An example of writing a review of an article. What is not allowed when writing a review

Students and graduate students publish articles for successful certification. Although supervisors or third-party reviewers should write the review, often they do not want to spend their time on it, and then the student himself is forced to figure out how to write a review of the article.

Assigning a review of a scientific article

If the article is planned for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, it must be accompanied by a review by a person with a degree in the specialty related to the topic of the article. This is a kind of "quality mark". In some journals, a review is required for all articles without exception, in others - only for those written by students and graduate students (if the author himself has an academic degree, a review is not requested).

Definition 1

A review is not a completely independent work, but a kind of secondary product created on the basis of the reviewed article.

To write a competent review, you must:

Carefully read the peer-reviewed article.
Find and study a sample of a review for a scientific article (it is better for the VAK journal, since there are stricter requirements for reviews, and the quality of such a sample will be higher).
Following the example of a review of an article by the Higher Attestation Commission, make your own review (containing an assessment of the desired article).

What should a review of a scientific article contain?

In essence, a review is a review. A review can be written for any work - a book, a play, a film. A review of a scientific article has several distinctive features:

The style of the review should correspond to the style of the article - be scientific, not artistic.
Peer review of a scientific article is carried out before publication and contains an opinion on whether it is worth publishing at all.

Figure 1. An example of a review of a scientific article

Although the rules for writing a review of an article in accordance with GOST are not defined, there are generally accepted main components of a review:

Abstract analysis of the article. A person who has not read the article should understand what it is about, what position the author adheres to.
Evaluation of novelty - whether the article proposes something fundamentally new, or systematizes existing points of view, or simply repeats other people's research.
Assessment of the quality of the content of the article, the depth of the study of the material.
Formatting Compliance Assessment - Formatting requirements vary from journal to journal, so the reviewer should consider where the publication is planned.
The modernity and relevance of the article (and the materials used in it).

Example 1

If an article on jurisprudence (not of a historical nature) relies on legislation that is no longer in force, it will not be of value.

The significance of the article for science and practice.
The final assessment is whether the article should be published or denied publication.

A rough outline of a review of an article

A review of a scientific work can be written according to the following plan:

Information about the author of the article, its title.
Abstract coverage of the content of the article.
Assessment of the relevance of the selected topic (you can rely on the justification of the relevance from the article itself).
Assessing whether scientific research is meaningful. If their significance is recognized, then specifically - where they can be applied in practice, what prospects open up for further research.
Opinion on the advisability of accepting the article for publication.
Information about the reviewer - last name, first name, patronymic, academic degree and academic title, place of work and position.

According to this plan, a review of an article in the VAK journal can also be written. It is important that the review must be objective, indicate both the strengths of the article and its shortcomings.

Remark 1

If not a single negative point is noted in the review, this may raise suspicions either of the reviewer's bias or of inattention.

Typical length for a review is about 4000 characters without spaces.

Article review phrase templates

The review of the article (especially the Higher Attestation Commission) must be stylistically competent. To comply with the scientific style of the text, it is advisable to use the following phrases:

In this article, the author covers the problem ...
The problem considered by the author ...
During the analysis of the peer-reviewed work ...
The work was done at a high level ...
The author demonstrated an in-depth study ...
From the work under review it follows ...
The author of the peer-reviewed article draws conclusions ...
This article is an example ...
The need to write an article on the subject ... is caused by the state ...
The author of the article applied non-standard and innovative research methods ...
The position expressed by the author of the article is controversial ...
The theoretical significance of the article is that ...
The practical significance of the article is due to the fact that ...
The author has set out in sufficient detail ...
The author rightly notes that ...
The list of sources used by the author contains ...
The article is recommended for publication in the journal ...

For many university students, graduate students and researchers, the issue of writing various works is quite problematic. In particular, it can be difficult to take into account all the requirements and competently write a review for a publication. Today I decided to post information about how to write a review of a scientific article, an example of which can be seen below.

What is a review

Before publishing an article in a serious edition, it is required to write a review of it. At the same time, peer review is considered one of the most important parts in the selection and approval of works. It also improves the quality of published articles.

To publish an article from the VAK List in the journal, at least two reviews are required. A number of publications that are preparing to submit documents to be included in this list have the same requirements. However, such reviews are required for other purposes in the framework of higher education and the submission of scientific publications. This applies to both the humanities and technical specialties, and makes it difficult for both students, for example, undergraduates, and research workers.

