How to write a review of an article

Any completed work, whether scientific or creative, at the start stage (project launch, premiere, etc.) needs not only its consumer but also an objective assessment and constructive criticism. In this article, you will get acquainted with the fundamental rules of writing and the design of one of such works – a review.

What is a review?

According to the write my paper service WritingAPaper, a review of an article is an official document prepared by an expert in the relevant scientific topic, which is a professional and objective assessment of the research conducted by the author. The review refers to the positive and negative aspects of the document submitted for analysis and contains comments, recommendations, and clarifying questions for the applicant.

There are two types of reviews:

  • An internal review is prepared by an expert working directly in the institution where the applicant is defended. Such an expert can be a supervisor or a member of the Attestation Commission who works in the university’s department.
  • An external review is compiled by an independent expert working in another institution. Such an expert may be an opponent invited from another institution, a member of the editorial board, or a special commission.

Why do you need a review of the article?

A review is a mandatory document for the defense and publication of any research paper of a higher education institution. A positive review can significantly impact the successful defense of a research project.

Also, both review types are necessary if the author wants to publish their work in a journal on the Higher Attestation Commission list.

How to write a review of an article

In the review, the main task of the author is reduced to the statement of an objective, critical assessment of the material presented. As a rule, a thesis analysis of the article’s content is given, and the quality of the experimental and documentary base in the work with which the author of the article has made the critical conclusions within the framework of the research conducted is evaluated. The degree of innovation, the relevance of the investigation, and the relevance of the article to practical use are also taken into account.

Content, style, and design are also evaluated.

The following points are worth paying attention to:

  • the topic of the article (how relevant and exciting it is today, what are the prospects for further development of the problem issue);
  • novelty (whether the author used new research methods, perhaps formed their unique approach to the study of the case);
  • validity of the author’s position (what materials, evidentiary facts, and research results the author is guided by to justify his position);
  • the criterion of completeness (whether the author managed to answer the posed problem question and reasonably disclose the topic of the article);
  • precise formulations (how unambiguous are the thoughts and ideas of the author, there should be no ambiguity or vagueness, and the position should be clear);
  • the volume of the article and design (whether the paper corresponds to the generally accepted standards, how fully disclosed, the raised problematic issues, perhaps, some topics need to be improved, while other structural components can be reduced; how logical the text written by the author, available for perception, properly structured).

The result should be a review of the article, consisting of the introduction, the central part, and the conclusion, in which the positive and negative aspects of the work will be stated in a thesis statement. All comments should be argued, objective, and unbiased.

It is also vital to properly edit the review before submitting it. It can be quickly done with the help of your preferred best essay writing service, ensuring its grammar is correct, and the paper meets all the requirements.


When writing a review, it is worth paying attention to the generally accepted structure, essential elements, and criteria. The study should include the following components:

1. Data about the author of the article

This part should contain the full title of the article under review, followed by the study’s author’s name and position, indicating the necessary regalia.

2. The key problematic issue raised in the article

This part requires a thesis statement of the challenging issue addressed by the study.

3. Relevance of the problem

Analysis and expression of expert opinion on the degree of relevance, the topic chosen for the study, and its significance for the scientific environment and the world community.

4. Important aspects of the topic disclosed by the author

Identification and reasoned analysis of the key distinctive points in the work, original ideas, and concepts. Highlight the study’s exclusive and revealing issues, which the author was able to reveal.

5. Conclusion

General description and analysis of the results achieved by the author, analysis of the theoretical and practical value of the presented work, and a brief description of the novelty of scientific research.

Review of the author’s scientific materials in their work, literary, and other sources.

The general assessment of the material’s design, style, and presentation.

6. Recommendations

In this part, it is necessary to highlight several violations of the work’s author: express comments, inconsistencies, controversial issues, and general recommendations for improvement.

As a result of the review, the article can be recommended for publication or sent for revision. The reviewer should clearly and intelligibly argue a negative decision.

7. Information about the reviewer

The review should end with the reviewer’s name, academic rank, degree, position, and place of work. The document should be supported by a signature and seal from the place of employment. 


There is no strict regulation establishing the length of the review. It may vary depending on the research topic’s complexity and the form and specifics of the reviewer’s writing. The main objective is to ensure that all critical elements of the structure are elaborated and that the evaluation is sufficiently detailed and justified.

The standard review length is between 3,500 and 4,000 characters (with spaces), approximately two pages of printed A4 Word text.

In terms of volume, the structural components of the review should generally meet the following requirements:

  • relevance of the article – 2-3 sentences;
  • important aspects (negative and positive characteristics of the article) – 2-3 paragraphs;
  • conclusion – 2-4 sentences.


Professional writers from the best writing services highlight that the review should be written in a literary style with strict adherence to structural norms. It is worth avoiding ornate language and complex terms; the study should be understandable. You should also avoid trivial retelling of the article, subjective evaluation, and unargumented opinions. The use of specific clichés, clericalism, and jargon is unacceptable.

Scientific style is a genre that does not overlap with the style of the fiction text and assumes a certain dryness of presentation, capacity, and the use of professional vocabulary.

How to write a review of a scientific article

Several steps can be highlighted to help in the preparation of a scientific article review:

  • Examine the research paper carefully.
  • Make a brief characterization of the paper based on the critical requirements for writing scientific articles. Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.
  • Adhering to the standard review plan, write the central substantive part. The review does not allow the retelling of the author’s article, and it is primarily a research, analytical work aimed at peer review of scientific work. Consequently, each thesis must be supported by substantiation.
  • Formatting a review of a scientific article according to the requirements.

Similar Posts:

About the author

I have always been a shopaholic. A lot of times my questions went unanswered when it came to retail questions, so I started Talk Radio News. - Caitlyn Johnson

Leave a Comment