How to Write a Review Article in Bioscience

These conditions come from the How to Publish Science chapter on review articles and the Cell Press Crosstalk guide to review articles.

Knowing how to write a review article in biology starts with one decision: narrative or systematic. Choose the type first, then let the research question drive the search, the structure and the reporting.

A review is a distinct format with its own standards, so it differs from the literature section of a research paper. When the draft is ready, compare bioscience journals that accept reviews. The phases below follow the order in which the work usually happens.

Phase one: choose the review type

A narrative review and a systematic review answer different needs, and the choice shapes everything after it. Make it before you search, because the type decides how much you must document.

Narrative or systematic

According to the How to Publish Science chapter, a systematic review is one where you define your search criteria and the databases you will use before collecting literature. It also needs clear criteria for including studies. Non-systematic reviews, the category narrative reviews belong to, tend to simply look for articles that back up the author’s view. That is the main risk of a narrative review, and it is why editors look hard at selection.

• Pick systematic when the value of the review lies in a transparent, repeatable selection of studies.
• Pick narrative when you are interpreting a field and can show you looked beyond the evidence that supports your position.
• Consider a meta-analysis only within a systematic review. It is a type of systematic review that uses the results of all the included studies.

Whichever type you choose, a compelling review is about more than picking an interesting topic and gathering the latest references, as the Elsevier Researcher Academy guide from editors puts it. The next phase gives the review its angle.

Phase two: set the question and scope

Your research question is the organising principle of the whole article. The Cal State LA library guide advises that a literature review should be organised around, and related directly to, the thesis or research question you are developing. It should also be more than a summary: the aim is a new interpretation of old material.

1. Write the question as a single sentence, naming the organism, process or system you are reviewing.
2. Decide what falls outside it, so that every later section can be tested against the question.
3. Start broad and narrow as you go. The Cedarville University biology guide says a review should address the topic broadly at first and gradually narrow as it progresses.

With a question in hand, you can search deliberately rather than collecting everything on the topic.

Phase three: search the literature

A search strategy is a plan you can describe, not a list of whatever you happened to find. Name your databases and your search terms before you start, and keep the plan stable.

Choosing databases

For life sciences, the Cedarville guide recommends starting with PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. In a systematic review the databases are fixed in advance, so pick the ones that fit your subfield and keep to them. If you are writing a narrative review, the same databases give you a defensible starting set.

Keeping a search log

1. Record the exact query for each database.
2. Record the results and the date every time you search, as the How to Publish Science chapter advises for PRISMA reporting.
3. Repeat the search near the end of drafting if the field moves quickly, and log that too.

This log becomes the raw material for the reporting stage.

Phase four: screen, extract and report with PRISMA

PRISMA is the reporting framework that systematic reviews follow, and its flow diagram is the part most journals ask to see. The chapter notes that systematic reviews require a flow diagram showing how literature was included or excluded. It adds that many journals, especially those linked to PubMed, now insist on one, often as Figure 1. The diagram it reproduces follows Moher et al. (2009).

Screening against inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria are the rules that decide which studies enter the review. Write them before screening and give reasons for exclusion, since the flow diagram must account for what was left out. Judging studies against criteria written afterwards invites the selective reading that undermines a review.

Extracting data

Extraction is where the review becomes more than a stack of papers. Put each study’s key details in one spreadsheet, using the same columns for every study, so you can compare them directly.

Comparing studies side by side is also how gaps start to appear.

Phase five: find the research gap

A research gap is a question the existing literature leaves open or contested. The Cal State guide describes the task as identifying areas of controversy in the literature and formulating questions that need further research.

A gap-finding workflow

1. Sort your extracted studies by theme, method or organism, using the columns in your spreadsheet.
2. Look for cells where studies disagree. These are your controversies.
3. Look for combinations that nobody has examined, such as a pathway studied in one setting but not another.
4. Phrase each gap as a question that a named experiment or analysis could answer.

The last step matters most. The Cell Press Crosstalk guide says a strong review posits which experiments should be conducted, or suggests a path forward to commercialization or clinical translation, rather than simply concluding that more research is needed. Gaps that you can state as a next step give the review its reason to exist.

Phase six: structure and draft the review

A review article follows the shape of its argument rather than the fixed sections of an experimental paper. The question from phase two sets the spine, and the scope narrows from broad to specific as the article proceeds.

A workable section order

• Opening and scope: state the question, why it matters and what the review covers.
• Methods of selection: in a systematic review, report the databases, search terms, inclusion criteria and flow diagram.
• Thematic body: organise by theme or mechanism instead of study by study, and interpret rather than list.
• Gaps and next steps: present the open questions from phase five as concrete directions.

Making the draft credible

Cell Press guidance for reviewers says most of an article’s references should be primary research from the past 2–5 years, and reviewers are explicitly asked whether the article gives a balanced view of the topic. Write the title last, once the argument is settled. For help with it, see how to write a title for a scientific paper.

Phase seven: choose a journal and submit

Pick the journal while you still have time to adapt the draft, because formats differ. Trends journals, for example, are meant to be concise and to focus rather narrowly on research from the past few years, according to the Crosstalk guide. A broad, historical review would suit that format poorly.

1. Shortlist journals that publish reviews in your subfield.
2. Read each one’s review guidelines and match your scope and length to them.
3. Contact the editor where the journal expects it, since submitting to a Trends journal requires an affirmative from the editor in some form.
4. Finish the front and back matter, including how to write acknowledgements in a research paper, before sending the manuscript.

Troubleshooting a weak draft

• The draft reads like a summary. Reorganise by theme and add your own interpretation of what the studies mean together, because the aim is a new interpretation of old material, not a recap.
• It feels one-sided. Reviewers are asked about balance, so add the strongest evidence against your position and explain why it does or does not change your conclusion.
• Nobody could repeat your search. Rebuild the log with queries, databases and dates before writing the methods paragraph.

Frequently asked questions