Kaushik
Chatterjee
a,
Gemma-Louise
Davies
b,
Håkan
Engqvist
c and
Jessica
Winter
d
aIndian Institute of Science, India. E-mail: kchatterjee@iisc.ac.in
bUniversity of Birmingham, UK. E-mail: g.davies.7@bham.ac.uk
cThe Ångström Laboratory, Uppsala University, Sweden. E-mail: hakan.engqvist@angstrom.uu.se
dOhio State University, USA. E-mail: winter.63@osu.edu
Review articles are critical to the scientific enterprise. They are often the starting point for researchers exploring a new area or those searching for a quick overview of the field. Good reviews serve as references for years to come and can be crucial teaching tools. Review articles typically receive more citations and more views than research articles and can elevate the impact of the research articles cited within. Yet, many authors struggle with writing reviews. As editors of the Journal of Materials Chemistry B, we prepared this article to assist authors in crafting impactful reviews. Although our focus is JMCB, these thoughts should be broadly translatable to other journals.
The most critical element in writing a meaningful review is its foundation upon a well-defined research topic. This serves as the guiding framework, dictating the relevance of studies included, the manner in which they are analyzed, and the conclusions drawn. In the absence of such a topic, a review risks devolving into a random assortment of studies, offering little insight or coherence. For instance, rather than broadly summarizing “calcium-based bioceramics”, a focused review might explore “How do different manufacturing techniques of calcium-based bioceramics influence their biocompatibility and degradation properties?” This specificity enables the reviewer to delve deeper, identifying patterns, gaps, and controversies, thereby ensuring that all included papers contribute to addressing the central question.
A research topic also informs the criteria for selecting and evaluating studies included. An exemplary review does not aim to be exhaustive but strives to be comprehensive and critical. It prioritizes high-quality, relevant research, while excluding studies that do not directly address the topic at hand. This selectivity ensures that the review remains focused and impactful. Moreover, the evaluation of literature should extend beyond mere description to also encompass critical analysis. This involves comparing methodologies, assessing the reliability of findings, and identifying inconsistencies. This not only aids in answering the research question, but also highlights gaps in knowledge and areas for future investigation.
A robust review synthesises information, organizing it to provide a coherent narrative that addresses the topic. This involves grouping studies based on themes, trends, or contrasting perspectives, rather than listing them chronologically or randomly. Effective synthesis draws connections between studies, elucidates discrepancies, and situates findings within the broader scientific context. For example, when addressing the research question on calcium-based bioceramics, the review could compare how different manufacturing techniques impact material properties and correlate these findings with clinical performance. By doing so, it transforms disparate studies into a unified discussion that advances understanding in the field.
Ultimately, an exemplary review offers a clear contribution to knowledge. This could manifest as a new conceptual framework, a summary of consensus and controversies, or a roadmap for future research. Reviews that merely catalogue findings fail to fulfill this role, as they do not provide readers with a deeper understanding or actionable insights. What distinguishes a high-quality review is its foundation in a clear research question, guiding the selection, analysis, and synthesis of studies.
After assessing the cover letter, editors will review the body of the manuscript. The first evaluation will primarily assess the completeness of the manuscript and check for flaws (e.g., images or equations not rendered properly, figures misplaced). Although these issues do not prevent a manuscript from going forward, they do not instill confidence in the rest of the review if found. Authors should exhibit care, performing spelling and grammar checks and reviewing the final documents prior to submission. As a next assessment, editors may review the references. Is the reference list complete, citing both the history of the field and the latest developments? How many references are from the last 2–3 years? Do the references represent an appropriate balance between countries and different voices in the discipline? How many references are from the authors’ own work versus others in the field? Editors will also evaluate the quality and number of figures. Figures typically include well-drawn schematics informing readers of the basic principles of the field (e.g., chemical structures and schemes, biological pathways) as well as specific key demonstrations of materials from the authors’ and other groups. The authors may also include comprehensive tables that summarize materials properties, synthesis methods, or applications. Note that figures can and should be reprinted from other sources with appropriate permissions to provide a well-rounded view of the literature. Editors will likely next assess the writing quality of the manuscript. Reviews are not lists of papers (xx et al. did this, yy et al. did that). Reviews should offer the authors’ unique viewpoint on the field and answer specific questions. They should inform readers of the field's history and basic principles. Reviews should show where there is consensus (e.g., this is widely known and supported by many citations) versus disagreement (e.g., whereas some researchers find x, others have seen y). Reviews should also identify key challenges for the field and expected areas of future growth. Many reviews highlight potential or actual commercial impacts.
Including thoughtful analysis and commentary throughout the body of the manuscript elevates the impact of a review. Engaging with the literature critically will position your review as an authoritative contribution. Insights can involve commentary on existing work, evaluating strengths, weaknesses, or contradictions in the literature. It can further address broader implications for the field, including how findings might influence future research, policy, or practice. This can place the review in a high standing in the community.
Figures, diagrams, and tables enhance clarity and reader engagement when used effectively. It is important to only use visuals when necessary. They should clearly highlight specific features or vital components of the topic, such as overviews, trends, gaps, or comparisons across studies or between conflicting works. Clear, high-quality images, and accessible captions will make it easy for readers to use your review as a reference point. But do exercise caution: overcrowded figures or overly detailed tables can reduce clarity. Tables should include only the most pertinent information and generally not exceed two journal pages.
Overall, a well-crafted abstract, thoughtful critical insights, and the strategic use of visuals can ensure that a review is not only engaging and impactful but also leaves a lasting impression on its readers. By emphasizing unique contributions and broader implications, with critiques and author observations, a review will stand out and can establish itself as a valuable resource for advancing the field.
• Clearly define the scope, including any boundaries and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
• Include both supporting and contradictory evidence – don’t be selective. Ensure a nuanced perspective is provided.
• Offer constructive commentary and suggest alternative approaches or interpretations.
• Identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing literature.
• Proofread! Check grammar, spelling, and ensure that references are accurate and properly cited. Confirm that images and equations are rendered properly. Attention to detail will make for a smooth read.
• Recommend potential reviewers in the manuscript submission system, ensuring to select top people in the field who can help to hone and improve the article through their advice.
• Just highlight random papers. Be thoughtful in your selection and ensure that each paper helps you to construct a narrative that will enable readers to fully comprehend the questions/challenges that your article addresses.
• Ignore controversies or contradictions. Addressing conflicts and debates in the field will add value to the work and offer insights that may help to change the research landscape. It can also help to guide future research.
• Use jargon or overly technical language. Clear, accessible language will engage a broader audience and increase the impact of the article. Many review readers are new to the field. Defining common terms will help them engage with the material.
• Overload the review with excessive detail that might overwhelm readers or detract from the main narrative. Stay concise and focussed. Careful topic selection will aid with a clear message.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 |