The following article provides an example of a review by a supervisor or a sample of a review by an external reviewer with a Ph.D.

In almost all editions of the VAK-journals of scientific periodicals that meet the necessary conditions for inclusion in the List of VAK leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications, postgraduate students or applicants for the degree of candidate of sciences XXX are required to provide a review (recommendation) of the supervisor for the publication of the article. Often, a graduate student is asked to provide an additional review (review), signed by an external reviewer with a Ph.D. degree in the profile of this scientific publication.

Often, graduate students themselves, instead of their supervisor or external reviewer, write a review on the article. And nothing like that makes sense...

And here is a guide to writing a review (supervisor) or a PhD review (external reviewer) of a spherical article in a vacuum:

1. "Hat" or title: Review of the article "title of the article" (there are also such phrases: "Recommendation for the article", "Feedback on the article")

2. It is written that the article is devoted to an actual problem:
* The article Full name “title of the article” highlights ... a problem that is relevant ... because ... (the following is a couple of arguments to prove the relevance and validity of the problem statement) ...
* The relevance of the ideas contained in the peer-reviewed manuscript lies in…
* The following original ideas are proposed by the author…
* The original concept presented by the author of the article ...

3. The scientific novelty of the peer-reviewed materials is indicated:
* Manuscript "XXX" sets out ... provisions regarding the wording ...
* The author in his work carried out a detailed analysis ...
* The author, based on a large empirical material, analyzes ...
* An interpretation is given ...
*Identifies and explains concepts such as…
* The author successfully argues his own point of view by the fact that ...

4. The theoretical and practical value of the manuscript is noted, the main results of the study are evaluated:
* The author offers an original approach to solving the issue ...
* In this scientific article, a number of innovative aspects are revealed and concretized ...
* The provision of the article about ... deserves special attention, since ...
* The introduction of ... concepts into scientific circulation will contribute to ... in ... scientific disciplines ...
* Analysis of the problem… will provide impetus for further research in the field…

5. The use of legal acts, literary and other sources, as well as the quality of the work design are noted:
* The sources cited in the peer-reviewed article reflect the modern point of view on the problem under study...
* All sections of the article are logically interconnected, and the provisions of the article are confirmed by quotations from authoritative sources and links to scientific studies ...

7. Indication of the academic degree and title, position of the one who gave the review: Signature. The signature must be certified by the personnel department or the office and stamped.

So post and you'll be happy...

Along with this they read:

For many university students, graduate students and researchers, the issue of writing various papers is quite problematic. In particular, it can be difficult to take into account all the requirements and competently write a review of the publication. Today I decided to post information about how to write a review of a scientific article, an example of which can be seen below.

What is a review

Before publishing an article in a serious publication, a review is required. At the same time, peer review is considered one of the most important parts in the selection and approval of works. In addition, it improves the quality of published articles.

To publish an article in a journal from the VAK List, at least two reviews are required. A number of publications that are preparing to submit documents to be included in this list have the same requirements. However, such reviews are also required for other purposes in the framework of higher education and the submission of scientific publications. This applies to both humanitarian and technical specialties, and introduces difficulties for both students, for example, undergraduates, and researchers.

Some people think the term “peer review” is intricate, but it can be described quite simply: the article is checked for consistency and authenticity of the content, as well as for compliance with the design requirements. However, such a simple procedure is associated with the subjective discretion of the reviewers. Therefore, you need to know exactly how to properly draw up a document, and what it should contain.

A review is a special document that is compiled by a reviewer.. The latter may be a scholar with a degree who understands the content of the publication, and also works in the same field, specializes in the same discipline as the author.

The reviewer provides a brief analysis of the publication, evaluation. All this is done according to specific criteria. They also evaluate the volume, annotation, the choice of keywords in different languages. They also look at how well the references are written, how the bibliography is framed.

Varieties of reviews

Depending on the purpose of compilation, the document can be written by different reviewers. It comes in the following varieties:

Internal review compiled by the supervisor. The teacher's signature certifies the university or the institution where the author is studying or working.
External review– for this purpose, editors of journals or members of the editorial board are appointed as reviewers. One way or another, the document should be compiled by specialists with authority and a scientific degree. A number of organizations require the person who will write it to have published publications in specialized journals over the past few years (usually for three years).

