Critiquing a research article Radiography,Volume 11, Issue 1. Critiquing research evidence for use in practice: Revisited Dale, J. Critiquing research evidence for use in practice: Revisited. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 33 3 Focusing on the fundamentals: Reading qualitative research with a critical eye. Astroth, K. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45 4 A Software Tool Article should include the rationale for the development of the tool and details of the code used for its construction.
The article should provide examples of suitable input data sets and include psychology article reviews example of the output that can be expected from the tool and how this output should be interpreted. Method Articles describe new and well tested experimental, observational, theoretical or computational methods or procedures, either quantitative or qualitative. This includes new study methods, substantive modifications to existing methods or innovative applications of existing methods to new models or scientific questions.
We welcome technical articles that describe tools that facilitate the design or performance of experiments, provide data analysis features or assist medical treatment. We welcome protocols for any study design, including but not limited to epidemiological studies and systematic reviews. Study pre-protocols i. Study Protocols for pilot and feasibility studies may also be considered.
Registered Reports are a form of empirical article in which the methods and proposed analyses are published and reviewed prior to research being conducted.
This format of article seeks to neutralise a variety of inappropriate research practices, including inadequate statistical power, and selective reporting of results. Read More. Reviews should provide a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field. Note that F Peer reviewed scientific articles Reviews are by invitation only.
The Opinions section is intended to provide a place for the expression of views on topical, emerging or controversial issues ranging from experimental science to those involving science and public-health policy, education and training.
It is also a how do i find peer reviewed articles in which colleagues can respond, psychology article reviews room for speculation, to previously stated opinions or observations. A successful Opinion piece will make a compelling case for a particular point of view, but will do so, mindful of existing controversies or alternative views, and will make an effort to integrate these into the discussion. While primary data are typically not included in these submissions, if the author chooses to include data, it should be subjected to rigorous review as would any research article.
These articles should be no more than words with 3 figures and a maximum of references. Written by the journal's editors, these occasional pieces can cover announcements, highlights of journal content, position statements, and journal updates. The history of systematic reviews is relatively recent [ 45 ] and despite early work on meta-ethnography [ 6 ], the field has been dominated by the development and application of statistical meta-analysis peer reviewed medical articles controlled trials to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of health and social interventions.
Over the past 10 years, other methods for reviewing have been developed. Some of these methods aim to extend effectiveness reviews with information from qualitative studies [ 7 ]. The qualitative information may be used to inform decisions made in the statistical synthesis or be part of a mixed methods synthesis discussed later.
Other approaches have been developed from a perspective which, instead of the statistical aggregation of data from controlled trials, emphasize the central role that theory can play in synthesizing existing research [ 89 ], address the complexity of interventions [ 10 ], and the importance of understanding research within its social and paradigmatic context [ 11 ].
The growth in methods has not been accompanied by a clear typology of reviews. The result is a complex web of terminology [ 212 ]. The lack of clarity about the range of methods of review has consequences which can limit their development and subsequent use.
Knowledge or consensus about the details of specific methods may be lacking, creating the danger of the over-generalization peer reviewed academic articles inappropriate application of the terminology being used.
Also, the branding of different types of review can lead to over-generalizations and simplification with assumptions being made about differences between reviews that only apply to particular stages of a review or that are matters of a sample of an application letter rather than absolute differences.
For example, concepts of quality assurance can differ depending upon the nature of the research question being asked. Similarly, infrastructure systems developed to enable the better reporting and critical appraisal of reviews, such as PRISMA [ 13 ], and for registration of reviews, such as PROSPERO [ 14 ] currently apply predominantly to a subset of reviews, the defining criteria of which may not be fully clear.
How to Review Articles - SAGE Publications Inc
A further problem is that systematic reviews have attracted criticism on peer reviewed scientific articles assumption that systematic reviewing is applicable only to empirical quantitative research [ 15 ]. In this way, polarized debates about the utility and relevance of different research paradigms may further complicate terminological issues and conceptual understandings about how reviews actually differ from one another. All of these difficulties are heightened because review methods are undergoing a period of rapid development and so the methods being described are often being updated and refined.
