Specifies the number of studies evaluated orselected
Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]
Steps of a systematic review
Formulation of researchable questions | Select answerable questions |
Disclosure of studies | Databases, and key words |
Evaluation of its quality | Quality criteria during selection of studies |
Synthesis | Methods interpretation, and synthesis of outcomes |
It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).
In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.
Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.
While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.
One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.
As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.
A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]
Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question
I | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies |
II | Randomized controlled study | Crross-sectional study in consecutive patients | Initial cohort study | Prospective cohort study |
III | One of the following: Non-randomized experimental study (ie. controlled pre-, and post-test intervention study) Comparative studies with concurrent control groups (observational study) (ie. cohort study, case-control study) | One of the following: Cross-sectional study in non-consecutive case series; diagnostic case-control study | One of the following: Untreated control group patients in a randomized controlled study, integrated cohort study | One of the following: Retrospective cohort study, case-control study (Note: these are most prevalently used types of etiological studies; for other alternatives, and interventional studies see Level III |
IV | Case series | Case series | Case series or cohort studies with patients at different stages of their disease states |
Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.
In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.
Learn how to write a review article.
What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.
Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.
To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.
To explain the current state of knowledge.
To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.
To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.
There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.
Make sure you check the aims and scope of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.
Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.
Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.
Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field.
As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.”
When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.”
For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences, read advice from NCBI .
Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative.
For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title and our researcher’s guide to search engine optimization .
Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact.
Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.
Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.
Angus Crake, researcher
As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.
Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission.
You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.
Find out more about how Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.
Differences in... | ||
---|---|---|
Presents the viewpoint of the author | Critiques the viewpoint of other authors on a particular topic | |
New content | Assessing already published content | |
Depends on the word limit provided by the journal you submit to | Tends to be shorter than a research article, but will still need to adhere to words limit |
Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:
Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?
Have you defined the scope of your article?
Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?
Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?
Did you start with an overview of the topic?
Have you presented a critical discussion?
Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?
Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?
Taylor & Francis Editing Services offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.
How to edit your paper
Writing a scientific literature review
Lindsey Drayton
Matt Pavlovich
Writing a compelling review article is about more than picking an interesting topic and gathering the latest references. It’s an opportunity to share your views on the most recent trends in the area, discuss which hypotheses seem best supported or which technologies seem most promising, and even chart a course for how the field could develop in the future.
Matt Pavlovich and Lindsey Drayton, editors in the Trends reviews journals group with Cell Press, will give their editorial perspective on what they’re looking for in a review. This webinar will cover how to both conceptualize and write a review, how to distinguish your review by making a strong statement, and why writing a review is worth your time. It will also dispel some common myths about review articles—including that reviews must always originate from an editor’s invitation—and give advice for how to propose a review to an editor.
You will come away with a stronger understanding of how to plan and structure a review article, specific writing tips for writing the article itself, why writing a review is a good use of your time and what distinguishes an adequate review from an excellent one.
Editor, Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Lindsey Drayton is the editor of Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Cell Press’s home for reviews in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. She earned her BA in Psychology from Duke University and her PhD in Psychology from Yale University. At Yale, she studied the evolution and ontology of human social cognition using a variety of model primate species. She joined Cell Press in 2017.
Editor, Trends in Biotechnology
Matt Pavlovich is the editor of Trends in Biotechnology, Cell Press’s home for reviews in applied biology. He earned his BS in chemical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and his PhD in chemical engineering from the University of California at Berkeley, where his thesis project focused on the biological effects of air plasmas. He studied analytical chemistry as a postdoctoral researcher at Northeastern University, then joined Cell Press at the start of 2016.