Sample drafting plan

There are two options for a plan on how to write a review of an article. The first option can be called simplified, and the second one is already somewhat more complicated and more detailed. If you are interested in a simpler plan that allows you to understand how to write a review competently, then it includes the following points:

Introduction about the subject of research.
Personal impressions about reading, the main aspects that shape the course of publication.
Degree of importance the problem that is being highlighted.
findings.

This plan is better students and novice reviewers who do not have enough experience to write criticisms.

The expanded plan would look like this:

Intelligence about the article in question.
Degree of importance problems and their updating.
Indication of the main aspect under consideration in the publication (a brief analysis of the content is possible).
Custom Arguments and impressions from the study.
Constructive criticism and negative sides.
findings.

Volume

The question of volume is ambiguous, since this nuance will largely depend on the specific topic and scientific discipline. Usually a review takes up to three and a half thousand printed characters. This corresponds to approximately 1.5 pages of 12 point Word text.

To give your review a stylistic finish, be sure to use special phrases and thematic expressions that emphasize your professionalism and knowledge of the subject and discipline.

Concise Dictionary of Phrases

If you want to write a good review, use the following words and sentences, which can be inserted into the text:

In the article of the author or in the work ...
Scientific research is devoted to the following problem ...
An important aspect of the article, in which the author achieved a positive result ...
Summing up the results of the entire study or its separate part ...
You can point out the imperfection of the article in that ...

In the last paragraph, it is important to say not only about the shortcomings, but also about the positive aspects of the publication.

Add the following phrase: “However, it is impossible not to say about … ”

What should a reviewer be guided by?

If you want to do everything right, adhere to special rules for compiling a document. In this case, your review will be accepted in a specialized publication. When writing a review, pay attention to the following requirements:

Describing the importance of the topic in modern conditions and its relevance, do it as concisely as possible.
Pointing to the main aspect, choose the thesis that you consider the main, without additional and secondary nuances.
When retelling the content, remember to point out the findings of the study and focus on successful thesis of the author.
Pointing out the negative sides, write exclusively on topic without citing additional sources.
In the closing phrases talk about the positives.
Mandatory tell me about dates and exact facts, but without compromising the clarity and brevity of the document.

As additional requirements for which feedback should be made, you can use the following:

Point out the originality of the publication.
List the main shortcomings and your criticisms.
Tell about your personal impressions while reading a scientific work, but do it with arguments.
Be impartial and try to be objective.
It is also recommended to personally communicate with the author.

If you comply with the above requirements, your review will be accepted for publication in a magazine or for posting on a website, etc.

What is not allowed when writing a review

In addition to the mandatory items, there are also certain points that should never appear in the text, namely:

Never do not write swear words or radical appeals with a violent nature.
Do not simply retell the text research, as readers can do it, but never critics and people with special training.
Not allowed to turn on personal opinion without argument.
Do not write lengthy abstract reasoning.
Always express thoughts clearly and do not pay too much attention to the nuances that can be counted secondary.
The unpreparedness of the reviewer, the presence spelling and factual errors.
Do not write exclusively in a negative spirit, point out the positives as well.
Don't write about personal tastes and preferences.

Pay attention to these points, and you will not be accused of illiteracy or bias.

Writing a review is easy: criteria for content

When writing to begin with, indicate the overall rating of the article. It will consist of several criteria, each of which can be assessed as “sufficient”, “weak”, “insufficient” and included in the text. The criteria will be as follows:

Problematic. The study should be devoted to a particular issue and indicate its essence, point to solutions.
Relevance. The article should correspond to modern scientific and social realities.
Scientific. The author must consider the subject of research from the point of view of a scientist, even if it is in itself applied and technical.
Novelty. The results and conclusions reached by the author must have scientific novelty. It may also consist in the application of new methods that have not previously been used when considering a particular topic.
Completeness. Research must be holistic. So, the author needs to start with setting goals and goals, and complete the text with their solution.
Validity. The result must be substantiated using certain tools - specific methods, experiments, mathematical modeling, etc.
Structured. The article should have a clear and understandable structure, which in publications corresponds to the presence of sections and subsections. They can be devoted to relevance, analysis of facts and theories, problem statement, discussion in scientific circles and literature, conclusion, etc.
Characteristics of the formulations. The provisions of the publication should be formulated as clear, concise phrases and strictly define the essence of the contribution of the research to science and the development of the discipline.
Clarity. Articles should be written in a language that will be understandable to average specialists in a particular field. The use of generally accepted terms is required.
Compactness. Scientific work should not be excessively voluminous. The size of the text is regulated by the content of clear, verified information in it.

