Writing an impactful Review: top tips from the Editors

Abstract

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.

Identify the review article format specific to the journal

A first step in constructing a review is identifying the different article structures offered by the journal, which can be found in the journal Author Guidelines. Some journals may require a review proposal prior to submission, which will also be described in these guidelines. Journal of Materials Chemistry B (JMCB) publishes articles within the realm of materials chemistry research for biology and medicine, including reviews in different formats such as Reviews, Highlights, and Perspectives. Reviews present a detailed account of the state-of-the-art knowledge of an important topic that would be of broad interest to readers. The coverage should be balanced and authoritative, rather than presenting only a literature survey of the field. In contrast, Highlights are designed to present a short account of an emerging topic in materials chemistry where rapid developments have been reported in recent years, typically the last 1 to 2 years. Authors should describe the key findings in the field, identify major bottlenecks, and propose possible strategies to overcome them. Authors may not include unpublished information in Reviews and Highlights. In contrast to a comprehensive review, a more personal account of research or critical analysis of the developments on a specialized topic may be presented in a Perspective. These articles are typically shorter and authored by specialists in the field. Thus, each format is unique and authors must carefully consider each format to maximize the impact of their article on the journal readership. JMCB does not require that authors complete a synopsis or review proposal prior to submission, and we encourage authors to submit their full, high-quality reviews directly to the journal for consideration. However, if authors would like to discuss a concept for a review, having decided they will submit the full review to JMCB when written, our editors are happy to advise. Review proposal forms are available to help summarise the concept, the significance of the proposed review in line with the literature and to provide examples of papers to be referenced. This helps the Editor to advise on whether the topic would fit with the scope of the journal and whether there may be overlap with existing literature. It is important to note that while some authors may opt to have an Editor assess their proposal, the full review should subsequently still be submitted via the submissions platform as usual for full assessment by our Associate Editors.

What makes a good review?

Once a suitable article format has been identified, the next step is to hone the review topic and focus. A high-caliber scientific review compiles and analyzes studies within a particular field. It embodies a structured, purposeful synthesis that addresses a specific research topic and aims to describe the current understanding of that topic. The cornerstone of an exemplary review lies in its capacity to critically analyze, integrate, and contextualize information, rather than merely summarizing findings from a collection of papers. This focus ensures that the review is of substantial value to the scientific community, advancing understanding and guiding future research directions.

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.

What do editors look for when they assess reviews?

Authors may be surprised to learn the importance of the cover letter, which is the first communication to the handling editors and reviewers. It is critical to extend beyond a pro forma cover letter indicating the title, assent of authors to submission, and attestation to the exclusiveness of the submitted manuscript. In addition to this standard information, the authors should explain what topics the review covers and how these relate to the materials community and the scope of the journal. The cover letter should articulate the specific question or problem addressed. Next, the authors should comment on the timeliness of this review. Are there other recent reviews on this topic, including those by the authors? How is this one different? The first assessment of your review manuscript will likely be a comparison to current reviews in the literature. If there have not been recent reviews, why is now the right time? It is particularly important to differentiate between reviews of newer fields and those of more established fields. For new fields, it is critical for the authors to establish that there is sufficient literature to justify a review. Typically, this would be ∼10 or more papers from several different research groups. If the authors are groundbreaking leaders in a specific area and wish to highlight primarily research from their own group, a Perspective article may be considered. For more established fields with a wealth of literature, it is important to indicate the authors’ distinct viewpoint. For example, this could be encapsulated in a Highlight focusing on articles only in the last year, or a Review focusing on a specific aspect of a wider field with significant recent progress. The authors should also describe why they are qualified to review this field. Have they published a substantial body of work in this area, or are they new arrivals with a fresh perspective? Ideally, this information should be summarized in 3–4 brief bullet points embedded in the letter that make it easy for editors and reviewers to find.

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.

What could researchers include in their reviews to make them stand out?

To make a review stand out, researchers should focus on crafting key elements thoughtfully and strategically. The abstract is the first section a reader encounters, making it crucial to showcase the review's value. It should provide a clear and concise summary, emphasizing the novelty, impact, and timeliness of the work (how is this different from other reviews out there, and why do we need to read about it now?). It should clearly state the review's aim and the specific questions or problems addressed. Briefly highlighting major insights and trends within the topic is vital. In particular, you should emphasize novel perspectives or significant gaps in existing works, which could pave the way for future endeavours. It is also useful to underline the unique contributions and real-world implications of the review, demonstrating its relevance. An abstract can be made more impactful by having a clear conclusion statement, showcasing the main takeaway or theme of the review.

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.

Do's and don’ts when preparing a review

DO:

• Carry out a background search of other recent reviews to identify the current landscape of the selected topic and identify how your review is different and adds to 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.

DO NOT:

• Just summarize or list papers or properties. Reviews should synthesize material and provide your opinion on general trends and where the field is headed. Critical analysis and original insights will help your work stand out.

• 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.

Conclusion remarks

Review articles are designed to serve as a valuable resource for the research community, summarizing the latest developments in the field to a broad readership. A well-written review article is thought-provoking and proposes new directions for progress in that field. The topic of the article and its scope are fundamental considerations. Timeliness and uniqueness also need to be carefully considered. It is essential to present the latest developments in the field while also highlighting historical milestones. Articles that are chronological summaries are viewed unfavorably by readers. The content should encompass a critical analysis of the information available in the literature. Thoughtful assessment and presentation of the developments, gaps, and prospects are essential. This ensures that the review will be regarded as an authoritative contribution to the literature by the editors and reviewers, and eventually, the research community. A well-written and presented review article can be a solid contribution that drives intellectual progress for years to come. At JMCB, we welcome submissions that present authoritative reviews with the potential to significantly impact the materials chemistry field for biology and medicine.

---