Structure and flow of information

Feature/element/criteria


Description of what you expect to see in a“good” review


Comments


Coverage of topic


Relevant, focussed and clear introduction of the topic.– Cover fundamental research– Explain major and specific concepts (examples)– Up to date and comprehensive [summarisestrongly supported (i.e. well cited) relevant research]


Group 1:1. Explained the main concepts with examples andexplanation, including sufficient relevantresearch2. Clear and succinct explanation that focused foreach subsection3. Follow the order and summarise the researchfindings.4. Introduction provides a well focused knowledgeof the topic which is easy for the reader tofollow.5. Provide a clear background/overview of thetopicGroup 6:– Outline the context of the topic and backgroundinformation of the findings.– Keep the review focused but with a broadinterest. (Own relevant research and beobjective)– Understanding of key research anddevelopment of prior knowledge, provided withexamples.– Accreditation of cites and sources whereinformation was obtained.– Discuss why the research is important.Group:5 outline the main points give clear informationhave a well understanding of topic,gGroup 7: Have specific data from the research finding.


Critical Evaluation and Synthesis


– Comprehensive comparison: identify relevantsimilarities and differences between articles/results– Propose an explanation for why these similaritiesand differences are occurring– Synthesis = Integration of multiple sources andyour ideas


Group 2:1. Biochemical pathways & Molecular Markers2. Experimental Design & Comparative Evaluation3. Technically & Biological Relevance (Citing &Referencing).


Group 7:● Identify the strengths and weaknesses in theliterature● Adequate and relevant grouping of sourcesaround the key points● Determine whether the topic requires furtherresearch● Identify and compare if there are any opposingviews regarding the topic● Demonstrates a thorough understanding of thetopic and proposed hypothesis● Uses relevant peer reviewed journalarticles/sources for synthesis● Identify any limitations with the methodology● Uses sources that are as current as possible(past 10 years – past 2-5 years would beoptimal)● Identify areas where different authors are indisagreement


Identify gap of knowledge + hypothesis


– Gap of knowledge clearly identified.– Hypothesis is clearly and concisely stated.– Feasible hypothesis that is supported.


Group 3:1. Creative, identifying the gap, indepth research,in context with research,should be clear andobjective to the scope of the research.2. Clear indication of what is known and what is tobe researched on the topic, Backgroundresearch linked well to future prospectives toidentify gaps for improvement, Hypothesis iscorrectly reasoned with the topic, hypothesis isbacked by supporting data.3. The hypothesis should be strongly linked to theliterature. Hypothesis must state what problemswill be solved through the research. Hypothesismust suggest a reasonable metric or a range ofresults that defines success/failure.4. Gap to the knowledge should be wellresearched and relatable/built up to what’sknown.Group 8:– Hypothesis must be testable and supported bydata from previous research– Hypothesis addresses the gap of knowledgeidentified


– Gap of knowledge is well defined and specific.– Hypothesis has a clear link with the gap inknowledge and proper reasoning to why thehypothesis was formed


Structure and flow of information


● Well structured: starts broad, then go intospecific areas of the topic● Logical and coherent flow of information● The flow is guided towards the researchquestion


Group 4: Paragraphs relating to each other andwell-linked between them, all linking to conclusion andtitle well-heading and subheadings are used to emphasisepoint/ideas – to divide similar contents-appropriate use of figures to support ideas-All abbreviations explained, consistent use of passivevoice/tenses/impersonal. Consistent register/formality.Group 9:– Grouping authors with similar ideas together– Information should be related to the hypothesisthat is created


Format, style, presentation, referencing


● Consistent format and font● Correct grammar and spelling● Minimal jargons● Headings and subheadings● At least 1 reference per paragraph● Use original references● Style: clear and concise, straight to the point● Scientific style of writing


Group 5:Consistent format with clear distinction betweensectionsClear titles/subheadingsReferences cited correctly & consistent style (inc in textrefs)Using softwares like endnote for referencing.Consistent font style and font size throughout thereview.Distinct images and use of graphs wherever required.Group 10:vancouver style (correctly referencing incintext)Graphs and figures including fig legends, referencingimages. Appropriate sizing of figures/imagesProper layout of figures and imagesImage quality – high res and relatableDistinct sections (intro etc.)Font sizeShort and precise titlePeer reviewed referencesDot points to convey key informationAvoid excessive white space