Knowledge Syntheses: Developing the protocol . Retrieved February 4, 2022, from https://libraryguides.mcgill.ca/knowledge-syntheses/protocol

  • << Previous: What are Literature Reviews?
  • Next: Finding Systematic Reviews >>
  • Last Updated: Jun 26, 2024 3:00 PM
  • URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/speech

A scoping review on effective measurements of emotional responses in teamwork contexts

  • Published: 27 June 2024

Cite this article

research paper review report

  • Xiaoshan Huang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2853-7219 1 &
  • Susanne P. Lajoie 1  

47 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Effective collaboration within teams relies significantly on emotion regulation, a process vital for managing and navigating emotional responses. Various methods have been employed to measure emotional responses in team contexts, including self-report questionnaires, behavioral coding, and physiological measures. This review paper aims to summarize studies conducted in teamwork contexts that measured team members' emotional responses, with a particular focus on the methods used. The findings from these studies can lead to identification of emotion regulation strategies and can lead to effective interventions to improve team performance in future. The core question guiding this review is: What are effective measures in capturing individuals' emotional responses in team dynamics? Using a scoping review, the study aims to answer three research questions (RQs): 1: What was the distribution over time of the studies that examined team members’ emotional responses and/or regulation of emotions in team dynamic? 2: What type(s) of data were collected, and what are the theories used in these studies? 3: What are the advantages and challenges of each type of measurement on emotional responses in team dynamics? The synthesis of the findings suggests that multimodal data, combining various measures such as physiological data, observations, and self-reports, offer a promising approach to capturing emotions in teamwork contexts. Furthermore, combining multimodal data can benefit capturing individual and inter-personal regulation, including self-, co-, and social emotion regulation in teamwork. This paper highlights the importance of integrating multiple measurement methods and provides insights into the advantages and challenges associated with each approach.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

research paper review report

Similar content being viewed by others

research paper review report

Flow in work teams: The role of emotional regulation, voice, and team mindfulness

research paper review report

Approaches for assessing communication in human-autonomy teams

research paper review report

Emotion Regulation and Coaching

Data availability.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (3), 307–359.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (4), 644–675.

Blau, I., Shamir-Inbal, T., & Avdiel, O. (2020). How does the pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced collaborative academic course promote digital literacies, self-regulation, and perceived learning of students? The Internet and Higher Education, 45 , 100722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100722

Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning: center for the study of learning and instruction, Leiden University, The Netherlands, and KU Leuven. In  Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance  (pp. 422–439). Routledge.

Boroș, S. (2020). Controversy without conflict: How group emotional awareness and regulation can prevent conflict escalation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 29 (2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09659-1

Braithwaite, J., Watson, D., Jones, R., & Rowe, M. (2013). A guide for analysing electrodermal activity (EDA) & skin conductance responses (SCRs) for psychological experiments. Psychophysiology, 49 (1), 1017–1034.

Google Scholar  

Curşeu, P. L., Boroş, S., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2012). Task and relationship conflict in short-term and long-term groups: The critical role of emotion regulation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23 (1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061211199331

D’mello, S. K., & Kory, J. (2015). A review and meta-analysis of multimodal affect detection systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 47 (3), 1-43:36. https://doi.org/10.1145/2682899

Dafoulas, G. A., Maia, C. C., Clarke, J. S., Ali, A., & Augusto, J. (2018). Investigating the role of biometrics in education–the use of sensor data in collaborative learning. 12th International Conference on e-Learning. Madrid, Spain 17 - 19 Jul 2018 IADIS. pp. 115-123.

English, T., & John, O. P. (2013). Understanding the social effects of emotion regulation: the mediating role of authenticity for individual differences in suppression. Emotion , 13 (2), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029847

Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 13 (1), 93–106. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/4793/

Giannakos, M. N., Sharma, K., Pappas, I. O., Kostakos, V., & Velloso, E. (2019). Multimodal data as a means to understand the learning experience. International Journal of Information Management, 48 , 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.003

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2 (3), 271–299.

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

Haataja, E., Malmberg, J., & Järvelä, S. (2018). Monitoring in collaborative learning: Co-occurrence of observed behavior and physiological synchrony explored. Computers in Human Behavior, 87 , 337–347.

Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113 (2), 240–264.

Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 83–106). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Harley, J. M. (2016). Measuring emotions: A survey of cutting edge methodologies used in computer-based learning environment research. In S. Y. Tettegah & M. Gartmeier (Eds.), Emotions, Technology, Design, and Learning (pp. 89–114). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801856-9.00005-0

Huang, X., & Lajoie, S. P. (2023). Social emotional interaction in collaborative learning: Why it matters and how can we measure it? Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 7 (1), 100447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100447

Huang, X., Beck, S., Huang, L., & Lajoie, S. (2023). Emotion and emotion regulation matter: A case study on teachers’ online teaching experience during COVID-19. ISLS Annual Meeting 2023: Building Knowledge and Sustaining Our Community. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/9828

Huber, K., & Bannert, M. (2023). What happens to your body during learning with computer-based environments? Exploring negative academic emotions using psychophysiological measurements. Journal of Computers in Education, 10 (1), 189–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00228-w

Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48 (1), 25–39.

Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., Koivuniemi, M., & Järvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63 (1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1

Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Malmberg, J. (2019). Capturing the dynamic and cyclical nature of regulation: Methodological Progress in understanding socially shared regulation in learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14 (4), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09313-2

Järvelä, S., Nguyen, A., & Hadwin, A. (2023). Human and artificial intelligence collaboration for socially shared regulation in learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54 (5), 1057–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13325

Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 (3), 463–481.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., Törmänen, T., Näykki, P., Malmberg, J., Kurki, K., Mykkänen, A., & Isohätälä, J. (2018). Capturing motivation and emotion regulation during a learning process. Frontline Learning Research, 6 (3), 85–104.

Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Törmänen, T., Mänty, K., Haataja, E., Ahola, S., & Järvelä, S. (2020). A collaborative learning design for promoting and analyzing adaptive motivation and emotion regulation in the science classroom. Frontiers in Education , 5 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00111

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2), 238–251.

Jiang, J. Y., Zhang, X., & Tjosvold, D. (2013). Emotion regulation as a boundary condition of the relationship between team conflict and performance: A multi-level examination. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34 (5), 714–734. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1834

Kazemitabar, M., Lajoie, S. P., & Doleck, T. (2019). Examining Changes in Medical Students’ Emotion Regulation in an Online PBL Session. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 11 (2), 129–157.