Knowledge about the nature and strengths of different forms of review is necessary for: appropriate how do i find peer reviewed articles of review methods by those undertaking reviews; consideration of the importance of different issues of quality and relevance for each stage of a review; appropriate and accurate reporting and accountability of such review methods; interpretation of reviews; commissioning of reviews; development of procedures for assessing and undertaking reviews; and development of new methods.
Clarifying the nature of the similarities and differences between reviews is a first step to avoiding these potential limitations. A typology of review methods might be a solution. There are many diverse approaches to reviews that can be easily distinguished, such as statistical meta-analysis and meta-ethnography.
A more detailed examination, however, reveals that the types of review currently described often have commonalities that vary across types of review and at different stages of a review.
Three of these dimensions are described here. Exploring these dimensions also reveals how reviews differ in degree along these overlapping dimensions rather than falling into clear categories. Primary research and research reviews vary in their ontological, epistemological, ideological, and theoretical stance, their research paradigm, and the issues that they aim to address.
In reviews, this variation occurs in both the method of review and the type of primary research that they consider. As reviews will include primary studies that address the focus of the review question, it is not surprising that review methods also tend to reflect many of peer reviewed academic articles approaches, assumptions, and methodological challenges of the primary research that they include.
One indication of the aim and approach of a study is the research question which the study aims to answer. Although different questions drive the review process and suggest different methods for reviewing and methods of studies included there is considerable overlap in the review methods that peer reviewed medical articles may select to answer these questions; thus the review question alone does not provide a complete basis for generating a typology of review methods.
There is no agreed typology of research questions in the health and social sciences. In the absence of such a typology, one way to distinguish research is in the extent that it is concerned with generating, exploring, or testing theory [ 16 ].
In addressing an impact question using statistical meta-analysis, the approach is predominantly the empirical testing of a theory that the intervention works. The review may, in addition to testing theory, include methods to generate hypotheses about causal relations. Testing often though not always wants to add up or aggregate data from large representative samples to obtain a more precise writing for the web of effect.
Theoretical work in such analyses peer reviewed scientific articles undertaken predominantly before and after the review, not during the review, and is concerned with developing the hypothesis and interpreting the findings. In research examining processes or meanings the approach is predominantly about developing or exploring theory. This may not require representative samples of studies as in reviewed articles reviews but does require variation to enable new conceptual understandings to be generated.
Searching for studies in these reviews adopts a theoretical approach to searching to identify a sufficient and appropriate range peer reviewed medical articles studies either through a rolling sampling of studies according to a framework that is developed inductively from the emerging literature akin to theoretical sampling in primary research [ 17 ]; or through a sampling framework based on an existing body of literature akin to purposive sampling in primary research [ 18 ].
In both primary research and reviews, theoretical work is undertaken during the process of the research; and, just as with the theory testing reviews, the nature of the concepts may be relatively simple or very complex. The distinction between research that tests and research that generates theory also equates to the distinction between review types made by Voils, Sandelowski and colleagues [ 1920 ] although we have been very influenced by reviewed articles authors the detail of our use of these terms may differ in places.
The primary research and reviews are adding up aggregating and averaging empirical observations to make empirical statements within predefined conceptual positions. In contrast, reviews that are trying to interpret and understand the world are interpreting and arranging configuring information and are developing concepts Figure 1. This heuristic also maps onto the way that the review is intended to inform knowledge. Aggregative research tends to be about seeking evidence to inform decisions whilst configuring research is seeking concepts to provide enlightenment through new ways of understanding.
How do i find peer reviewed articles
Continua of approaches in aggregative and configurative reviews. Aggregative reviews are often concerned with using predefined concepts and then testing these using predefined a priori methods. Configuring reviews can be more exploratory and, although the basic methodology is determined or at least assumed in advance, specific methods are sometimes adapted and selected iteratively as the research proceeds.
Aggregative reviews are likely to be combining similar forms of data and so be interested in the homogeneity of studies. Configurative reviews are more likely to be interested in identifying patterns provided by heterogeneity [ 12 ]. The logic of aggregation relies on identifying studies that support one another and so give the reviewer greater certainty about the magnitude and variance of the phenomenon under investigation. As already discussed in the previous section, the approach to searching for studies to include the search strategy is attempting to be exhaustive or, if not exhaustive, then at least avoiding bias in the way that studies are found.
