How to write a review

12: How to write a review

IAN FORGACS

Review articles are in a state of somewhat uncontrolled

proliferation. Both general and specialist journals have grown

to love them, and considerable growth has been seen in the

number of publications devoted just to publishing reviews. Yet,

unquestionably the task of writing a review article has become

a whole lot tougher in recent years. The days are surely

numbered when it is acceptable for an editor to offer the

numero uno top banana in the field a modest (and they always

are modest) honorarium in exchange for a few thousand words

on the great man’s reflections on the contentious areas in his

particular specialty. For areas in which a wealth of valuable

data exists, the personal perspective has gone out of fashion,

and in has come the systematic review, as the careful weighing

of evidence has surpassed the ex cathedra overview.

Of course, whole areas where there is a lack or, at very least,

a paucity of evidence remain, and the more traditional or

narrative review retains its place for these. Even here, however,

it has become necessary for authors of such reviews to declare

the sources on which their opinions are founded.

Who needs review articles? Journal editors like reviews. The thorough, authoritative

review is likely to be widely read and highly cited, and this

may increase the journal’s impact factor (a measure of a

journal’s success). In addition, many journals that depend

heavily on publishing original science face competition from

the internet and have been looking for ways to attract readers.

Expansion of a paper journal’s educational role is seen as one

route to ensure a viable future. Readers also turn to a review

article as they feel that, like a morning jog or cold shower, the

effort involved might actually improve them. Market research

suggests that, although readers may skim original material,

they tend to make the effort to read topical reviews in the

unequal struggle to keep up to date. In other words, reading

reviews is good for you. Many specialties have journals that

consist of little more than a collection of reviews; these usually

are worthy but dull. Indeed, many review articles often are

quite tedious, although they don’t have to be. It is absolutely

essential that those who write reviews transmit the

enthusiasm that carries them through the working day. This

chapter aims to help you write an article that might actually

be read by someone other than the author, the editor, and the

proofreader. Who should write a review?

Editors will usually try to persuade someone right at the

cutting edge of a particular field to provide the article. In

general, the further the author is from the frontier of

knowledge in that particular area, the less well informed is the

review. From time to time, journals receive unsolicited review

articles for consideration. In many instances, such pieces read

uncannily like the introductory chapter of a thesis or

dissertation – and are invariably only too lightly disguised!

Editors should spare their readers these unauthoritative and

dreary offerings. If you experience the desire to write a review

for a particular journal, first go for a brisk walk in a nearby

park. If you still feel the need to share your thoughts on a

specific topic with the world at large, do make polite enquiry

of the editor as to how such a piece might be received before

putting pen to paper.

Many journal editors report increasing difficulty in

recruiting authors to write reviews. A law of inverse

proportionality exists: both the likelihood of an author

accepting a commission and the number of its eventual

readers are inversely proportional to the required length of

article. Clearly, it is in everyone’s interest to keep article length under control. There is no shortage of eminent folk only too

willing to put together a commentary or leading article of up

to 1500 words, but it is becoming harder and harder to

persuade the great and the good to write reviews. The

mutually acceptable answer may be to accept co-authorship

between the desired star name and a less well established

colleague. Clearly the junior partner(s) will do most of the real

work, but an editor can reasonably expect that the finished

product represents real collaborative effort.

Writing a systematic review

Unfortunately, some confusion exists over the meanings of the

terms “meta-analysis” and “systematic review” (see Box 12.1).

Meta-analysis is, in effect, a piece of research that combines

evidence from a number of separate studies in a quantitative

manner. By careful use of original data, meta-analysis has the