Korunka, C. (2020). What Moderates the Relation Between Intragroup Conflict, Emotional Exhaustion, and Work Engagement? (No. 1). 5 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.91

Kurki, K., Järvelä, S., Mykkänen, A., & Määttä, E. (2015). Investigating children’s emotion regulation in socio-emotionally challenging classroom situations. Early Child Development and Care, 185 (8), 1238–1254. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.988710

Laine, T. H., & Lindberg, R. S. N. (2020). Designing engaging games for education: A systematic literature review on game motivators and design principles. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13 (4), 804–821. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2020.3018503

Lajoie, S. P., Lee, L., Poitras, E., Bassiri, M., Kazemitabar, M., Cruz-Panesso, I., Hmelo-Silver, C., Wiseman, J., Chan, L. K., & Lu, J. (2015). The role of regulation in medical student learning in small groups: Regulating oneself and others’ learning and emotions. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.073

Li, Y., Li, X., Su, Y., Peng, Y., & Hu, H. (2020). Exploring the role of EFL learners’ online self-regulation profiles in their social regulation of learning in wiki-supported collaborative reading activities. Journal of Computers in Education, 7 (4), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00168-3

Liu, Y., Wang, T., Wang, K., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Collaborative learning quality classification through physiological synchrony recorded by wearable biosensors. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.674369

Mänty, K., Järvenoja, H., & Törmänen, T. (2020). Socio-emotional interaction in collaborative learning: Combining individual emotional experiences and group-level emotion regulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 102 , 101589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101589

Marci, C. D., & Orr, S. P. (2006). The effect of emotional distance on psychophysiologic concordance and perceived empathy between patient and interviewer. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 31 (2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-006-9008-4

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for Educators (pp. 3–31). Basic Books.

McCaslin, M. (2009). Co-regulation of student motivation and emergent identity. Educational Psychologist, 44 (2), 137–146.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The prisma statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151 (4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

Nasir, J., Kothiyal, A., Bruno, B., & Dillenbourg, P. (2021). Many are the ways to learn identifying multi-modal behavioral profiles of collaborative learning in constructivist activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 16 (4), 485–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09358-2

Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning—A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68 , 1–14.

Nestsiarovich, K., Pons, D., & Becker, S. (2020). Communication adjustment in engineering professional and student project meetings. Behavioral Sciences , 10 (7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10070111

Nguyen, A., Järvelä, S., Rosé, C., Järvenoja, H., & Malmberg, J. (2023). Examining socially shared regulation and shared physiological arousal events with multimodal learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54 (1), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13280

Nieswandt, M., McEneaney, E. H., & Affolter, R. (2020). A framework for exploring small group learning in high school science classrooms: The triple problem solving space. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 48 (3), 243–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09510-9

Okon-Singer, H., Hendler, T., Pessoa, L., & Shackman, A. J. (2015). The neurobiology of emotion–cognition interactions: Fundamental questions and strategies for future research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 9 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00058

Oveis, C., Gu, Y., Ocampo, J. M., Hangen, E. J., & Jamieson, J. P. (2020). Emotion regulation contagion: Stress reappraisal promotes challenge responses in teammates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149 , 2187–2205. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000757

Ozawa, S., Nakatani, H., Miyauchi, C. M., Hiraki, K., & Okanoya, K. (2022). Synergistic effects of disgust and anger on amygdala activation while recalling memories of interpersonal stress: An fMRI study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 182 , 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.09.008

Pekrun, R. (2016). Academic emotions. Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 120–144). Routledge.

Rogat, T. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially shared regulation in collaborative groups: An analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and group processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29 (4), 375–415.

Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (5), 805.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36 (5), 555–599.

Sharma, K., Pappas, I., Papavlasopoulou, S., & Giannakos, M. (2022). Wearable sensing and quantified-self to explain learning experience. International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) , 136–138. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT55010.2022.00048

Slakmon, B., Keynan, O., & Shapira, O. (2022). Emotion expression and recognition in written digital discussions on Civic Issues. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 17 (4), 519–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-022-09379-5

Sohr, E. R., Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2018). Taking an escape hatch: Managing tension in group discourse. Science Education, 102 (5), 883–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21448

Su, Y., Li, Y., Hu, H., & Rosé, C. P. (2018). Exploring college English language learners’ self and social regulation of learning during wiki-supported collaborative reading activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13 (1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9269-y

Thiel, C. E., Harvey, J., Courtright, S., & Bradley, B. (2019). What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger: How teams rebound from early-stage relationship conflict. Journal of Management, 45 (4), 1623–1659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317729026

Törmänen, T., Järvenoja, H., & Mänty, K. (2021). All for one and one for all– How are students’ affective states and group-level emotion regulation interconnected in collaborative learning? International Journal of Educational Research, 109 , 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101861

Törmänen, T., Järvenoja, H., Saqr, M., Malmberg, J., & Järvelä, S. (2022). A person-centered approach to study students’ socio-emotional interaction profiles and regulation of collaborative learning. Frontiers in Education , 7 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.866612

Volet, S., Seghezzi, C., & Ritchie, S. (2019). Positive emotions in student-led collaborative science activities: Relating types and sources of emotions to engagement in learning. Studies in Higher Education , 44 (10), 1734–1746. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665314

Vriesema, C. C., & McCaslin, M. (2020). Experience and meaning in small-group contexts: Fusing observational and self-report data to capture self and other dynamics. Frontline Learning Research, 8 (3), 126–139.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54 , 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.). (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In Handbook of social and emotional learning:Research and practice (pp. 3–19). The Guilford Press.

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zhang, Y., Olenick, J., Chang, C.-H., Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hung, H. (2018). TeamSense: Assessing personal affect and group cohesion in small teams through dyadic interaction and behavior analysis with wearable sensors. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2 (3), 1-150:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3264960

Zhang, S., Chen, J., Wen, Y., Chen, H., Gao, Q., & Wang, Q. (2021). Capturing regulatory patterns in online collaborative learning: A network analytic approach. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 16 (1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09339-5

Zheng, S., & Zhou, X. (2022). Positive influence of cooperative learning and emotion regulation on EFL learners’ foreign language enjoyment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 (19), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912604

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology , 81 (3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.32

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Jason M. Harley and Dr. Adam K. Dubé for their invaluable contributions and insightful feedback during the development of the first draft of this article.

This work is supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC) awarded to Xiaoshasn Huang and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) under the grant number of 895–2011-1006. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper, however, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FRQSC and the SSHRC.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Room B148, Education Building, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, Quebe, H3A 1Y2, Canada

Xiaoshan Huang & Susanne P. Lajoie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoshan Huang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Current themes of research

Xiaoshan Huang is a PhD candidate in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology (ECP) at McGill University, and a member of the ATLAS (Advanced Technologies for Learning in Authentic Settings) Lab. Her areas of research interests include investigating learners’ cognition, motivation, and emotion regulation in both academia and the workplace using intelligent tutoring systems, as well as socially shared regulation in collaborative learning.