Someone thinks the term "review" is intricate, but it can be described quite simply: the article is checked for the consistency and authenticity of the content, as well as for compliance with the design requirements. However, such a simple procedure is associated with the subjective discretion of the reviewers. Therefore, you need to know exactly how to correctly draw up a document, and what it should contain.

A review is a special document that is drawn up by a reviewer... The latter may be a scientist with a degree who understands the content of the publication, and also works in the same field, specializes in the same discipline as the author.

The reviewer provides in a brief form the analysis of the publication, the assessment. All this is done according to specific criteria. They also evaluate the volume, annotation, the choice of keywords in different languages. They also look at how well the links are written, how the bibliography is structured.

Types of reviews

Different reviewers can write the document depending on the purpose of its compilation. It comes in the following varieties:

Internal review compiled by the supervisor. The teacher's signature is certified by the university or the institution where the author is studying or working.
External review- for this, journal editors or members of the editorial board are appointed as reviewers. One way or another, the document should be drawn up by specialists with authority and academic degree. A number of organizations require the person who will write it to have published publications in specialized journals over the past few years (usually three years).

Approximate drafting plan

There are two plan options for how to write a review of an article. The first option can be called simplified, and the second is already somewhat more complex and more detailed. If you are interested in a simpler plan that allows you to understand how to write a review correctly, then it includes the following points:

Introduction about the subject of research.
Personal impressions about the read, the main aspects that shape the course of the publication.
Degree of importance the problem that is covered.
conclusions.

This plan is more suitable students and novice reviewers who do not have sufficient experience to write critical comments.

In a detailed plan, there will be such a structure:

Intelligence about the article in question.
Degree of importance problems and its actualization.
An indication of the main aspect under consideration in the publication (a brief analysis of the content is possible).
Own arguments and impressions of the study.
Constructive criticism and negative sides.
conclusions.

Volume

The issue of volume is controversial, since this nuance will largely depend on the specific topic and scientific discipline. It usually takes up to three and a half thousand printed characters... This corresponds to approximately 1.5 pages of 12-point Word text.

To add stylistic completeness to the review, be sure to use special phrases and thematic expressions that emphasize your professionalism and awareness of the topic and discipline.

Concise dictionary of phrases

If you want to write a review competently, use the following words and sentences, which can be inserted into the text:

In an article by the author or in work ...
Scientific research is devoted to the following problem ...
An important aspect of the article in which the author has achieved a positive result ...
Summing up the results of the entire study or a separate part of it ...
It is possible to point out the imperfection of the article in that ...

In the last paragraph, it is important to say not only about the shortcomings, but also to say about the positive aspects of the publication.

Add the following phrase: "However, one cannot but say about ..."

What the reviewer should be guided by

If you want to do everything competently, adhere to special rules for drafting the document... In this case, your review will be accepted in a specialized publication. When writing a review, pay attention to the following requirements:

Describing the importance of the topic in modern conditions and its relevance, do this as succinctly as possible.
Pointing to the main aspect, choose the thesis that you consider to be the main one, without additional and secondary nuances.
When summarizing the content, remember what you need to point to research findings and focus on successful theses of the author.
Pointing to the negative side, write exclusively on the topic, without links to additional sources.
In closing phrases tell about the positive aspects.
Without fail tell me about dates and exact facts, but without prejudice to the clarity and brevity of the document.

The following can be used as additional requirements for reviewing:

Indicate the originality of the publication.
List the main shortcomings and your criticisms.
Tell about your personal impressions while reading a scientific work, but do it with reason.
Be impartial and try to be objective.
It is also recommended that you talk to the author in person.

If you comply with the above requirements, your review will be accepted for publication in the magazine or for posting on the website, etc.

What is not allowed when writing a review

In addition to the mandatory points, there are also certain points that in no case should be found in the text, namely:

Never do not write abusive statements or radical calls with a violent nature.
Don't just retell the text research, as readers can, but never critics and people with special training.
Inclusion is not allowed personal opinion no argumentation.
Do not write lengthy abstract reasoning.
Is always clearly form your thoughts and do not pay too much attention to nuances that can be counted minor.
The unpreparedness of the reviewer is not allowed, the presence spelling and factual errors.
Do not write exclusively in a negative spirit, point out the positive aspects too.
Not worth writing about personal tastes and preferences.

Pay attention to these points, and you will not be accused of illiteracy or bias.

