Undergraduate and graduate students for successful certification publish articles. Although the review should be written by managers or third-party reviewers, they often do not want to spend their time on it, and then the student himself is forced to figure out how to write a review of the article.

Appointment of a review of a scientific article

If an article is scheduled for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, it must be accompanied by a review of a person who has a degree in a specialty related to the subject of the article. This is a kind of “quality mark”. In some journals, a review is required for all articles without exception, in others, only for those written by undergraduate and graduate students (if the author himself has a scientific degree, the review is not requested).

Definition 1

A review is not a fully independent work, but a kind of secondary product created on the basis of the article under review.

To write a competent review, you must:

• Carefully read the article under review.
• Find and study a sample of a review of a scientific article (it is better for the journal of the attestation commission, since they place stricter requirements on the reviews, and the quality of such a sample will be higher).
• Following the example of a review on an article of the attestation commission, make your review (containing an assessment of the article you need).

What should contain a review of a scientific article

In essence, the review is a review. The review can be written on any work – a book, a play, a film. The review of a scientific article has several distinctive features:

• The style of the review should correspond to the style of the article — be scientific, not artistic.
• A scientific article is reviewed before publication and contains an opinion on whether to publish it at all.

Although the rules for writing reviews of articles on standards are not defined, there are generally accepted basic components of the review:

• Thesis analysis of the article. A person who has not read the article should understand what it is, what position the author holds.
• Evaluation of novelty – is something new proposed in the article, or are the existing points of view systematized, or are others’ surveys repeated.
• Evaluation of the quality of the content of the article, the depth of research material.
• Evaluation of compliance with the requirements for registration – the requirements for registration are different for different journals, so the reviewer must take into account where the publication is planned.
• The present and relevance of the article (and the materials used in it).

Example 1

If an article on jurisprudence (not of a historical nature) is based on legislation that is no longer in force, it will not be of value.

• The significance of the article for science and practice.
• Final assessment – whether to publish an article or refuse to publish.

Sample article review plan

The review of the scientific work can be written according to the following plan:

• Information about the author of the article, its title.
• Thesis coverage of the article.
• Evaluation of the relevance of the chosen topic (you can rely on the justification of relevance from the article itself).
• Assess whether scientific research is meaningful. If their significance is recognized, then specifically – where can be applied in practice, what prospects for further research open up.
• Opinion on the expediency of accepting an article for publication.
• Information about the reviewer – surname, name, patronymic, academic degree and academic title, place of work and position.

According to this plan, writing a review of an article in the journal of the attestation commission can be carried out. It is important that the review should be objective, indicating both the strengths of the article and its shortcomings.

Remark 1

If the review does not mention a single negative point, it may cause suspicion either in the reviewer’s bias or in his negligence.

Typical review volume is about 4,000 characters without spaces.

Phrase templates for article reviews

The review of the article (especially the attestation commission) should be stylistically literate. To comply with the scientific style of the text, it is advisable to use such turns:

1. In this article, the author highlights the problem …
2. The problem considered by the author …
3. During the review of the work under review …
4. Work done at a high level …
5. The author demonstrated a deep study …
6. From the reviewed work follows …
7. The author of the article under review draws conclusions …
8. This article is an example …
9. The need to write an article on issues … caused by the state …
10. The author of the article applied non-standard and innovative research methods …
11. The position expressed by the author is controversial …
12. The theoretical significance of the article is that …
13. The practical significance of the article is due to the fact that …
14. The author set forth in some detail …
15. The author rightly notes that …
16. The list of sources used by the author contains …
17. The article is recommended for publication in the journal …