After evaluating these criteria, substantive comments can also be included. For more tips, check out the following video:

Review example

Today, a ready-made sample document can be downloaded for free. Here is an example of a short review of a publication in the field of psychology. Recall that this is only an approximate example, and you can (and most likely even should!) Include additional sub-clauses depending on the specific topic. So the text might be:

Review of the article “Psychological Aspects of Education in School Institutions” by Natalya Vasilievna Lapushkina, post-graduate student of the Department of Psychology of the Pedagogical University.
The article discusses the main psychological aspects that are aimed at improving the academic performance and learning ability of children at school, conducts a behavioral analysis of specific groups of schoolchildren by age.
The relevance of the problem under study is beyond doubt, because the current level of schooling lags far behind the realities of the time, and to a large extent this depends on the illiterate approach of teachers to students.
The author did a deep work and provided recommendations regarding the normalization of the psychological climate in educational institutions. There is a conclusion that the psychological knowledge of teachers is insufficient, and teachers are unwilling to seek contact with children.
The scientific article fully complies with a number of requirements and can be recommended for publication.
Full name of the reviewer, other personal information, signature and seal.

Fig.1 Sample review of a scientific article. Click to view in full size...

Finally

Writing a review is a problematic procedure, since it can be difficult not only for undergraduate or graduate students, but also for serious scientists, to clearly articulate their opinion on a study and express it in a few pages. Such documents are compiled both for approval of the publication of the article, and for internal use in the defense of diplomas, term papers, for the implementation of student projects, and also simply as training for university students.

The writing process can be made much easier if you follow a specific plan and write your own assessment, according to the criteria. The finished sample also helps to determine the wording.

Legal advice free of charge online

Fill out the form to ask your question:

On the article, they are looking for examples of reviews.

We have tried to collect answers to these questions in one article.

A review of a scientific article can only be written by a certified specialist. In addition, he must have a degree in the thematic field of work.

For publication in journals included in the list of VAK, you must submit at least two reviews.

Articles for regular publications are rarely reviewed.

Criteria for evaluating an article for review

There are a number of criteria for professional review of articles

There is a list of already traditional criteria for professional peer review:

compliance of the article with the subject matter of the publication;
problematic (in the article the author must solve a certain problem);
scientific character (for texts intended for publication in a scientific source);
the volume of the text (compliance of this parameter with the requirements of the publication, the ratio of the structural parts of the future publication);
the quality of the content of the Russian and English abstracts and the list of keywords;
assessment of the content of the article (described in more detail below);
the degree of completeness (the publication must fully solve the problem posed - begin with its formulation and end with its solution);
the correctness of the bibliography (bibliographic references and list of sources);
general design of the article (in accordance with the requirements of the editorial board).

Now let's consider what elements a review should include.

Structural elements of an article with wording examples

The review should characterize the novelty and value of the article

A review for publishing an article in a journal should include the following elements:

General data of the author for publication (position held, his full name). Sample: Review of the article "Full title of the article" by Ksenia Vladimirovna Ivanova, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Social Pedagogy and Psychologists of Moscow State University.
Description of the topic (problem) of the future publication. For this part, you need to select 1-3 sentences. Sample: An article by K. V. Ivanova is devoted to solving (analyzing, defining) the problem ...
Assessment of the relevance of the problem. Sample: The peer-reviewed work touches on current issues…, this is because….
Characteristics of the distinctive and most noteworthy moments of the work. Sample: K.V. Ivanova carried out work on the definition ... It is important that the author pays attention to ..., because ...
The final part is a brief description of the novelty and value of the article (scientific and practical).
Recommendation part of the review. Sample: In the scientific article by K. V. Ivanova "The full title of the article" no (gross) violations of the established requirements for this type of work were revealed. The article can be recommended for publication. The recommendation may include comments about shortcomings, due to which the article is sent to the author for revision. In this case, it is necessary to accurately point out the errors in the work, to argue them where necessary.
Information about the reviewer: academic title, academic degree, position, place of work (at the time of writing the review), full name, stamp from the place of work, signature. Please note that when filling out the full name of the author of the article, the initials must be written before the last name.

