Questions for Rough Draft Review for a Review of the Literature (see P&K chapter 4 and Mayfield chapter 2.3)
Note: The word “field” is used here to mean subject, topic, area of focus, etc.
Who does the audience seem to be? Is it an appropriate professional audience for this review?
A review article should have, above all, two features. It should be comprehensive (it should cover the field being addressed thoroughly) and it should be timely (it should address the most recent and historically relevant work in a field). Does this article do this? Do you feel enough research on the topic is discussed?
Is the organization clear and obvious to the readers? What is the organizing principle of the review article? Does it start with a modified ASPI introduction (P&K p. 48)? Is there a guiding or organizing sentence that previews the clusters or subtopics that will be described, along the lines of “In this article I will review the three most dominant theories of HIV virus replication and examine the attempts to develop vaccines based on each theory”? If such a sentence is not present, what should it say?
Does the review identify the major trends and patterns in the field? If so, where? What kinds of organizing or transitional devices (e.g. headings, phrases, numbered points, etc.) are used to help readers locate these trends and patterns?
How are the individual articles discussed within the body of the review of literature? Does each one have a complete citation according to the field’s preferred documentation style? Does the author highlight the significance of each chosen article? Does the author discuss the strengths and limitations of each work surveyed?
Is there a conclusion that summarizes what is known about the field and what is left to explore?
Is there a complete and comprehensive list of works cited, properly documented, at the end of the review of literature?
Is the work edited to remove execution errors, lard, and inconsistencies that will weaken the writer’s credibility in the eyes of the intended audience?