Writing a review is easy: criteria for content

When writing first, point to the overall rating of the article... It will consist of several criteria, each of which can be assessed as “sufficient”, “weak”, “insufficient” and included in the text. The criteria will be as follows:

Problem. The study should be devoted to a separate issue and indicate its essence, indicate options for solutions.
Relevance. The article should correspond to modern scientific and social realities.
Scientificness. The author should consider the subject of research from the point of view of a scientist, even if it is applied and technical in itself.
Novelty. The results and conclusions reached by the author must have scientific novelty. It may also consist in the application of new methods that were not previously used when considering a particular topic.
Completeness. Research must be holistic. So, the author needs to start by setting goals and objectives, and complete the text - by solving them.
Reasonableness. The result must be substantiated using certain tools - specific methods, experiments, mathematical modeling, etc.
Structuredness. The article should have a clear and understandable structure, which in publications corresponds to the presence of sections and subsections. They can be devoted to relevance, analysis of facts and theories, problem statement, discussion in academia and literature, conclusion, etc.
Characteristics of the formulations. The provisions of the publication should be formulated as clear concise phrases and strictly define the essence of the research contribution to science and the development of the discipline.
Comprehensibility. Articles should be written in a language that will be understandable to average specialists in a particular area. The use of common terms is required.
Compactness. Scientific work should not be overly voluminous. The size of the text is governed by the content of clear, verified information in it.

After evaluating these criteria, substantive comments can be included. For more tips, check out the following video:

Review example

Today, a ready-made example of a document can be downloaded for free. Here is a sample of a brief review of a publication in the field of psychology. As a reminder, this is only a rough example, and you can (and most likely even should!) Include additional subclauses depending on a specific topic. So, the text could be as follows:

Review of the article "Psychological aspects of education in school institutions" of the postgraduate student of the Department of Psychology of the Pedagogical University, Natalya Vasilievna Lapushkina.
The article examines the main psychological aspects that are aimed at improving the academic performance and learning ability of children in school, conduct a behavioral analysis of specific groups of schoolchildren by age.
The relevance of the problem under study is beyond doubt, because the current level of school education lags far behind the realities of the time, and to a large extent it depends on the illiterate approach of teachers to students.
The author has done a deep work and provided recommendations for the normalization of the psychological climate in educational institutions. There is a conclusion that the psychological knowledge of teachers is insufficient, and teachers are unwilling to seek contact with children.
A scientific article fully meets a number of requirements and can be recommended for publication.
Name of the reviewer, other personal information, signature and seal.

Fig. 1 Sample of a review of a scientific article. Click to view full size ...

Finally

Writing a review is a problematic procedure, since it can be difficult to clearly formulate one's opinion on the research and express it in several pages not only for undergraduate or postgraduate students, but also for serious scientists. Such documents are drawn up both for the approval of the publication of an article and for internal use when defending diplomas, coursework, for the implementation of student projects, and also simply as a training for university students.

The writing process can be made much easier if you follow a specific plan and write your own assessment according to the criteria. The ready-made sample also helps to determine the wording.

Free legal advice online

Fill out the form to ask your question:

Writing a review of an article is a prerequisite for the Higher Attestation Commission. This document is necessary for an objective analysis of a scientific article and making a decision on the advisability of its publication in VAK-editions.

What is an article review?

An article review is an official document written by a supervisor, an opponent of the applicant, or an independent reviewer. It can be one of two varieties:

Internal consists of members of the attestation commission working at the department where the applicant is being defended, as well as his supervisor. The document is certified by the university or research institute.
External is divided into 2 main types: carried out by the official opponents of the dissertation, invited from another university or leading organization, as well as an independent review of the article by members of the editorial board or a special commission before publication.

The supervisor's feedback concerns the positive aspects of the written dissertation, external and internal reviews contain an overall assessment and comments. If we are talking about material prepared for publication, then after checking the reviewer makes a positive or negative decision about the possibility of placing the material in periodicals.

The volume and content of the review

To write a critical review about, they are guided by a short outline: the document should include an introduction, the main text in which the author expresses his personal opinion about the material, a section with comments and conclusions. You need to write solely on the topic, without making a digression and links to other sources. When making comments, the reviewer must give reasoning in order to make an impartial and objective assessment.

To do this, consider the following questions:

, its relevance and the solutions indicated by the author.
Ability to consider an issue or problem from the point of view of a scientist.
The novelty of the methods proposed by the applicant for solving the problem. The technique may be widely known, but with certain nuances not previously used.
The depth of research and the degree of disclosure of the topic. The text should be complete, logical, coherent and well-grounded.
Writing in an accessible language, but using scientific terminology that is understandable for specialists of a particular qualification. Correct construction of the text with clear and concise phrases, minimum "water".
... The review is built from sections that include one or more chapters, unique subheadings, annotations, bibliography, information about the author.
Estimate the volume of the article. It must comply with the established guidelines, so the reviewer can point out points that are not sufficiently covered or, on the contrary, require reduction.

