Writing papers

[yeliab_cram]

The key is to have a specific research question in mind. Just searching medline or pubmed for "influenza virus" is going to throw up literally 1000s of review articles, most probably all on very focused issues and you are not going to have a clue which is worth your time reading.

You need to identify what exactly it is you want to review, and ultimately make it into some sort of answerable question. Remember, you are never going to be able to comprehensively review everything ever pulished on the topic, so you have to read around (other review papers are a good place to start) and then formulate your own opinion on your topic. If you dont have a clue, then you are just going to have to start reading whatever comes up and find yourself a contentious issue, then ask your supervisor if this is suitable.

Write a balanced argument calling on a decent number of primary studies (ie dont just reference the reviews). Ideally you want to be doing a critical review of the literature you are using. IE if you are talking about a study by smith et al that completely contradicts your main point of argument, you could take a dig at their sample size, their crappy methodology or the fact it was published in a rubbish journal. You are not going to be able to get in every paper so you have to be selective and use what you have to make a point.

Make it an article, not a textbook chapter. Have a point. Make it clearly. Structure it well and you will do fine.

[branco56]

Originally Posted by yeliab_cram

The key is to have a specific research question in mind. Just searching medline or pubmed for "influenza virus" is going to throw up literally 1000s of review articles, most probably all on very focused issues and you are not going to have a clue which is worth your time reading.

You need to identify what exactly it is you want to review, and ultimately make it into some sort of answerable question. Remember, you are never going to be able to comprehensively review everything ever pulished on the topic, so you have to read around (other review papers are a good place to start) and then formulate your own opinion on your topic. If you dont have a clue, then you are just going to have to start reading whatever comes up and find yourself a contentious issue, then ask your supervisor if this is suitable.

Write a balanced argument calling on a decent number of primary studies (ie dont just reference the reviews). Ideally you want to be doing a critical review of the literature you are using. IE if you are talking about a study by smith et al that completely contradicts your main point of argument, you could take a dig at their sample size, their crappy methodology or the fact it was published in a rubbish journal. You are not going to be able to get in every paper so you have to be selective and use what you have to make a point.

Make it an article, not a textbook chapter. Have a point. Make it clearly. Structure it well and you will do fine.

Thanx yeliab.

[branco56]

Once again, thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread. I took all your suggestions on board and have just received my SSM result for the review paper. I got an excellent. On my way to the nearest pub for a celebratory drink!!!