Most relevant publications

Huang, X., Wu, H., Liu, X., & Lajoie, S. (2024, May). Examining the Role of Peer Acknowledgements on Social Annotations: Unraveling the Psychological Underpinnings. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–9.   https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3641906

Huang, X., Li, S., Wang, T., Pan, Z., & Lajoie, S. P. (2023). Exploring the co‐occurrence of students' learning behaviours and reasoning processes in an intelligent tutoring system: An epistemic network analysis.  Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 39 (5), 1701–1713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12827

Huang, X., Li, S., & Lajoie, S. P. (2023, May). The Relative Importance of Cognitive and Behavioral Engagement to Task Performance in Self-regulated Learning with an Intelligent Tutoring System. In  International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems  (pp. 430–441). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Huang, X., & Lajoie, S. P. (2023). Social emotional interaction in collaborative learning: why it matters and how can we measure it?  Social Sciences & Humanities Open ,  7 (1), 100447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100447

Huang, X., Huang, L., & Lajoie, S. P. (2022). Exploring teachers’ emotional experience in a TPACK development task.  Educational technology research and development ,  70 (4), 1283–1303.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Huang, X., Lajoie, S.P. A scoping review on effective measurements of emotional responses in teamwork contexts. Curr Psychol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06235-7

Download citation

Accepted : 03 June 2024

Published : 27 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06235-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Emotional responses
  • Team processes
  • Collaboration effectiveness
  • Measurements
  • Emotion regulation
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research
  • Introduction
  • Conclusions
  • Article Information

The reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System met the case definition of myocarditis (reported cases). Among individuals older than 40 years of age, there were no more than 8 reports of myocarditis for any individual age after receiving either vaccine. For the BNT162b2 vaccine, there were 114 246 837 first vaccination doses and 95 532 396 second vaccination doses; and for the mRNA-1273 vaccine, there were 78 158 611 and 66 163 001, respectively. The y-axis range differs between panels A and B.

The reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System met the case definition of myocarditis (reported cases). Among recipients of either vaccine, there were only 13 reports or less of myocarditis beyond 10 days for any individual time from vaccination to symptom onset. The y-axis range differs between panels A and B.

A, For the BNT162b2 vaccine, there were 138 reported cases of myocarditis with known date for symptom onset and dose after 114 246 837 first vaccination doses and 888 reported cases after 95 532 396 second vaccination doses.

B, For the mRNA-1273 vaccine, there were 116 reported cases of myocarditis with known date for symptom onset and dose after 78 158 611 first vaccination doses and 311 reported cases after 66 163 001 second vaccination doses.

eMethods. Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Terms, Definitions of Myocarditis and Pericarditis, Myocarditis medical review form

eFigure. Flow diagram of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, United States, December 14, 2020-August 31, 2021.

eTable 1. Characteristics of all myocarditis cases reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, United States, December 14, 2020–August 31, 2021.

eTable 2. Characteristics of all pericarditis cases reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, United States, December 14, 2020–August 31, 2021.

eTable 3. Characteristics of myocarditis cases reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination by case definition status.

  • Myocarditis and Pericarditis After Vaccination for COVID-19 JAMA Research Letter September 28, 2021 This study investigates the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis emergency department or inpatient hospital encounters before COVID-19 vaccine availability (January 2019–January 2021) and during a COVID-19 vaccination period (February-May 2021) in a large US health care system. George A. Diaz, MD; Guilford T. Parsons, MD, MS; Sara K. Gering, BS, BSN; Audrey R. Meier, MPH; Ian V. Hutchinson, PhD, DSc; Ari Robicsek, MD
  • Myocarditis Following a Third BNT162b2 Vaccination Dose in Military Recruits in Israel JAMA Research Letter April 26, 2022 This study assessed whether a third vaccine dose was associated with the risk of myocarditis among military personnel in Israel. Limor Friedensohn, MD; Dan Levin, MD; Maggie Fadlon-Derai, MHA; Liron Gershovitz, MD; Noam Fink, MD; Elon Glassberg, MD; Barak Gordon, MD
  • Myocarditis Cases After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US—Reply JAMA Comment & Response May 24, 2022 Matthew E. Oster, MD, MPH; David K. Shay, MD, MPH; Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA
  • Myocarditis Cases After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US JAMA Comment & Response May 24, 2022 Sheila R. Weiss, PhD
  • JAMA Network Articles of the Year 2022 JAMA Medical News & Perspectives December 27, 2022 This Medical News article is our annual roundup of the top-viewed articles from all JAMA Network journals. Melissa Suran, PhD, MSJ
  • Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Myocarditis—A Review JAMA Review April 4, 2023 This Review summarizes current evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of acute myocarditis. Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD; Javid J. Moslehi, MD
  • Patient Information: Acute Myocarditis JAMA JAMA Patient Page August 8, 2023 This JAMA Patient Page describes acute myocarditis and its symptoms, causes, diagnosis, and treatment. Kristin Walter, MD, MS
  • Myocarditis Following Immunization With mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Members of the US Military JAMA Cardiology Brief Report October 1, 2021 This case series describes myocarditis presenting after COVID-19 vaccination within the Military Health System. Jay Montgomery, MD; Margaret Ryan, MD, MPH; Renata Engler, MD; Donna Hoffman, MSN; Bruce McClenathan, MD; Limone Collins, MD; David Loran, DNP; David Hrncir, MD; Kelsie Herring, MD; Michael Platzer, MD; Nehkonti Adams, MD; Aliye Sanou, MD; Leslie T. Cooper Jr, MD
  • Patients With Acute Myocarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination JAMA Cardiology Brief Report October 1, 2021 This study describes 4 patients who presented with acute myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Han W. Kim, MD; Elizabeth R. Jenista, PhD; David C. Wendell, PhD; Clerio F. Azevedo, MD; Michael J. Campbell, MD; Stephen N. Darty, BS; Michele A. Parker, MS; Raymond J. Kim, MD
  • Association of Myocarditis With BNT162b2 Vaccination in Children JAMA Cardiology Brief Report December 1, 2021 This case series reviews comprehensive cardiac imaging in children with myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccine. Audrey Dionne, MD; Francesca Sperotto, MD; Stephanie Chamberlain; Annette L. Baker, MSN, CPNP; Andrew J. Powell, MD; Ashwin Prakash, MD; Daniel A. Castellanos, MD; Susan F. Saleeb, MD; Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, MPH; Jane W. Newburger, MD, MPH; Kevin G. Friedman, MD