When it comes to the size of a review, there are no strict rules governing it. The review is approximately 3.5-4 thousand characters, but may be more or less depending on the topic and its complexity. In practice, these parameters correspond to 1.5-2 pages of text in Word. Such a document must be printed, properly certified and provided with the original, not the electronic version.

What the review should contain: plan / structure of the document

A well-written review consists of five main parts. The approximate content of the text below will facilitate the compilation of this work.

1 Full title of the article, indicating the full name and position of the author

2 Capacious / Brief description of the problem under study

3 Determination of the level of relevance of the document and its brief description

4 Description of the most significant moments of a scientific article

The review prohibits a simple retelling of the text, unfounded opinions of the author (subjectivity), non-observance of the standards of writing, statements of the series "I suppose, I am guided by the opinion that ... etc."

the importance of the research conducted by the author is undeniable;
the author indicates a problem that ...;
after studying the article ...;
the document is devoted to an actual problem / topic;
scientific article fully discloses ...;
the work contains an extraordinary point of view;
the main emphasis in the document is made on ...;
the author has objectively analyzed a number of points;
the article is written at a high level;
the arguments put forward by the author are supported by ...;
the problem put forward is due to ... the current state of science;
in a scientific article, the accents are correctly / accurately placed over ...

To start cooperation with the "Dissertation" company, conclude an official contract, which will detail the terms of payment and agree on the deadlines for the delivery of the finished work. We will be glad to help you!

Examples of reviews of articles from the archive

The article submitted for publication must be accompanied by a review signed by a candidate or doctor of science. This is a mandatory requirement when publishing a scientific work in a peer-reviewed journal. The staff of our publishing house has posted several examples of reviews of scientific articles that have been published in our journals. If you find it difficult to write a review, you can always view the work of your colleagues. Perhaps you are looking for a reviewer job yourself or yourself or a monograph? For all questions, you can contact the administration of the publishing house. Further on the page: samples of design and writing of reviews.

Review sample. Review of the archive of scientific articles on the site

author	Article title	Reviewer	Material
Reviews in the archive of magazine issues
Bogdanova V.O.	Constructivist ideas in pedagogy: from adaptation to freedom	Borisov S.V.
Vilensky A.V.	New evidence of institutional constraints on the development of small and medium-sized enterprises in Russia	Lylova O.V.
Z. V. Vozgova	The use of distance educational technologies in the continuous process of professional development of scientific and pedagogical workers	Nikitina E.Yu.
Vyrleeva-Balaeva O.S.	The principle of separation of powers in the system of legal restrictions of state power	Malko A.V.
Gubanov S.A.	The paradigm of the antinomies of “femininity” in the narrative model of the novel by B.L. Pasternak "Doctor Zhivago" (on the example of the images of Larisa, Tony and Marina)	Edoshina I.A.
Klyushina A.M.	Passive construction as a means of creating communicative coherence of the text	Torgasheva M.A.
Kulikova Yu.P.	Modern approaches to innovation management at the university	Veselovsky M.Ya.
Levina M.B.	On the issue of consumer dominance in the "knowledge economy"	Soldatova I.N.
Lukyanchikova A.L.	Development of creative abilities of students in the process of research activities for the study of the "World around"	L.V. Moiseeva
Melnikova L.A.	Inversion and ellipsis - the zone of functional vulnerability of non-declining nouns	Priorova I.V.
V.V. Serdechnaya	Small (Lambeth) poems by William Blake: on the question of classification	A. V. Tatarinov
Tsypina I.M.	Pseudo-nest in the word-formation nest of the lexical-semantic field "diplomacy and foreign policy"	Dobrosklonskaya T.G.

Methodical section with useful materials for the design of scientific papers

In the "Methodological section" section on our website, you will find many more useful practical materials on the design of scientific articles and monographs: requirements and rules for the design of a bibliography, author affiliation, foreign publication requirements.

Assessment of the level and analysis of the effectiveness of teaching chemistry in a modern school, the need for practical training. Determination of the relevance and place in the modern pedagogical process of the Unified State Exam, its negative aspects.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Review of a pedagogical articleV.G.Razumovsky"On the quality of knowledge and the need for reformschools "

chemistry teaching exam school

As a student of the Faculty of Chemistry, I would like to talk about teaching chemistry in modern schools and about such a method of testing the knowledge of senior schoolchildren completing secondary education, like the Unified State Exam. I agree with the author of the article and believe that this topic is relevant at this moment in time. As a recent participant in the Unified State Exam, I can adequately assess all the difficulties faced by modern exam participants. We are talking about the article by V.G. Razumovsky "On the quality of knowledge and the need to reform schools."