How to write (and how not to write) a scientific review article
Cell Mentor
Baltimore Ravens tight end Isaiah Likely (80) catches a pass with his toe out of bounds as Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Nick Bolton and linebacker Drue Tranquill, left, defend as time time expires in the second half of an NFL football game Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. The Chiefs won 27-20.(AP Photo/Ed Zurga)
Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes celebrates as he heads off the field following an NFL football game against the Baltimore Ravens Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. The Chiefs won 27-20. (AP Photo/Ed Zurga)
Baltimore Ravens wide receiver Zay Flowers reacts after missing a pass in the end zone late in the second half of an NFL football game against the Kansas City Chiefs Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Baltimore Ravens tight end Isaiah Likely, left, catches a pass out of bounds as Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Nick Bolton (32) and linebacker Drue Tranquill (23) defend as time time expires in the second half of an NFL football game Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. The Chiefs won 27-20. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes drops back to pass during the first half of an NFL football game against the Baltimore Ravens Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Ed Zurga)
Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson (8) scrambles as Kansas City Chiefs defensive tackle Tershawn Wharton (98) defends during the first half of an NFL football game Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Ed Zurga)
Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker celebrates after making a 31-yard field goal during the first half of an NFL football game against the Baltimore Ravens Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
A fan is seen before the start of an NFL football game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce is unable to catch a pass during the first half of an NFL football game against the Baltimore Ravens Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Ed Zurga)
Taylor Swift cheers in a suite during the first half of an NFL football game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Baltimore Ravens kicker Justin Tucker (9) makes a 25-yard field goal during the first half of an NFL football game against the Kansas City Chiefs Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Ed Zurga)
Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson runs with the ball during the first half of an NFL football game against the Kansas City Chiefs Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Kansas City Chiefs’ Chamarri Conner, right, reacts to a missed field goal attempt by Baltimore Ravens kicker Justin Tucker (9) during the first half of an NFL football game Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Fans enter Arrowhead Stadium before the start of an NFL football game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Baltimore Ravens inside linebacker Roquan Smith, left, intercepts a pass as Kansas City Chiefs wide receiver Rashee Rice defends during the first half of an NFL football game Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Baltimore Ravens kicker Justin Tucker (9) is congratulated by teammate Jordan Stout after making a 25-yard field goal during the first half of an NFL football game against the Kansas City Chiefs Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Ed Zurga)
Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson throws during the first half of an NFL football game against the Kansas City Chiefs Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Ed Zurga)
Taylor Swift applauds as she watches from a suite during the first half of an NFL football game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker (7) makes a 32-yard field goal during the first half of an NFL football game against the Baltimore Ravens Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — Patrick Mahomes thought for a moment that the Chiefs were headed to overtime. So did Ravens counterpart Lamar Jackson, who had found Isaiah Likely in the back of the end zone with no time left for a touchdown that appeared to tie the game.
In the end, the NFL’s season opener Thursday night was decided by referee Shawn Hochuli undertaking a video review.
With a capacity crowd that included pop superstar Taylor Swift waiting in anticipation, Hochuli needed just seconds looking at that final play before making his announcement: Likely landed with his toe on the endline , putting the Baltimore tight end out of bounds, and giving the Chiefs a 27-20 victory as they began pursuit of a record third consecutive Super Bowl title.
“Definitely nerve-wracking because it looked good from my angle on the sideline,” Mahomes said, “but then the first view you could see his cleat. ... You have to wear white cleats next time. That’s my advice for him.”
Mahomes threw for 291 yards and with a touchdown pass to Xavier Worthy, who also scored a rushing TD in his NFL debut, as the Chiefs not only won the rematch of last season’s AFC title game but beat the Ravens for the fifth time in six meetings.
That lopsided ledger has been especially frustrating for Jackson, who has called Kansas City the Ravens’ “kryptonite.” He was sublime Thursday night, throwing for 273 yards and a touchdown and adding 122 yards on the ground, but that review of the final play left him to rue another missed opportunity to finally upstage Mahomes and Co.
“I thought it was a touchdown,” Jackson said. “Still think it was a touchdown.”
The Ravens were trailing 27-17 in the fourth quarter before kicking a field goal, then got the ball back at their own 13 with 1:50 left and no timeouts. Jackson completed a couple of throws to Likely, who had 111 yards receiving and a score, and scrambled for a crucial first down. Two plays later, Jackson found Rashod Bateman down the sideline for 38 yards to move the Ravens to the Kansas City 10 with 19 seconds remaining.
Jackson’s first pass was a throwaway, but his second missed wide-open Zay Flowers in the back of the end zone. Then came the final throw, after Jackson had scrambled for what seemed like an eternity, and Likely looked like he had forced overtime.
Ravens coach John Harbaugh even signaled for his team to try a winning 2-point conversion, though it never got the chance.
“I thought our guys (overcame) setbacks at times, and fought like crazy to overcome. It looked like we had an opportunity there to tie the game up and try to win,” Harbaugh said. “Didn’t happen at the end, but our guys fought.”
The wild ending came after the start was delayed about 20 minutes by a storm that brought heavy rain and lightning.
The Ravens proceeded to open with an 11-play, 70-yard drive that ended with Derrick Henry, who had tormented the Chiefs in six previous meetings while he was with Tennessee, plunging into the end zone from 5 yards out for the early lead.