See More About

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

  • Academic Medicine
  • Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
  • Allergy and Clinical Immunology
  • American Indian or Alaska Natives
  • Anesthesiology
  • Anticoagulation
  • Art and Images in Psychiatry
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Assisted Reproduction
  • Bleeding and Transfusion
  • Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
  • Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
  • Climate and Health
  • Climate Change
  • Clinical Challenge
  • Clinical Decision Support
  • Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
  • Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  • Consensus Statements
  • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
  • Critical Care Medicine
  • Cultural Competency
  • Dental Medicine
  • Dermatology
  • Diabetes and Endocrinology
  • Diagnostic Test Interpretation
  • Drug Development
  • Electronic Health Records
  • Emergency Medicine
  • End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
  • Environmental Health
  • Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
  • Facial Plastic Surgery
  • Gastroenterology and Hepatology
  • Genetics and Genomics
  • Genomics and Precision Health
  • Global Health
  • Guide to Statistics and Methods
  • Hair Disorders
  • Health Care Delivery Models
  • Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
  • Health Care Quality
  • Health Care Reform
  • Health Care Safety
  • Health Care Workforce
  • Health Disparities
  • Health Inequities
  • Health Policy
  • Health Systems Science
  • History of Medicine
  • Hypertension
  • Images in Neurology
  • Implementation Science
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Innovations in Health Care Delivery
  • JAMA Infographic
  • Law and Medicine
  • Leading Change
  • Less is More
  • LGBTQIA Medicine
  • Lifestyle Behaviors
  • Medical Coding
  • Medical Devices and Equipment
  • Medical Education
  • Medical Education and Training
  • Medical Journals and Publishing
  • Mobile Health and Telemedicine
  • Narrative Medicine
  • Neuroscience and Psychiatry
  • Notable Notes
  • Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Occupational Health
  • Ophthalmology
  • Orthopedics
  • Otolaryngology
  • Pain Medicine
  • Palliative Care
  • Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
  • Patient Care
  • Patient Information
  • Performance Improvement
  • Performance Measures
  • Perioperative Care and Consultation
  • Pharmacoeconomics
  • Pharmacoepidemiology
  • Pharmacogenetics
  • Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
  • Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
  • Physical Therapy
  • Physician Leadership
  • Population Health
  • Primary Care
  • Professional Well-being
  • Professionalism
  • Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
  • Public Health
  • Pulmonary Medicine
  • Regulatory Agencies
  • Reproductive Health
  • Research, Methods, Statistics
  • Resuscitation
  • Rheumatology
  • Risk Management
  • Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
  • Shared Decision Making and Communication
  • Sleep Medicine
  • Sports Medicine
  • Stem Cell Transplantation
  • Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
  • Surgical Innovation
  • Surgical Pearls
  • Teachable Moment
  • Technology and Finance
  • The Art of JAMA
  • The Arts and Medicine
  • The Rational Clinical Examination
  • Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
  • Translational Medicine
  • Trauma and Injury
  • Treatment Adherence
  • Ultrasonography
  • Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
  • Vaccination
  • Venous Thromboembolism
  • Veterans Health
  • Women's Health
  • Workflow and Process
  • Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Others Also Liked

  • Download PDF
  • X Facebook More LinkedIn
  • CME & MOC

Oster ME , Shay DK , Su JR, et al. Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021. JAMA. 2022;327(4):331–340. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.24110

Manage citations:

© 2024

  • Permissions

Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021

  • 1 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
  • 2 School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
  • 3 Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia
  • 4 Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
  • 5 Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
  • 6 Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 7 Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
  • 8 US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland
  • Research Letter Myocarditis and Pericarditis After Vaccination for COVID-19 George A. Diaz, MD; Guilford T. Parsons, MD, MS; Sara K. Gering, BS, BSN; Audrey R. Meier, MPH; Ian V. Hutchinson, PhD, DSc; Ari Robicsek, MD JAMA
  • Research Letter Myocarditis Following a Third BNT162b2 Vaccination Dose in Military Recruits in Israel Limor Friedensohn, MD; Dan Levin, MD; Maggie Fadlon-Derai, MHA; Liron Gershovitz, MD; Noam Fink, MD; Elon Glassberg, MD; Barak Gordon, MD JAMA
  • Comment & Response Myocarditis Cases After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US—Reply Matthew E. Oster, MD, MPH; David K. Shay, MD, MPH; Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA JAMA
  • Comment & Response Myocarditis Cases After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US Sheila R. Weiss, PhD JAMA
  • Medical News & Perspectives JAMA Network Articles of the Year 2022 Melissa Suran, PhD, MSJ JAMA
  • Review Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Myocarditis—A Review Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD; Javid J. Moslehi, MD JAMA
  • JAMA Patient Page Patient Information: Acute Myocarditis Kristin Walter, MD, MS JAMA
  • Brief Report Myocarditis Following Immunization With mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Members of the US Military Jay Montgomery, MD; Margaret Ryan, MD, MPH; Renata Engler, MD; Donna Hoffman, MSN; Bruce McClenathan, MD; Limone Collins, MD; David Loran, DNP; David Hrncir, MD; Kelsie Herring, MD; Michael Platzer, MD; Nehkonti Adams, MD; Aliye Sanou, MD; Leslie T. Cooper Jr, MD JAMA Cardiology
  • Brief Report Patients With Acute Myocarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Han W. Kim, MD; Elizabeth R. Jenista, PhD; David C. Wendell, PhD; Clerio F. Azevedo, MD; Michael J. Campbell, MD; Stephen N. Darty, BS; Michele A. Parker, MS; Raymond J. Kim, MD JAMA Cardiology
  • Brief Report Association of Myocarditis With BNT162b2 Vaccination in Children Audrey Dionne, MD; Francesca Sperotto, MD; Stephanie Chamberlain; Annette L. Baker, MSN, CPNP; Andrew J. Powell, MD; Ashwin Prakash, MD; Daniel A. Castellanos, MD; Susan F. Saleeb, MD; Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, MPH; Jane W. Newburger, MD, MPH; Kevin G. Friedman, MD JAMA Cardiology

Question   What is the risk of myocarditis after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in the US?

Findings   In this descriptive study of 1626 cases of myocarditis in a national passive reporting system, the crude reporting rates within 7 days after vaccination exceeded the expected rates across multiple age and sex strata. The rates of myocarditis cases were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males aged 12 to 15 years (70.7 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years (105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), and in young men aged 18 to 24 years (52.4 and 56.3 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine, respectively).

Meaning   Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men.

Importance   Vaccination against COVID-19 provides clear public health benefits, but vaccination also carries potential risks. The risks and outcomes of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are unclear.

Objective   To describe reports of myocarditis and the reporting rates after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants   Descriptive study of reports of myocarditis to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that occurred after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine administration between December 2020 and August 2021 in 192 405 448 individuals older than 12 years of age in the US; data were processed by VAERS as of September 30, 2021.

Exposures   Vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna).

Main Outcomes and Measures   Reports of myocarditis to VAERS were adjudicated and summarized for all age groups. Crude reporting rates were calculated across age and sex strata. Expected rates of myocarditis by age and sex were calculated using 2017-2019 claims data. For persons younger than 30 years of age, medical record reviews and clinician interviews were conducted to describe clinical presentation, diagnostic test results, treatment, and early outcomes.

Results   Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis. Of those with myocarditis, the median age was 21 years (IQR, 16-31 years) and the median time to symptom onset was 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days). Males comprised 82% of the myocarditis cases for whom sex was reported. The crude reporting rates for cases of myocarditis within 7 days after COVID-19 vaccination exceeded the expected rates of myocarditis across multiple age and sex strata. The rates of myocarditis were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males aged 12 to 15 years (70.7 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years (105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), and in young men aged 18 to 24 years (52.4 and 56.3 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine, respectively). There were 826 cases of myocarditis among those younger than 30 years of age who had detailed clinical information available; of these cases, 792 of 809 (98%) had elevated troponin levels, 569 of 794 (72%) had abnormal electrocardiogram results, and 223 of 312 (72%) had abnormal cardiac magnetic resonance imaging results. Approximately 96% of persons (784/813) were hospitalized and 87% (577/661) of these had resolution of presenting symptoms by hospital discharge. The most common treatment was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (589/676; 87%).

Conclusions and Relevance   Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men. This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.