Configuring reviews have the different purpose of aiming to find sufficient cases peer reviewed academic articles explore patterns and so are not necessarily attempting to be exhaustive in their searching.
Most reviews contain elements of peer reviewed academic articles aggregation and configuration and so some may require an unbiased set of studies as well as sufficient heterogeneity to permit the exploration of differences between them.
Aggregating and configuring reviews also vary in their approach to quality assurance. All reviews aim to avoid drawing misleading conclusions because of problems in the studies they contain.
Aggregative reviews are concerned with a priori methods and their quality assurance processes assess compliance with those methods. As the basis of quality assurance is known a priorimany aspects of this can essay on arranged marriage incorporated into the inclusion criteria of the review and how do i find peer reviewed articles can be further checked at a later quality assurance stage.
Find and Use Review Articles
The inclusion criteria may, for example, require only certain types of study with specific methodological features. There is less consensus in the practice of quality assessment in configurative reviews; some adopt a similar strategy to those employed in aggregative reviews, whereas others reject the idea that the quality of a study can be assessed through an examination of its method, and instead prioritize other issues, such as relevance to the review and the contribution the study can make in the review synthesis to testing or generating theory [ 21 - 23 ].
Some of the differences between aggregating and configuring reviews are shown in Figure 1. Although the logics of aggregating and configuring research findings demand different methods for reviewing, a review often includes components of both.
A meta-analysis may contain a post hoc interpretation of statistical peer reviewed medical articles which may be configured to generate hypotheses for future testing. A configurative synthesis may include some components where data are aggregated for example, framework synthesis [ 2425 ].
Examples of reviews that are predominantly aggregative, configurative, or with high degrees of both aggregation and configuring are given in Table 1 and for a slightly different take on this heuristic see Sandelowski et al. Similarly, the nature of a review question, the assumptions underlying the question or conceptual frameworkand whether the review aggregates or configures the results of other studies may strongly suggest which methods of review are appropriate, but this is not always the case.
Several methods of psychology article reviews are applicable to a wide range of review approaches.
Psychology article reviews
Both thematic [ 26 ] and framework synthesis [ 2425 ] which identify themes within narrative data can, for example, be used with both aggregative and configurative approaches to synthesis. Reviews that are predominantly aggregative may have similar epistemological and methodological assumptions to much quantitative research and there may be similar assumptions between predominantly configurative reviews and qualitative research. Some authors also use the terms conceptual synthesis for reviews that are predominantly configurative, but the process of configuring in a review does not have to be limited to concepts; it can also be the arrangement of numbers as in subgroup analyses of statistical meta-analysis.
However, aggregative reviews also include interpretation, before inspection of the studies to develop criteria for including studies, and after synthesis of the findings to develop implications for policy, practice, and further research.The University of Texas. Archived from the original on 4 June Retrieved 8 June Archived how do i find peer reviewed articles the original on Retrieved Rethlefsen, M.
Please do so as discretely and as quickly as possible. Discussion - it is important to discuss with the journal editor any concerns that you have about the paper or their specific requirements for review if you are being invited to review for the first time. Editors are usually open to discussing their expectations and journal requirements with reviewers. These guidelines will sometimes include a list of questions and will usually offer the reviewer the how do i find peer reviewed articles to make general comments.
If a journal does not offer a structured questionnaire or form for reviewers, it can be useful to think about the following things as you read the paper to help you structure your report:. Multiple examples across several areas of science how do i find peer reviewed articles that scientists elevated the importance of peer review for research that was questionable or corrupted. For example, climate change deniers have published studies in the Energy and Environment journal, attempting to undermine the body of research that shows how human activity impacts the Earth's climate.
Politicians in the How do i find peer reviewed articles States who reject the established science of climate change have then cited this journal on several occasions in speeches and reports. At times, peer review has been exposed as a process that was orchestrated for a preconceived outcome. The New York Connect mcgraw hill homework answers gained access to confidential peer review documents for studies sponsored by the National Football Leagues NFL that were cited as scientific evidence that brain injuries do not cause long-term harm to its players.