But the high-octane Chiefs, trying to avoid back-to-back season-opening losses, needed just two minutes to answer. Mahomes twice connected with Rashee Rice, who has so far avoided any NFL punishment for his role in an alleged street-racing crash in Dallas, before Worthy showed why the Chiefs made him their first-round pick with his 21-yard touchdown run.
After those two drives, though, the first half was mostly marked by Week 1 blunders.
Jackson was strip-sacked by Chris Jones deep in his own territory, leading to a Kansas City field goal. Flowers was stopped short of the first-down marker on fourth-and-3 near midfield on the Ravens’ next series, leading to another field goal. And even Justin Tucker, one of the league’s most accurate kickers, pulled a 53-yard field-goal attempt wide left.
The Chiefs were not immune to mistakes. Mahomes’ pass was picked off by Roquan Smith on a poor throw late in the first half, leading to a chip-shot field goal that got Baltimore — which trailed twice at halftime all of last season — to 13-10 at the break.
Yet the Ravens’ inability to get into the end zone, and swing the momentum their way, ultimately proved costly.
The Chiefs opened the second half with an 81-yard touchdown march to extend their lead. Then, after Jackson had connected with Likely on a broken play for a 49-yard touchdown throw, Mahomes drove them 70 yards against the No. 1 scoring defense in the NFL last season for a touchdown that made it 27-17 with 10 minutes to go.
Tucker made it a one-score game with his field goal with 4:54 to go, and Baltimore quickly forced a punt. But despite Jackson’s impassioned play, he was left to trudge off the field after another disappointing loss to the Chiefs.
“It was a fight down to the end,” Chiefs coach Andy Reid said. “When they say it’s a game of inches, might be shorter than that.”
Swift, the girlfriend of Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, wasn’t the only star attending the NFL’s opening night. Quincy Hall, the Olympic 400-meter champion, was in the crowd along with AC Milan midfielder Christian Pulisic, who will join his U.S. teammates Saturday night for an exhibition against Canada at nearby Children’s Mercy Park.
Baltimore: LB Kyle Van Noy left six plays into the second half because of an eye injury and did not return.
Ravens: Host Las Vegas on Sunday, Sept. 15.
Chiefs: Host Cincinnati on Sunday, Sept. 15.
AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nfl
(Atlantic) An album of lofty intentions and muttered musings from the dance artist de jour is saved by a gift for a nagging hook and uplifting melody
I n August, Fred Gibson became the first dance artist to headline the Reading and Leeds festivals . Early on, he addressed the crowd, talking about how nervous he was. It’s the kind of thing festival headliners are wont to say, flattering the magnitude of the event, but in Gibson’s case, it didn’t seem pat: he looked genuinely, frantically uneasy. It’s only been three years since he released his debut solo album, pivoting from what looked like being a lucrative gig behind the scenes as a pop songwriter and producer for BTS, Clean Bandit, Stormzy and George Ezra. His breakthrough single Marea (We’ve Lost Dancing) was a reflection on the privations of the Covid era, released just as lockdown ended. Now, here he is, a bigger festival draw, if the Reading/Leeds bill is to believed, than Lana Del Rey.
In the interim, he’s enjoyed a kind of portmanteau career: big pop-dance hits alongside collaborations with underground figures such as Four Tet; the occasional high-profile production gig for Ed Sheeran next to collaborative ambient albums with Brian Eno . His success has been popular rather than critical, attended by a degree of carping about his well-to-do and well-connected background (he is descended from Huntingdonshire gentry, Eno was his parents’ neighbour) and the alleged unoriginality of his musical approach.
His fourth album underlines said approach’s pros and cons. It highlights that Gibson is an authentically great pop-house producer. As you might expect from someone initially better known as a songwriter than an artist, he’s handy with a nagging hook. His sound is more subtle and nuanced than some of his neon-hued peers, but still capable of springing surprises: former single Ten suddenly jolts from Jim Legxacy providing a Drake-ish melody over a four-to-the-floor pulse into an interlude inspired by chopped-and-screwed hip-hop and back again.
And his magpie borrowings suggest a scholarly approach to dance music history: the late San Francisco house producer Scott Hardkiss crops up in sampled form on closer Backseat, while one of the album’s touchstones is clearly Orbital’s 1991 techno classic Belfast, the influence of which hangs over both Adore U and Glow, the latter an instrumental collaboration with Skrillex, Four Tet and London producer Duskus that might well be the album’s highlight. He corrals an impressively eclectic choice of guest vocalists, albeit all stuck through Auto-Tune. Its use feels creative on Adore U, where Nigerian singer Obongjayar’s voice is so laden with the effect that it seems to be quivering or shimmering; it’s hard to see what’s gained by giving Sampha or indeed Emmylou Harris a robotic sheen, although the melodies they are singing are strong enough to withstand it.
