How to Write a Nursing Article Review Text

Jonathan Friesen - Writing Coach

A guide to taking a patient's history is an article published in nursing standard journal in the december 2007 issue. The authors of this article provide a guide for taking a comprehensive and accurate history from the patient. Each of the sections in the article provides best practice applications in regards to communicating with the patient. The article also gives an overview of cardinal symptoms to be explored during the assessment of the presenting complaint.

College Essay Moving to America

0 i'm supposed to write a summary/review paper of a nursing journal article. Does anyone have an example i can see? i've searched this site and the net and haven't found anything. I posted this on another thread, but i am looking for this: i am running out of time on a paper. What i need is a medical or nursing journal article over ethics of abortion. Not the law, procedure or how nurses personally feel, but an ethically supported article in relation to the nurse's code of ethics. Drive knol quality higher, promote the meritocracy by trial and error, the knol experiment is discovering new ways to reward quality articles with a simple star based rating bolstered by a short question survey for subscribed users.

Weve prepared this knol to bolster the system by presenting a structured method that encourages readers to thoroughly review knols out in the open. If reviews proliferate, they should motivate authors to improve their work which in turn bolsters everyones reading and learning experience. An extension of our basic template a top pick/top viewed knol , this advanced version is more involved.

Although specifically developed for review of user content in online article communities like knol. Students and book reviewers in traditional roles will also discover benefits from this article. As you pay closer attention to the article, note the author's thesis and supporting ideas. Reflect in depth on the author's thesis and how she supports her position and claims. Consider whether the author present a valid argument, provides appropriate supporting evidence and whether the information provided gives you reason to agree or disagree with the thesis and individual points. Discuss whether the article offers new insights into its topic and whether it provides any new insights.

Such assessments are vital to scholarly publishing but we receive no formal training in how to write one. Drawing on my own experiences as an author and editor, i would like to offer guidance about this for young scholars. Some of my observations are particularly germane to the social sciences, but many recommendations pertain to publishing across all disciplines. the process. if a manuscript meets a minimum level of scholarly quality, the journal editor compiles a list of academics who are asked to review the submission. Reviewers are chosen because an editor knows them personally or because they are recommended by colleagues. Sometimes an editor identifies reviewers by scrutinizing the relevant literature or by asking authors to recommend some names.

As a prospective reviewer, you would receive an e mail inviting you to review a manuscript and an abstract of the submission. You can then accept or decline via e mail or, increasingly, a journal's online submission management system. A scholar's career can hang on the fate of one significant publication, and if that piece stalls interminably at the review stage it can be a professional disaster. If you decline, inform the editor quickly, as it is unfair to expect an editor to wait weeks for a response, only to then have the invitation declined or never answered at all. Editors always appreciate it when, if you decline a request, you recommend other reviewers.

After agreeing to do the review, you will be sent the manuscript or details about how to access it online. The papers are confidential, so do not reference the submission and absolutely do not draw upon its findings or data for your own work. You will also be given a date by which to complete your review mdash usually one to three months.

Immediately mark that deadline on your calendar and make sure you finish on time. If your situation changes and you have to cancel or delay your review, let the editor know immediately in case a replacement must be found. why write a peer review of a manuscript? because it is part of our scholarly responsibilities. You have undoubtedly benefited, or will benefit in the future, from this arrangement. Given that most but not all journals aim to secure three anonymous reviews, you should aim to review a minimum of three manuscripts for every article you publish.

Unfortunately, intensifying professional demands means that editors spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to find willing, competent, and prompt peer reviewers. A second reason to evaluate manuscripts is that doing so helps keep you abreast of new developments in your field. Faculty members may find it difficult to maintain a reading schedule in light of their own pressing research, teaching, and publishing demands. A consistent pattern of writing peer reviews can keep you on top of the literature.

You undoubtedly have strong, reasoned opinions about what constitutes sound scholarship, and you want to ensure that your own subdiscipline is represented by the best works. Serving as a peer reviewer makes you a gatekeeper, as you put your own small stamp on the types of works that are recognized and rewarded. should you review this manuscript? there are good reasons why you might decline to evaluate a specific manuscript.

If you are a graduate student, for example, make your status known to the editor, as some journals do not want graduate student reviewers. Is the paper in an area theoretically, methodologically, substantively in which you have a solid grounding? even if you are not an expert in the area in which the paper makes its main contribution, the editor might still want you to review the piece, as editors sometimes want a manuscript assessed by someone with general knowledge about the discipline. If, for example, you are strongly opposed to the entire field of sociobiology, you should simply decline to be a peer reviewer for manuscripts in that area. Likewise, do you know the author? while the double blind process means that authors and reviewers are not identified, it is sometimes easy to determine the author. That is particularly true in a small field, and as you develop personal connections with more and more colleagues. Inform the editor if you know the author, but also decide whether you can, nonetheless, offer a fair assessment of the manuscript.

Gmat English Papers

Some people believe you should never review a manuscript by an author whom you know, but such an absolute ban would preclude many of the most senior and knowledgeable people in a subdiscipline from reviewing a lot of papers. writing a peer review. your review, combined with the editor's own assessment of the paper, will serve as the basis for the publishing decision. They might include explicitly asking a reviewer to assess the paper's methodology, theoretical contribution, interest to a wide readership, and the like. Such directions are increasingly laid out in forms on the journal's submission management web page. This section is a way to remind the editor of exactly what the manuscript is about and what it presents as its contributions. Do not assume that the editor has read the submission in the same fine grained detail as you have. The second section is the most important, as it is here where you provide your opinions on the quality of the manuscript.

At the most basic level, check to ensure that the submission meets the journal's formal requirements mdash that it is not too long, that its topic or methodology is appropriate for the journal. Does the piece have a logical structure, including introduction, conclusion, and some kind of thesis statement? has the author identified a problem the paper is trying to deal with? such problems could be very different depending on the discipline, ranging from a long standing issue of logic, a gap in the empirical literature, or a political paradox. However, be sure that you are engaging with the main substance of the analysis and not fixating on smaller matters that can be dealt with in revisions or copy editing. Also, evaluate the manuscript on its own terms and do not criticize it for failing to live up to your views on the type of paper the author should have written. This is the place to identify page specific points, such as where the argument gets murky, terminology is incorrect, better referencing is required, and the like. Authors can find such detailed guidance extremely useful, but do not fixate on the minutiae of formatting. Remember that editors are primarily concerned about whether a paper makes a contribution to the field.

History Research Paper Lesson Plan