This article will outline the steps you should take, when writing a review of an academic piece; a journal article for instance. This is the basic structure you should use to make it easier for you to write, and also easier for your audience to read.

The Structure You Should Use:

This is quite simple, as you generally want to follow the same structure as the piece you are reviewing used; beginning with your Introduction, then Method, Results, Discussion and Conclusion. There are some important difference though, that will be discussed next.

Opener

This is your introduction. Explain to your reader, briefly and succinctly the purpose of the article you’re writing. This should only be a few sentences, so keep it concise and informative.

Introduction

This is the background to the article you’re reviewing. You might want to talk about key concepts, and also key pieces of research. Note if there are any important pieces that the article you’re reviewing did not mention.

You should evaluate how well your study justifies itself; is the research they are doing necessary, and well-founded in the literature.

Method

Describe and evaluate their method of testing. What is it; how could it be better, why is it good?

Results

Summarise the results they found. This will probably be your shortest section, and try not to use statistical language.

Discussion

So, what did the authors conclude from their results – is this justified? It is important to make your own judgements; if you can think of something that could explain their results in a different way, that they did not consider, this where you should mention it.

Also, to what extent do their results support those of previous research, that the authors may not have considered.

Conclusion

Take into account of everything you have written, and discuss the overall value of the study. It might be that the study you are reviewing had lots of problems, but overall, was still very worthwhile. Alternatively, the study may have very little wrong with it, but it still offers nothing of note to the subject it is concerning.

General Notes:

• A critical review means good and bad. Remember to point out the high points of the study. It may even be that there is very little wrong with it.
• Keep description to a minimum. It should only be about 30% of your wordcount, at the very most.
• Be evaluative. Try to evaluate your study on 3 levels; paradigm (what assumptions are they making, and at what cost, what other options do they have?), design (what are the pros and cons of the design they are using, and does it fit the study?) and execution (these are issues specific to the study you are reviewing; such as problems with their participants, the particular questionnaire etc..).

So there you have it. Keep in mind this is just the general structure, as always there is room to innovate, but this is the skeleton you should try and stick to.

For further advice, check out my article on How To Write A Scientific Essay.