Razumovsky cites the research of Professor S.M. Cosella results from international physics Olympiads and talks about science teaching in general. He writes: “... schoolchildren are overwhelmed with homework, which is an inevitable consequence of an irrational curriculum and poor teaching quality ...” Indeed, we did a lot of homework at school, which was focused on memorizing information rather than thinking and finding solutions on our own. Of course, the note-taking method has some positive results, but it shouldn't fill the entire self-study process at home. Some teachers, due to their incompetence and insufficient qualifications, set homework that the student is unable to complete. For example, a biology teacher asked us to create a detailed diagram describing all the animal kingdoms, from kingdoms to families. And this is to indicate the kingdom, type, subtype, class, subclass, detachment, family. But one detachment can have several dozen families! The child realizes in advance that he will not be able to do this work correctly, in principle, therefore, in most cases, he retreats from the task.

But I would like to talk more about chemistry classes in modern non-specialized schools. The first thing I want to note is that every child, young person should be able to explain the phenomena he encounters. And many phenomena are of a chemical nature, ranging from the burning of gasoline in a car and ending with natural disasters. And without a thorough knowledge of chemistry, a person becomes helpless, he cannot predict the results of his impact on nature. And secondly, there are a lot of raw materials in Russia, and it is simply doomed to develop the chemical industry. But in reality, little attention is paid to chemistry lessons. Everyone knows that the subject of chemistry begins with grade 8 in a non-specialized school. I will cite my school as an example. Chemistry was carried out in a regular class, 2 hours a week, laboratory, demonstration experiments - once a month. Sometimes we went to a computer class and passed electronic versions of laboratory work, and as “innovative technologies” we had students with their presentations. Our teacher did not have a pedagogical, let alone a chemistry education. It was an ordinary ecologist who had completed pedagogical courses. All this suggests that neither the school administration nor the “teacher” himself approached the education process with responsibility. Now, as a student at the Faculty of Chemistry, I realized the importance of practical skills in handling chemical equipment and reagents. Most of the students are not prepared to carry out scientific activities, some do not even know the base. This not only complicates the entire process of education in higher educational institutions for the student, but also leads to a weakening of the scientific base of the entire country, i.e. it will not lead to scientific progress. Consequently, the problems of teaching chemistry in schools can affect global changes in the development of the country. In addition, the inability to handle inventory, not knowing the properties of substances, including their toxicity, can lead to disastrous results, such as damage to state property, or, even worse, damage to the health of the experimenter. If the teacher has read the safety precautions, then it is not a fact that the student will be able to remember it in practical work, especially if he does not have certain skills in handling substances. There are other problems that Razumovsky talks about. For example: "schools have not been replenished with equipment for a decade and a half, and what is left is outdated." All this, and other problems that I have not touched upon, indicate that modern schools need reforming.

Another problem raised in the article by V.G. Razumovsky is the certification of school graduates on the basis of the Unified State Exam. "... the main argument in favor of introducing a new type of certification - the fight against corruption among teachers - is immoral," especially since the level of corruption in the Unified State Exam does not decrease, but only is transferred from universities to schools, and the exam itself tests the knowledge of students, but not their ability to reason and think. In this sentence, Razumovsky demonstrates his attitude to this type of knowledge assessment as the Unified State Exam. As evidence of his innocence, the author cites the fact that anonymity depersonalizes a school graduate. The controversy around the USE has not subsided since its introduction in 2001. It is more reasonable to say that the Unified State Exam is a whim of politicians, rather than a decision of the Scientific Pedagogical Council of the Russian Federation. Razumovsky was a clear opponent of the USE and in his article he gave a lot of evidence of his point of view. As a participant in this “experiment on children,” I can only agree with the author.

In addition, it is now proposed to change the five-point system of assessing the student's knowledge to a hundred-point one. In my opinion, this will not lead to good results. Not only will the student not be able to understand how the teacher assessed him, but the teacher himself will find it difficult to assess the student. But it seems to me that this role (the role of the evaluator) will soon be played by the computer. Thus, “innovation” is not always a good thing.

Based on the article and my own thoughts, I can draw a conclusion. Modern education, as never before, needs a clear forecast of the consequences of the innovations carried out and in reforming the entire education system as a whole.

Posted on Allbest.ru