Myocarditis is an inflammatory condition of the heart muscle that has a bimodal peak incidence during infancy and adolescence or young adulthood. 1 - 4 The clinical presentation and course of myocarditis is variable, with some patients not requiring treatment and others experiencing severe heart failure that requires subsequent heart transplantation or leads to death. 5 Onset of myocarditis typically follows an inciting process, often a viral illness; however, no antecedent cause is identified in many cases. 6 It has been hypothesized that vaccination can serve as a trigger for myocarditis; however, only the smallpox vaccine has previously been causally associated with myocarditis based on reports among US military personnel, with cases typically occurring 7 to 12 days after vaccination. 7

With the implementation of a large-scale, national COVID-19 vaccination program starting in December 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Food and Drug Administration began monitoring for a number of adverse events of special interest, including myocarditis and pericarditis, in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a long-standing national spontaneous reporting (passive surveillance) system. 8 As the reports of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination were reported to VAERS, the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, 9 a collaboration between the CDC and medical research centers, which includes physicians treating infectious diseases and other specialists (eg, cardiologists), consulted on several of the cases. In addition, reports from several countries raised concerns that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines may be associated with acute myocarditis. 10 - 15

Given this concern, the aims were to describe reports and confirmed cases of myocarditis initially reported to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination and to provide estimates of the risk of myocarditis after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination based on age, sex, and vaccine type.

VAERS is a US spontaneous reporting (passive surveillance) system that functions as an early warning system for potential vaccine adverse events. 8 Co-administered by the CDC and the US Food and Drug Administration, VAERS accepts reports of all adverse events after vaccination from patients, parents, clinicians, vaccine manufacturers, and others regardless of whether the events could plausibly be associated with receipt of the vaccine. Reports to VAERS include information about the vaccinated person, the vaccine or vaccines administered, and the adverse events experienced by the vaccinated person. The reports to VAERS are then reviewed by third-party professional coders who have been trained in the assignment of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms. 16 The coders then assign appropriate terms based on the information available in the reports.

This activity was reviewed by the CDC and was conducted to be consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy. The activities herein were confirmed to be nonresearch under the Common Rule in accordance with institutional procedures and therefore were not subject to institutional review board requirements. Informed consent was not obtained for this secondary use of existing information; see 45 CFR part 46.102(l)(2), 21 CFR part 56, 42 USC §241(d), 5 USC §552a, and 44 USC §3501 et seq.

The exposure of concern was vaccination with one of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines: the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) or the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna). During the analytic period, persons aged 12 years or older were eligible for the BNT162b2 vaccine and persons aged 18 years or older were eligible for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered during the analytic period was obtained through the CDC’s COVID-19 Data Tracker. 17

The primary outcome was the occurrence of myocarditis and the secondary outcome was pericarditis. Reports to VAERS with these outcomes were initially characterized using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms of myocarditis or pericarditis (specific terms are listed in the eMethods in the Supplement ). After initial review of reports of myocarditis to VAERS and review of the patient’s medical records (when available), the reports were further reviewed by CDC physicians and public health professionals to verify that they met the CDC’s case definition for probable or confirmed myocarditis (descriptions previously published and included in the eMethods in the Supplement ). 18 The CDC’s case definition of probable myocarditis requires the presence of new concerning symptoms, abnormal cardiac test results, and no other identifiable cause of the symptoms and findings. Confirmed cases of myocarditis further require histopathological confirmation of myocarditis or cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings consistent with myocarditis.

Deaths were included only if the individual had met the case definition for confirmed myocarditis and there was no other identifiable cause of death. Individual cases not involving death were included only if the person had met the case definition for probable myocarditis or confirmed myocarditis.

We characterized reports of myocarditis or pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination that met the CDC’s case definition and were received by VAERS between December 14, 2020 (when COVID-19 vaccines were first publicly available in the US), and August 31, 2021, by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and vaccine type; data were processed by VAERS as of September 30, 2021. Race and ethnicity were optional fixed categories available by self-identification at the time of vaccination or by the individual filing a VAERS report. Race and ethnicity were included to provide the most complete baseline description possible for individual reports; however, further analyses were not stratified by race and ethnicity due to the high percentage of missing data. Reports of pericarditis with evidence of potential myocardial involvement were included in the review of reports of myocarditis. The eFigure in the Supplement outlines the categorization of the reports of myocarditis and pericarditis reviewed.

Further analyses were conducted only for myocarditis because of the preponderance of those reports to VAERS, in Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project consultations, and in published articles. 10 - 12 , 19 - 21 Crude reporting rates for myocarditis during a 7-day risk interval were calculated using the number of reports of myocarditis to VAERS per million doses of COVID-19 vaccine administered during the analytic period and stratified by age, sex, vaccination dose (first, second, or unknown), and vaccine type. Expected rates of myocarditis by age and sex were calculated using 2017-2019 data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Research Database. This database contains individual-level, deidentified, inpatient and outpatient medical and prescription drug claims, and enrollment information submitted to IBM Watson Health by large employers and health plans. The data were accessed using version 4.0 of the IBM MarketScan Treatment Pathways analytic platform. Age- and sex-specific rates were calculated by determining the number of individuals with myocarditis ( International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] codes B33.20, B33.22, B33.24, I40.0, I40.1, I40.8, I40.9, or I51.4) 22 identified during an inpatient encounter in 2017-2019 relative to the number of individuals of similar age and sex who were continually enrolled during the year in which the myocarditis-related hospitalization occurred; individuals with any diagnosis of myocarditis prior to that year were excluded. Given the limitations of the IBM MarketScan Commercial Research Database to capture enrollees aged 65 years or older, an expected rate for myocarditis was not calculated for this population. A 95% CI was calculated using Poisson distribution in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) for each expected rate of myocarditis and for each observed rate in a strata with at least 1 case.

In cases of probable or confirmed myocarditis among those younger than 30 years of age, their clinical course was then summarized to the extent possible based on medical review and clinician interviews. This clinical course included presenting symptoms, diagnostic test results, treatment, and early outcomes (abstraction form appears in the eMethods in the Supplement ). 23

When applicable, missing data were delineated in the results or the numbers with complete data were listed. No assumptions or imputations were made regarding missing data. Any percentages that were calculated included only those cases of myocarditis with adequate data to calculate the percentages.

Between December 14, 2020, and August 31, 2021, 192 405 448 individuals older than 12 years of age received a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. VAERS received 1991 reports of myocarditis (391 of which also included pericarditis) after receipt of at least 1 dose of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine (eTable 1 in the Supplement ) and 684 reports of pericarditis without the presence of myocarditis (eTable 2 in the Supplement ).

Of the 1991 reports of myocarditis, 1626 met the CDC’s case definition for probable or confirmed myocarditis ( Table 1 ). There were 208 reports that did not meet the CDC’s case definition for myocarditis and 157 reports that required more information to perform adjudication (eTable 3 in the Supplement ). Of the 1626 reports that met the CDC’s case definition for myocarditis, 1195 (73%) were younger than 30 years of age, 543 (33%) were younger than 18 years of age, and the median age was 21 years (IQR, 16-31 years) ( Figure 1 ). Of the reports of myocarditis with dose information, 82% (1265/1538) occurred after the second vaccination dose. Of those with a reported dose and time to symptom onset, the median time from vaccination to symptom onset was 3 days (IQR, 1-8 days) after the first vaccination dose and 74% (187/254) of myocarditis events occurred within 7 days. After the second vaccination dose, the median time to symptom onset was 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days) and 90% (1081/1199) of myocarditis events occurred within 7 days ( Figure 2 ).