Furthermore, The Times noted that the NFL sought to legitimize the studies" methods and conclusion by citing a "rigorous, confidential peer-review process" despite evidence that some peer reviewers seemed "desperate" to stop their publication. Recent research has also demonstrated that widespread industry funding for published medical research often goes undeclared and that such conflicts of interest are not appropriately addressed by peer review.
Another problem that peer review fails to catch is ghostwritinga process by which companies draft articles for academics who then publish them in journals, sometimes with little or no changes.
Inthe US Senate Finance Committee released a report that found this practice was widespread, that it corrupted the scientific literature and increased prescription rates. Just as experts in a particular field have article reviews better understanding of the value of papers published in their area, scientists are considered to have better grasp of the value of published papers than the general public and to see peer review as a human process, with human failings,  and that "despite its limitations, we need it.
It is all we have, and it is hard to imagine how we would get along without it". Peer review is often considered integral to scientific discourse in one form or another. Its gatekeeping role is supposed to be peer reviewed scientific articles to maintain the quality of the scientific literature   and avoid article reviews risk of unreliable results, inability to separate signal from noise, and slow scientific progress. Shortcomings of peer review have been met with calls for even stronger filtering and more gatekeeping.
A common argument in favor of such initiatives is the belief that this filter is needed to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature. Calls for more oversight have at least two implications that are counterintuitive of what is known to be true scholarship. Others argue  that authors most of all have a vested interest in the quality of a particular piece of work.
Only the authors could have, as Feynman [note 5] puts it, the "extra type of integrity that is beyond not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. Instead, the credibility conferred by the "peer-reviewed" label reviewed articles diminish what Feynman calls the culture of doubt necessary for science to operate a self-correcting, truth-seeking process.
But the issue is not the skepticism shared by the select few who determine whether an article passes through the filter. It is the validation, and accompanying lack of skepticism, that comes afterwards.
Quality research - even some of our most fundamental scientific discoveries - dates back centuries, long before peer review took its current form. They managed to do so, for the most part, without the aid of centralised journals, editors, or any formalised or institutionalised process whatsoever.
Supporters of modern technology argue  that it makes it possible to communicate instantaneously with scholars around the globe, make such scholarly exchanges easier, and restore peer review to a purer scholarly form, as a discourse in which researchers engage with one another to better clarify, understand, and communicate their insights.
Such modern technology includes posting results to preprint serverspreregistration of studies, open peer reviewand other open science practices. Jon Tennant also psychology article reviews that the outcry over the inefficiencies of traditional journals centers on their inability to provide rigorous enough scrutiny, and the outsourcing of critical thinking to a concealed and poorly-understood process.
Thus, the assumption that journals peer reviewed academic articles peer review are required to protect scientific integrity seems to undermine the very foundations of scholarly inquiry.
To test the hypothesis that filtering is indeed unnecessary to quality control, many of the traditional publication practices would need to be redesigned, editorial boards repurposed if not disbanded, and authors granted control over peer reviewed academic articles peer review of their own work.
Putting authors in essay on success of their own peer review is seen as serving a dual purpose. Perhaps paradoxically, the removal of this barrier might actually result in an increase of the quality of published work, as it eliminates the cachet of publishing for its own sake.
Be sure to review the writing prompt and check with your instructor to be sure! How do I Find Review Articles? Web of Science. Click "Customize Click "Show" to filter your search results. Be sure to change the drop-down menu to "Contains" On the results page, browse the list of journals, and then click on a title to visit the journal's website.
Google Scholar and ArticlesPlus. Be sure to check that your results really are review articles! In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings of the article, and your critique. Also write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Give way forward for future research in the field of study.
Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:. As you read your articles, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they use to support that argument. While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point.
This is best done using direct quotations. Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly.
How can I find a peer-reviewed journal article? - LibAnswers
Take a lot of time to analyze your articles. Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article. Re-read your piece a day after you finished writing it.
This will help you spot grammar mistakes and see any flaws in the organization. The best way to learn how to write this kind of paper is to look for an article review example online that matches your grade level. Here is a college-level sample from EssayPro service. Whether you have a blank slate or a draft in hand, you article reviews want extra help writing or editing your article review.
EssayPro not only provides write my essay help but could also assist you with editing and rewriting papers of any education level. General Writing Guides.