A list of phrases that will help shape the main text of the review

For a competent design of a review, you can and should use scientific clichés

There is a list of phrases, the so-called scientific cliches, which greatly facilitate the reviewer in terms of the competent design of the main text:

The article considers a new point of view on ...
In the analyzed work, the author * addresses the question of ...
The article is based on an analysis…
The author of the article correctly argues ...
The article focuses on…
The author demonstrates fundamental knowledge in ...
Based on the selected factual material, the author proves (fairly notes);
The article discusses…
The article sufficiently (insufficiently) argued (stated, described) ...
All content of the article (author's reasoning) is confirmed by quotations from reliable sources (reliable sources).
The author gives a clear (confident) argumentation of his position.
This fact is the reason for the attention to ...
Particular attention should be paid to the opinion (reasoning) of the author about ...
Deserves special attention…
The practical value of the article is determined ...
The scientific (practical) value of the work lies in ...

Here are a few more tips to keep in mind when reviewing:

When analyzing the content of the article, pay special attention to the validity of the author's position, because this criterion is one of the most important in evaluating works.
The criterion of completeness is important not only for the analyzed article, but also for the review of it. Completion - recommendations, but they must have sufficient argumentation in the analysis.
The review should contain only clear wording, ambiguity in the presentation of one's thoughts should not be allowed.
Do not “abuse complex sentences.
The review must be written in an understandable language using well-known terminology.

A review of an article is written in a free form, but its implementation according to the specified structure, using a list of cliché phrases, will help to make the analysis competently and quickly.

In this video you will learn how to write a scientific paper:

"The Origin and Formation of the Vocabulary of the Modern Russian Language"From the work of Doctor of Philology Yu.A. Belchikov, we can conclude that the chosen research topic is relevant for modern Russian society. An analysis of the problem shows that the vocabulary of the Russian language has come a long way of becoming, that our vocabulary consists not only of iconic Russian words, but also of words borrowed from other languages. The theme of borrowing foreign words by the Russian language in different eras was also reflected in the history of our people. What is the novelty of the author's approach in the study of economic, political, cultural contacts with other countries that leave their mark on the development of the language.The scientific work submitted for review has, of course, practical significance and rational construction.

The author uses a modern approach to research technology. Along with traditional research methods, the professor uses an integrated approach that combines qualitative and quantitative research methods. Qualitative methods are presented by interviews, quantitative ones - by questioning.I would like to note the positive aspects of the research work: the problem of the formation of the vocabulary of the Russian language in different periods of time was studied; an attempt was made to study the state of the vocabulary of the modern Russian language throughout the entire process of its historical formation; theoretically substantiated the need for work to replenish the original Russian vocabulary, created on the basis of the word-formation resources of the language, as a result of a wide variety of processes characteristic of Russian word formation.

In our opinion, the work of Yu.A. Belchikov “The Origin and Formation of the Vocabulary of the Russian Language”, submitted for review, is a completed independent study, performed at a sufficient theoretical and methodological level, and has an innovative character.

Zakharyan Maria Igorevna

REVIEW

to the article: "A gifted student: a punishment for a teacher or an incentive for his development" by a teacher of the MOU of gymnasium No. 6, Volgograd

S.Yu. Ignatieva

This article was published on the website http://future4you.ru ACADEMIAN - scientific and educational electronic journal in the collection of works of teachers - participants of the IX All-Russian competition "Educational Potential of Russia", 2012, part 1, in the section "Actual problems of a teacher when working with gifted children"

I am the path for the student. But he is my way

for it also gives me a step to improve

my teacher's intuition and art.

I would like to start my story with wonderful words that the author uses as an epigraph in his article. In fact, the whole essence of the article lies in the work of a teacher with gifted students. We see that in the first person, the teacher admits, I AM THE WAY FOR THE STUDENT. What profound meaning this saying has!

The author touched upon all aspects of such a problem as the cultivation of a gifted student, the mutual influence of the student and the teacher. In my opinion, this problem is very relevant today and is justified by high rates for the development of the individual, both on the part of the student and the teacher. In various time periods and to this day, this problem has worried the minds of many scientists, including American researchers R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson, and many others.