Males comprised 82% (1334/1625) of the cases of myocarditis for whom sex was reported. The largest proportions of cases of myocarditis were among White persons (non-Hispanic or ethnicity not reported; 69% [914/1330]) and Hispanic persons (of all races; 17% [228/1330]). Among persons younger than 30 years of age, there were no confirmed cases of myocarditis in those who died after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination without another identifiable cause and there was 1 probable case of myocarditis but there was insufficient information available for a thorough investigation. At the time of data review, there were 2 reports of death in persons younger than 30 years of age with potential myocarditis that remain under investigation and are not included in the case counts.

Symptom onset of myocarditis was within 7 days after vaccination for 947 reports of individuals who received the BNT162b2 vaccine and for 382 reports of individuals who received the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The rates of myocarditis varied by vaccine type, sex, age, and first or second vaccination dose ( Table 2 ). The reporting rates of myocarditis were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males aged 12 to 15 years (70.73 [95% CI, 61.68-81.11] per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years (105.86 [95% CI, 91.65-122.27] per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), and in young men aged 18 to 24 years (52.43 [95% CI, 45.56-60.33] per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and 56.31 [95% CI, 47.08-67.34] per million doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine). The lower estimate of the 95% CI for reporting rates of myocarditis in adolescent males and young men exceeded the upper bound of the expected rates after the first vaccination dose with the BNT162b2 vaccine in those aged 12 to 24 years, after the second vaccination dose with the BNT162b2 vaccine in those aged 12 to 49 years, after the first vaccination dose with the mRNA-1273 vaccine in those aged 18 to 39 years, and after the second vaccination dose with the mRNA-1273 vaccine in those aged 18 to 49 years.

The reporting rates of myocarditis in females were lower than those in males across all age strata younger than 50 years of age. The reporting rates of myocarditis were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent females aged 12 to 15 years (6.35 [95% CI, 4.05-9.96] per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent females aged 16 to 17 years (10.98 [95% CI, 7.16-16.84] per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in young women aged 18 to 24 years (6.87 [95% CI, 4.27-11.05] per million doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine), and in women aged 25 to 29 years (8.22 [95% CI, 5.03-13.41] per million doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine). The lower estimate of the 95% CI for reporting rates of myocarditis in females exceeded the upper bound of the expected rates after the second vaccination dose with the BNT162b2 vaccine in those aged 12 to 29 years and after the second vaccination dose with the mRNA-1273 vaccine in those aged 18 to 29 years.

Among the 1372 reports of myocarditis in persons younger than 30 years of age, 1305 were able to be adjudicated, with 92% (1195/1305) meeting the CDC’s case definition. Of these, chart abstractions or medical interviews were completed for 69% (826/1195) ( Table 3 ). The symptoms commonly reported in the verified cases of myocarditis in persons younger than 30 years of age included chest pain, pressure, or discomfort (727/817; 89%) and dyspnea or shortness of breath (242/817; 30%). Troponin levels were elevated in 98% (792/809) of the cases of myocarditis. The electrocardiogram result was abnormal in 72% (569/794) of cases of myocarditis. Of the patients who had received a cardiac MRI, 72% (223/312) had abnormal findings consistent with myocarditis. The echocardiogram results were available for 721 cases of myocarditis; of these, 84 (12%) demonstrated a notable decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%). Among the 676 cases for whom treatment data were available, 589 (87%) received nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Intravenous immunoglobulin and glucocorticoids were each used in 12% of the cases of myocarditis (78/676 and 81/676, respectively). Intensive therapies such as vasoactive medications (12 cases of myocarditis) and intubation or mechanical ventilation (2 cases) were rare. There were no verified cases of myocarditis requiring a heart transplant, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or a ventricular assist device. Of the 96% (784/813) of cases of myocarditis who were hospitalized, 98% (747/762) were discharged from the hospital at time of review. In 87% (577/661) of discharged cases of myocarditis, there was resolution of the presenting symptoms by hospital discharge.

In this review of reports to VAERS between December 2020 and August 2021, myocarditis was identified as a rare but serious adverse event that can occur after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, particularly in adolescent males and young men. However, this increased risk must be weighed against the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. 18

Compared with cases of non–vaccine-associated myocarditis, the reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination were similar in demographic characteristics but different in their acute clinical course. First, the greater frequency noted among vaccine recipients aged 12 to 29 years vs those aged 30 years or older was similar to the age distribution seen in typical cases of myocarditis. 2 , 4 This pattern may explain why cases of myocarditis were not discovered until months after initial Emergency Use Authorization of the vaccines in the US (ie, until the vaccines were widely available to younger persons). Second, the sex distribution in cases of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination was similar to that seen in typical cases of myocarditis; there is a strong male predominance for both conditions. 2 , 4

However, the onset of myocarditis symptoms after exposure to a potential immunological trigger was shorter for COVID-19 vaccine–associated cases of myocarditis than is typical for myocarditis cases diagnosed after a viral illness. 24 - 26 Cases of myocarditis reported after COVID-19 vaccination were typically diagnosed within days of vaccination, whereas cases of typical viral myocarditis can often have indolent courses with symptoms sometimes present for weeks to months after a trigger if the cause is ever identified. 1 The major presenting symptoms appeared to resolve faster in cases of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination than in typical viral cases of myocarditis. Even though almost all individuals with cases of myocarditis were hospitalized and clinically monitored, they typically experienced symptomatic recovery after receiving only pain management. In contrast, typical viral cases of myocarditis can have a more variable clinical course. For example, up to 6% of typical viral myocarditis cases in adolescents require a heart transplant or result in mortality. 27

In the current study, the initial evaluation and treatment of COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis cases was similar to that of typical myocarditis cases. 28 - 31 Initial evaluation usually included measurement of troponin level, electrocardiography, and echocardiography. 1 Cardiac MRI was often used for diagnostic purposes and also for possible prognostic purposes. 32 , 33 Supportive care was a mainstay of treatment, with specific cardiac or intensive care therapies as indicated by the patient’s clinical status.

Long-term outcome data are not yet available for COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis cases. The CDC has started active follow-up surveillance in adolescents and young adults to assess the health and functional status and cardiac outcomes at 3 to 6 months in probable and confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination. 34 For patients with myocarditis, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology guidelines advise that patients should be instructed to refrain from competitive sports for 3 to 6 months, and that documentation of a normal electrocardiogram result, ambulatory rhythm monitoring, and an exercise test should be obtained prior to resumption of sports. 35 The use of cardiac MRI is unclear, but it may be useful in evaluating the progression or resolution of myocarditis in those with abnormalities on the baseline cardiac MRI. 36 Further doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines should be deferred, but may be considered in select circumstances. 37

This study has several limitations. First, although clinicians are required to report serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination, including all events leading to hospitalization, VAERS is a passive reporting system. As such, the reports of myocarditis to VAERS may be incomplete, and the quality of the information reported is variable. Missing data for sex, vaccination dose number, and race and ethnicity were not uncommon in the reports received; history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection also was not known. Furthermore, as a passive system, VAERS data are subject to reporting biases in that both underreporting and overreporting are possible. 38 Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely. Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated.

