Clearly outline the order in which every sub-topic will be discussed to give the reader background information needed to understand the sections in the article.
Then I run through the specific points I raised in my summary in more detail, in the order they appeared in the paper, providing page and paragraph numbers for most. I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process.
Writing a good review requires expertise in the field, an intimate knowledge of research methods, a critical mind, the ability to give fair and constructive feedback, and sensitivity to the feelings of authors on the receiving end.
It combines data from several studies to reach a conclusion that is statistically stronger than any in the single studies, mainly because of having more study subjects and more diversity among subjects. Menu Share A good peer review requires disciplinary expertise, a keen and critical eye, and a diplomatic and constructive approach.
For instance, an advantage may be the way the author presents an issue while a gap may be that the article does not offer solutions to a problem or lacks enough information on a particular subject.
Thus, a large focus of your paper should be a description of the data that support or refute that point of view. Conclusions that are overstated or out of sync with the findings will adversely impact my review and recommendations. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described.
I usually write down all the things that I noticed, good and bad, so my decision does not influence the content and length of my review.