Ten Days comes liberally dressed with voices speaking, rather than singing – voice notes, off-mic recordings from the studio, phone messages, Derry singer-songwriter Soak describing the feeling of falling in love, an experience they compare not merely to “all four seasons happening in one day”, but, winningly, “the first crunch of cheese and onion crisps”. As on Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon, the album opens with a montage of these voices over atmospheric ambience, one big difference being that the voices on Dark Side of the Moon were answering existential questions, and the voices here feel weirdly inconsequential: Soak aside, they’re doing things such as wishing Gibson a happy birthday or declaring something “the nuts”. Without wishing to put too much weight on a 30-second ambient intro, there’s a sense that this keys into Ten Days’ big flaw.
With its succession of brief instrumental interludes and tracks segueing into each other in a way that precludes cherrypicking for playlists, you rather get the feeling Gibson views Ten Days as a grand statement that looks beyond the dancefloor and deals with matters rather deeper than simply rousing the teenagers at Reading into a state of post-GCSE jubilation. Fair enough, but it isn’t really clear what it is making a grand statement about. Instead, a kind of vague all-purpose wistfulness – a signifier of depth, rather than the definite article – hangs over virtually everything here. Only the gospel-ish Peace U Need and the drum’n’bass-inspired Places to Be offer untrammelled euphoria, and it comes as something of a relief when they do. Sometimes the cocktail of four-to-the-floor propulsion and melancholy has an emotional effect, as on Ten or Fear Less, but more often it feels a bit empty and grafted on: music that’s reaching for something unnecessarily and not quite getting there.
Still, there’s nothing about Ten Days that suggests it’s likely to derail Fred Again’s progress; it’s hard to imagine he’s seen his last festival headlining slot. Doubtless its flaws will be less obvious if you’re in the middle of a vast crowd who want to party. Perhaps they’ll even act in its favour commercially – after all, few things inspire TikTokers to soundtrack their videos quite like a bit of vague, all-purpose melancholy. Crisply produced and big on strong melodies, it’s an album that does its job, even if it doesn’t quite do the job you suspect its author wants it to.
To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.
Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .
For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.
Advertisement
Supported by
Critic’s Pick
A mysterious young woman becomes deeply invested in the trial of an accused serial killer in this courtroom thriller.
By Beatrice Loayza
“Red Rooms,” a disturbing courtroom thriller from Quebec, explores the fascination with serial killers and true crime from an enticingly fresh perspective. Directed by Pascal Plante, it takes the genre’s ingredients — vulnerable girls, male sickos — and adjusts them to the loneliness of the internet age.
Kelly-Anne (a formidable Juliette Gariépy), a model, is deeply invested in the trial of Ludovic Chevalier (Maxwell McCabe-Lokos) — in part because she looks like the brunette version of one of his victims. Ludovic, a gaunt figure with sleepy eyes, has been accused of killing three teenage girls — not just killing, but torturing, disfiguring and dismembering them. These repugnant acts were captured on video, and anonymous users on the dark web paid extravagant sums to watch.
The first half of the film, composed of glacial pans and unsettlingly static images, builds up to the day of the trial when the full-length videos are presented to the jury. A conspiracy-peddler, Clémentine (Laurie Babin), believes Ludovic is innocent — she brings to mind a Manson groupie — but Kelly-Anne is something else, a kind of cyber-samurai who lives alone in a sterile high-rise and has a small fortune in bitcoin from playing online poker. The two women are always the first in line to secure a spot in the trial gallery and they bond, uneasily and with ambiguous motives, until the true nature of Kelly-Anne’s voyeurism pushes Clémentine away.
The film’s tension rides on the unknown, a paranoid vibe accented by Kelly-Anne’s shady online presence and Gariépy’s stark, sphinx-like performance. With a gaze that flings daggers, Gariépy’s an anchoring force that makes the more deranged second act feel credible. Most importantly, it’s her face — the way she looks at Ludovic in the courtroom or reacts to audio of screaming and chainsaw-whizzing — that works together with the film’s restraint to tug at our morbid curiosity.
In one scene, Kelly-Anne watches one of the videos and all we see is the menacing blood-red glow of the torture room illuminating her enraptured expression. What could be so awful? So hypnotizing? We’re dying to know.