Second, efforts by CDC investigators to obtain medical records or interview physicians were not always successful despite the special allowance for sharing information with the CDC under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. 39 This challenge limited the ability to perform case adjudication and complete investigations for some reports of myocarditis, although efforts are still ongoing when feasible.

Third, the data from vaccination administration were limited to what is reported to the CDC and thus may be incomplete, particularly with regard to demographics.

Fourth, calculation of expected rates from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Research Database relied on administrative data via the use of ICD-10 codes and there was no opportunity for clinical review. Furthermore, these data had limited information regarding the Medicare population; thus expected rates for those older than 65 years of age were not calculated. However, it is expected that the rates in those older than 65 years of age would not be higher than the rates in those aged 50 to 64 years. 4

Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men. This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.

Corresponding Author: Matthew E. Oster, MD, MPH, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333 ( [email protected] ).

Correction: This article was corrected March 21, 2022, to change “pericarditis” to “myocarditis” in the first row, first column of eTable 1 in the Supplement.

Accepted for Publication: December 16, 2021.

Author Contributions: Drs Oster and Su had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Oster, Shay, Su, Creech, Edwards, Dendy, Schlaudecker, Woo, Shimabukuro.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Oster, Shay, Su, Gee, Creech, Broder, Edwards, Soslow, Schlaudecker, Lang, Barnett, Ruberg, Smith, Campbell, Lopes, Sperling, Baumblatt, Thompson, Marquez, Strid, Woo, Pugsley, Reagan-Steiner, DeStefano, Shimabukuro.

Drafting of the manuscript: Oster, Shay, Su, Gee, Creech, Marquez, Strid, Woo, Shimabukuro.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Oster, Shay, Su, Creech, Broder, Edwards, Soslow, Dendy, Schlaudecker, Lang, Barnett, Ruberg, Smith, Campbell, Lopes, Sperling, Baumblatt, Thompson, Pugsley, Reagan-Steiner, DeStefano, Shimabukuro.

Statistical analysis: Oster, Su, Marquez, Strid, Woo, Shimabukuro.

Obtained funding: Edwards, DeStefano.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Oster, Gee, Creech, Broder, Edwards, Soslow, Schlaudecker, Smith, Baumblatt, Thompson, Reagan-Steiner, DeStefano.

Supervision: Su, Edwards, Soslow, Dendy, Schlaudecker, Campbell, Sperling, DeStefano, Shimabukuro.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Creech reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health for the Moderna and Janssen clinical trials and receiving personal fees from Astellas and Horizon. Dr Edwards reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health; receiving personal fees from BioNet, IBM, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Roche, Pfizer, Merck, Moderna, and Sanofi; and receiving compensation for being the associate editor of Clinical Infectious Diseases . Dr Soslow reported receiving personal fees from Esperare. Dr Schlaudecker reported receiving grants from Pfizer and receiving personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur. Drs Barnett, Ruberg, and Smith reported receiving grants from Pfizer. Dr Lopes reported receiving personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingleheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi and receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by contracts 200-2012-53709 (Boston Medical Center), 200-2012-53661 (Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center), 200-2012-53663 (Duke University), and 200-2012-50430 (Vanderbilt University Medical Center) with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The CDC provided funding via the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project to Drs Creech, Edwards, Soslow, Dendy, Schlaudecker, Lang, Barnett, Ruberg, Smith, Campbell, and Lopes. The authors affiliated with the CDC along with the other coauthors conducted the investigations; performed collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; were involved in the preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript; and made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC or the US Food and Drug Administration. Mention of a product or company name is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the CDC or the US Food and Drug Administration.

Additional Contributions: We thank the following CDC staff who contributed to this article without compensation outside their normal salaries (in alphabetical order and contribution specified in parenthesis at end of each list of names): Nickolas Agathis, MD, MPH, Stephen R. Benoit, MD, MPH, Beau B. Bruce, MD, PhD, Abigail L. Carlson, MD, MPH, Meredith G. Dixon, MD, Jonathan Duffy, MD, MPH, Charles Duke, MD, MPH, Charles Edge, MSN, MS, Robyn Neblett Fanfair, MD, MPH, Nathan W. Furukawa, MD, MPH, Gavin Grant, MD, MPH, Grace Marx, MD, MPH, Maureen J. Miller, MD, MPH, Pedro Moro, MD, MPH, Meredith Oakley, DVM, MPH, Kia Padgett, MPH, BSN, RN, Janice Perez-Padilla, MPH, BSN, RN, Robert Perry, MD, MPH, Nimia Reyes, MD, MPH, Ernest E. Smith, MD, MPH&TM, David Sniadack, MD, MPH, Pamela Tucker, MD, Edward C. Weiss, MD, MPH, Erin Whitehouse, PhD, MPH, RN, Pascale M. Wortley, MD, MPH, and Rachael Zacks, MD (for clinical investigations and interviews); Amelia Jazwa, MSPH, Tara Johnson, MPH, MS, and Jamila Shields, MPH (for project coordination); Charles Licata, PhD, and Bicheng Zhang, MS (for data acquisition and organization); Charles E. Rose, PhD (for statistical consultation); and Scott D. Grosse, PhD (for calculation of expected rates of myocarditis). We also thank the clinical staff who cared for these patients and reported the adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

  • Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
  • Access PDFs of free articles
  • Manage your interests
  • Save searches and receive search alerts

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

  • Publications
  • Our Methods
  • Short Reads
  • Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Political Typology Quiz

Where do you fit in the political typology, are you a faith and flag conservative progressive left or somewhere in between.

research paper review report

Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if it isn’t exactly right.

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

  • Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Information

  • Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

  • Active Journals
  • Find a Journal
  • Proceedings Series
  • For Authors
  • For Reviewers
  • For Editors
  • For Librarians
  • For Publishers
  • For Societies
  • For Conference Organizers
  • Open Access Policy
  • Institutional Open Access Program
  • Special Issues Guidelines
  • Editorial Process
  • Research and Publication Ethics
  • Article Processing Charges
  • Testimonials
  • Preprints.org
  • SciProfiles
  • Encyclopedia

agronomy-logo

Article Menu

research paper review report

  • Subscribe SciFeed
  • Recommended Articles
  • Google Scholar
  • on Google Scholar
  • Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Water management and hydrological characteristics of paddy-rice fields under alternate wetting and drying irrigation practice as climate smart practice: a review.

research paper review report

Share and Cite

Bwire, D.; Saito, H.; Sidle, R.C.; Nishiwaki, J. Water Management and Hydrological Characteristics of Paddy-Rice Fields under Alternate Wetting and Drying Irrigation Practice as Climate Smart Practice: A Review. Agronomy 2024 , 14 , 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071421

Bwire D, Saito H, Sidle RC, Nishiwaki J. Water Management and Hydrological Characteristics of Paddy-Rice Fields under Alternate Wetting and Drying Irrigation Practice as Climate Smart Practice: A Review. Agronomy . 2024; 14(7):1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071421

Bwire, Denis, Hirotaka Saito, Roy C. Sidle, and Junko Nishiwaki. 2024. "Water Management and Hydrological Characteristics of Paddy-Rice Fields under Alternate Wetting and Drying Irrigation Practice as Climate Smart Practice: A Review" Agronomy 14, no. 7: 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071421

