How to write a review of scientific work: basic requirements and recommendations
How to write a review, a review on a scientific article,Diploma, thesis, textbook? This question is posed to itself at least once, probably by everyone who is involved in education. After all, even a university student sometimes has to do this work. At first glance, the writing of a review or a review seems to be a task incomprehensible and complex. In fact, in order for the review or review of the diploma to be performed at a high level, one must know certain requirements and follow a clear structure of the presentation of scientific thought. We will consider these subtleties below.
Asking about how to write a review,first of all, clearly understand the meaning of this word. The review is a special text - an analysis of a particular source, calculated for a certain range of readers. The main purpose of this report is to inform and evaluate the level of the analyzed source. Showing the general idea of the peer-reviewed text, the author should highlight the positive points and provide substantiated criticisms.
Which aspects, key points, will be presentedto the judgment of a specialist is his individual vision. There is no one right way. Everything depends on the competence and scientific interests of the reviewer.
The technology of reviewing can be divided into the following stages:
- determine the subject of the peer-reviewed material;
- to find out the degree of relevance of the proposed scientific research;
- Analyze the architecture and semantic content of the text;
- it is necessary to pay attention to such an important point as the analysis of scientific novelty, express clearly its opinion on the originality of the work;
- note how they are combined and how much theoretical concepts correspond to the results of empirical calculations, thereby logically justifying the level of practical significance;
- list the strengths and weaknesses of the work(the reviewer should indicate exactly what the author managed to cope with the task, and what else may require additional elaboration, note ambiguous interpretations of scientific results, any discussion points);
- very briefly and objectively formulate an opinion on the work and give an overall assessment;
- to formulate conclusions, here you can add information about the author or characterize who is addressed and can be interesting work.
Performing these actions consistently andobservance of the review structure will serve its qualitative writing, and also this algorithm of actions can be safely used in preparing reviews for a scientific work of any genre.
Before writing a review, you must alsoto get acquainted with the basic stylistic features of the presentation of scientific thought. The text itself should be clear and precise, easy to perceive and not contain lexical phrases inherent in artistic or colloquial speech.
If the reviewer wishes to reinforce his impressionany comparative characteristics, epithets, phraseological units, etc., then this is absolutely inappropriate, since writing a review is necessary only in the scientific style. Even the most vivid positive or, conversely, a sharply negative impression of the work should be tried without using the expressive means of a literary word.
</ p>