Red Rooms Not rated. In French, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 58 minutes.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest. 4. Write the introduction.
Article Review vs. Response Paper . Now, let's consider the difference between an article review and a response paper: If you're assigned to critique a scholarly article, you will need to compose an article review.; If your subject of analysis is a popular article, you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper.; The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of ...
Spread the loveAn article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective ...
Here is a basic, detailed outline for an article review you should be aware of as a pre-writing process if you are wondering how to write an article review. Introduction. Introduce the article that you are reviewing (author name, publication date, title, etc.) Now provide an overview of the article's main topic.
Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly. Begin by thoroughly reading the article. Take notes on key points, arguments, and evidence presented by the author. Understand the author's main thesis and the context in which the article was written.
Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow: Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
Read the Article Thoroughly. The first step in writing an article review is to read the article carefully and thoroughly. This may seem obvious, but it is crucial to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the work before attempting to critique it. During the initial reading, focus on grasping the main arguments, key points, and the overall ...
The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic. It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the ...
Step 3: Organization aspect of the review. It is essential to focus on the structure you want to follow. It is necessary to help you understand how to approach your future work and process the article's content. The best and safest method to do an article review would be to summarize the article.
Identifying Main Arguments and Supporting Evidence. First, skim the title, abstract, headings, and conclusion. This gives you an overview of the article's main points and structure. Then, look for the thesis statement - the main argument the author is making. After that, identify topic sentences in each paragraph.
Step 4: Summarize the Article. In this part of how to write an article review process, you'll need to quickly go over the main points and arguments from the article. Make it short but must cover the most important elements and the evidence that backs them up. Leave your opinions and analysis out of it for now.
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 in ...
An article review is a critical assessment of a scholarly article or research paper. It involves analyzing the content, methodology, and findings of the article and providing an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. The review typically includes a summary of the article's main points, an evaluation of its contribution to the subject ...
Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. ... Romanelli J. P., Gonçalves M. C. P., de Abreu Pestana L. F., Soares J. A. H., Boschi R. S., Andrade D ...
Step 4: Make an Introduction. In your introduction, provide a brief overview of the title's subject and purpose. Capture the reader's attention and clearly state your thesis or main point related to the title. For instance, you might start your article review template like this.
Read at least five highquality chapters on a similar topic to make yours better. STEP 2. Gather and read about 50 -100 original articles on a topic within your scientific field. STEP 3. Write down ...
The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question (s) to be dealt with.
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 ...
Writing a compelling review article is about more than picking an interesting topic and gathering the latest references. It's an opportunity to share your views on the most recent trends in the area, discuss which hypotheses seem best supported or which technologies seem most promising, and even chart a course for how the field could develop in the future. Matt Pavlovich and Lindsey Drayton ...
Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. Search across a wide variety of disciplines and sources: articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions.
Chiefs hold off Ravens 27-20 when review overturns TD on final play of NFL's season opener. 1 of 19 | Baltimore Ravens tight end Isaiah Likely (80) catches a pass with his toe out of bounds as Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Nick Bolton and linebacker Drue Tranquill, left, defend as time time expires in the second half of an NFL football game ...
Actually, make that three. While Fleck is in an Arkham music therapy class, he meets Lee Quinzel, played by Lady Gaga: Lee is Phillips's version of the Joker's sidekick, Harley Quinn, who was ...
A systematic review into the potential health effects from radio wave exposure has shown mobile phones are not linked to brain cancer. The review was commissioned by the World Health Organization ...
A traditional life review unfolds through one-on-one or group conversations with a therapist or facilitator who helps people explore their childhood, their teenage years and later life stages.
A veteran arrives in a rural town to find his friend. He comes in peace — but the police demand submission. "Rebel Ridge," written and directed by Jeremy Saulnier, wears its "First Blood ...
We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us.
A version of this article appears in print on , Section C, Page 7 of the New York edition with the headline: Lover of Men: The Untold History Of Abraham Lincoln. Order Reprints | Today's Paper ...
Former President Donald J. Trump used his social-media website on Wednesday to amplify a crude remark about Vice President Kamala Harris that suggested Ms. Harris traded sexual favors to help her ...
UK regulators have ordered HSBC Holdings Plc to review how it collects and monitors the vast reams of data that underpin the firm's risk management systems within investment banking and trading.
A mysterious young woman becomes deeply invested in the trial of an accused serial killer in this courtroom thriller. By Beatrice Loayza When you purchase a ticket for an independently reviewed ...