Support for a "talented child", giftedness, gifted child, "gift", nurturing a gifted student, developing students' abilities, a teacher who has to work with gifted children - this is all that will be discussed in the articleS.Yu. Ignatiev. In addition, this article also discusses methods to create an enabling environment for students in order to achieve high performance in the study of the subject.

Support for a "talented child" is proclaimed today a priority state task. In my opinion, this has to do with supporting a gifted child, and above all, first of all, support should come from the family and the school. Thus, the author of the article writes in his work: “The task of the family is to see in time, to discern the abilities of the child, the task of the school is to support the child and develop his abilities.” The teacher is the coordinator of efforts for the optimal development of gifted children, whose giftedness may not yet be manifested at the moment, as well as simply capable children, for whom there is a serious hope for a qualitative leap in the development of their abilities. I fully support the words of the author and agree with his opinion, because the support from the family is very important for the child, since the child, without his own experience, copies behavior patterns and recognizes as true the norms and rules adopted in the family. As for the teacher, one should think and understand what role the student plays and what role the teacher plays?!

The author of the article writes: “Giftedness is a set of personality traits that ensure the actual or potentially successful performance of activities and obtaining results in one or more of the listed areas above the average level. Usually, giftedness is called a genetically determined component of abilities - “gift”, which largely determines both the outcome of development and its pace. The genetic gift is revealed due to the environment, and it either suppresses it or helps it to open up. A gifted child is a child who stands out with bright, sometimes outstanding achievements in a particular type of activity. And here we can say one thing, that the problem of giftedness is a problem of personality. I saw from personal experience that if a child differs from his peers in the richness of his emotional states, uncontrollability, increased curiosity, restlessness, rebelliousness, independence of behavior, ambition and an increased need for self-expression, it is necessary to pay attention to him, because they do not know how to adapt to the traditional system of education and have their own personal opinion on everything.

According to the author, with which I fully agree, the weaker the class, the calmer the lessons are. The teacher does not experience any stress, while the teacher does not have any incentive for self-improvement. And in such an idyll a gifted student is introduced with the desire to always be right, such a child is always an individual. And here it happens that pedagogical and psychological difficulties constantly arise when working with these children. In principle, I understand these schoolchildren, they face a lot of tasks and problems that they need to cope with. This is a dislike for school, and gaming interests, conformity, immersion in philosophical problems, the pursuit of excellence, the need for adult attention.

I agree with the opinion of S.Yu. Ignatiev, about the need to form optimal relations between students and teachers. I also agree with the author that the teacher should be friendly, understand the peculiarities of the psychology of gifted children, have a wide range of interests and skills, have a lively and active character, be flexible, have good health and vitality, have special postgraduate training in work with gifted children and be ready for further acquisition of special knowledge. And at this stage, as it was written at the beginning, "I (the teacher) is the path for the student." Here you can already see the benefits both directly for the student and for the teacher in his professional activities.

As for teachers, I would like to pay attention and express my opinion that one of the conditions for the development of a teacher as a professional is work with gifted children. Studying at pedagogical universities, each future teacher studies the theoretical aspects of inorganic and organic chemistry, methods of teaching lessons, but this is not enough to become a teacher with a capital letter. As the author of the article writes, in addition to this, it is also necessary to have methodological competence, psychological and pedagogical competence and autopsychological competence.

In conclusion, I would like to say that, in my opinion, the fate of today's gifted children largely depends on the teacher, and tomorrow, perhaps, future famous scientists, poets, doctors. All that is needed is support, attention, participation in the fate of the child. If on your pedagogical path you have met a gifted student, know that this is not a punishment, this is an incentive for your development! - the author actually writes at the end of his article. This gives us an idea of where we were heading and what question was raised initially. I want to end with the words of the French architect, art critic and historian Violet-le-Duc: “The sacred fire does not ignite by itself - in order for it to blaze, you need to collect the fuel, put it in the hearth and inflate it, sometimes blow it up for a long time until you manage to achieve the first glimpses of the flame. Then indeed, if everything was well prepared in the hearth, this fire will gradually warm you, it shines, it sparkles, it burns you, but, I repeat, you need to work hard for this.