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

MDPI

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

IMAGES

  1. 50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab

    research paper review report

  2. 31+ Research Paper Templates in PDF

    research paper review report

  3. Writing a Research Paper Literature Review in APA or MLA

    research paper review report

  4. Literature Review Outline Template

    research paper review report

  5. FREE 12+ Research Report Templates in PDF

    research paper review report

  6. How to Write a Research Paper

    research paper review report

VIDEO

  1. Difference between Research paper and a review. Which one is more important?

  2. Writing a Review Paper: What,Why, How?

  3. How to Make Table of Contents for Review Paper ?

  4. IMPORTANCE OF LITERATURE REVIEW WRITING IN RESEARCH ARTICLE

  5. Research Paper Review

  6. Writing a Review Paper

COMMENTS

  1. How to Structure a Review Report

    You might want to consider structuring your report around three main sections: summary, major issues, and minor issues. Let's look at each of these sections in a little more detail: Summary. In this section, you should make a brief summary of what the paper is about and what the main findings are. Begin with any positive feedback you have ...

  2. How to review a paper

    22 Sep 2016. By Elisabeth Pain. Share: A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach. Credit: dmark/iStockphoto. As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts.

  3. How to Write a Peer Review

    Here's how your outline might look: 1. Summary of the research and your overall impression. 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 ...

  4. Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript

    Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are. Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge. Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory. Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness.

  5. Writing a reviewer report

    In this section, write a detailed report reviewing the different parts of the manuscript. Start with the short summary of the manuscript you wrote after your first reading. Then, in a numbered list, explain each of the issues you found that need to be addressed. Divide the list into two sections: major issues and minor issues.

  6. Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for

    Review papers are generally considered secondary research publications that sum up already existing works on a particular research topic or question and relate them to the current status of the topic. ... list is the last part of the review article, and it should contain all the books, book chapters, journal articles, reports, and other media ...

  7. How to write a superb literature review

    One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad ...

  8. How to write a good scientific review article

    With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up-to-date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and ...

  9. 4 Steps to the Perfect Peer Review Report

    The reviewer must determine whether the research question that a manuscript is based around is original and well-defined, as well as if the results expand upon and say something different to the current knowledge on the topic. ... If the author makes revisions in accordance with the peer review report, the paper should be valid for acceptance ...

  10. How to Write the Perfect Peer Review Report: An Interview

    S.A.B: [I read] the paper carefully first, then I give it some time (usually 1-2 days) and try to think about its usefulness/imagine how I would approach the same problem. M.A.: I will look at the title first and see if it is captivating/exciting. I can already imagine what I would expect from the content from the title itself.

  11. Basics of Writing Review Articles

    A well-written review article must summarize key research findings, reference must-read articles, describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, depict unanswered questions, and suggest directions for future research ( 1 ). During the last decades, there has been a great expansion ...

  12. PDF HOW TO WRITE AN EFFECTIVE PEER REVIEW REPORT

    PEER REVIEW REPORT GOAL: A peer review report has two purposes, and two different audiences. 1. To help the journal editor(s) decide whether a paper: a. falls within the scope of the journal b. is novel and/or significant enough in content to be published, and c. is clear and consistent enough in its presentation to be understood. 2.

  13. 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 ...

  14. How to Write 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.

  15. Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast

    Research Paper, Review Paper Format. Sets the stage with a concise title and a descriptive abstract summarising the review's scope and findings. Lays the groundwork by presenting the research question, justifying the review's importance, and highlighting knowledge gaps. Details the research methods used to select, assess, and synthesise ...

  16. How to write an effective peer-review report: an editor's perspective

    2. The role of the referee. Before starting a review, it is helpful to consider the role of the referee. In a marvelous editorial, Benos, Kirk, and Hall (Citation 2003) suggest the referee needs to fill two roles - that of a 'journal advocate', and that of an 'author advocate.'The journal advocate is concerned about significance, quality and internal logic of the research and the ...

  17. Writing Critical Reviews: A Step-by-Step Guide

    the article, taking the main points of each paragraph. The point of the diagram is to. show the relationships between the main points in the article. Ev en better you might. consider doing an ...

  18. How to write a review report

    EASE 10-step guide. 1. Check the reviewer guidelines. Check the journal's reviewer guidelines which will outline what reviewing for this journal entails and the journal's peer review model (e.g. closed or open review). If you have any questions or uncertainties about the journal's review approach, communicate with the editor before you start.

  19. How to write a review paper

    Include this information when writing up the method for your review. 5 Look for previous reviews on the topic. Use them as a springboard for your own review, critiquing the earlier reviews, adding more recently published material, and pos-sibly exploring a different perspective. Exploit their refer-ences as another entry point into the literature.

  20. PDF A Guide to Peer Reviewing Journal Articles

    Peer review is an integral component of publishing the best quality research. Its purpose is to: 1. Aid in the vetting and selection of research for publication, ensuring that the best work is taken forward 2. Provide suggestions for improving articles that go through review, raising the general quality of published research

  21. How to Write an Article Review (With Samples)

    3. Identify the article. 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.

  22. Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

    Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ...

  23. What is the Difference Between Research Papers and Review Papers

    Here are four key differences between research papers and review papers: Purpose: Review papers evaluate existing research, identify trends, and discuss the current state of knowledge on a specific topic; they are based on the study of previously published literature. On the other hand, research paperscontain original research work undertaken ...

  24. Research Guides: Communicative Sciences and Disorders: Conducting &

    In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies.

  25. A scoping review on effective measurements of emotional ...

    Effective collaboration within teams relies significantly on emotion regulation, a process vital for managing and navigating emotional responses. Various methods have been employed to measure emotional responses in team contexts, including self-report questionnaires, behavioral coding, and physiological measures. This review paper aims to summarize studies conducted in teamwork contexts that ...

  26. Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the

    After initial review of reports of myocarditis to VAERS and review of the patient's medical records ... Given the limitations of the IBM MarketScan Commercial Research Database to capture enrollees aged 65 years or older, an expected rate for myocarditis was not calculated for this population. A 95% CI was calculated using Poisson ...

  27. Gender, sex and complex PTSD clinical presentation: A systematic review

    Background: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prevalence and clinical presentation reportedly vary with gender and/or sex. Equivalent complex PTSD (CPTSD) research is in its relative infancy and to date no systematic review has been conducted on this topic. Objective: To systematically review the literature and provide a narrative addressing the question of whether gender and/or sex ...

  28. Political Typology Quiz

    Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That's OK.

  29. Agronomy

    To develop this paper, we reviewed scientific information from published journal articles, reliable reports, and our knowledge on paddy-rice cultivation and water management with climate change in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Several studies confirm that AWD practice increases water-rice-crop productivity, yields, and reduces methane emissions.

  30. Services

    Save & Close Corporate Research & Development Report 2022. Deloitte's ongoing focus on research and development (R&D) is what has inspired us to carry out this survey - our first research project of this kind since the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. Dealmaking in Central Europe. What is the most frequently used purchase price mechanism for M ...