Жамият ва инновациялар –
Общество и инновации –
Society and innovations
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/socinov/index
Rules for review of writing methodology
Odina BAKHRIDINOVA
1
, Qahramon HAKIMOV
2
State Institute of Foreign Languages
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received May 2021
Received in revised form
20 May 2021
Accepted 15 June 2021
Available online
15 July 2021
Based on the description of the rules of the review of writing
methodology, this article proposes some basic methods to be
implemented in prose writing. It is highly recommended to
organize an effective review through the above rules.
2181-1415/© 2021 in Science LLC.
This is an open access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru)
Keywords:
review,
feedback,
rules of review,
research,
writing.
Yozish mahorati metodikasini sharh qilish qoidalari
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar:
Ko‘rib chiqish,
fikr-mulohaza,
ko‘rib chiqish qoidalari,
tadqiqot,
yozish mahorati.
Ushbu maqola yozuv metodologiyasini ko‘rib chiqish qoida-
larining tavsifiga asoslanib, nasrda yozishda qo‘llaniladigan ba’zi
bir asosiy usullarni taklif etilgan. Yuqoridagi qoidalar orqali
samarali tekshirishni tashkil qilish tavsiya etilgan.
Правила интерпретации техники навыков письма
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
рецензия,
отзывы,
правила рецензирования,
исследование,
навыки письменности.
В
данной
статье
на
основе
описания
правил
рецензирования методологии написания предлагается
несколько основных методов, которые будут реализованы в
написании
прозы.
Настоятельно
рекомендуется
организовать эффективную проверку в соответствии с
приведенными выше правилами.
1
Student, Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages. Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
E-mail: odinabaxriddinova@gmail.com.
2
Lecturer, Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages, Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
Жамият ва инновациялар – Общество и инновации – Society and innovations
Special Issue – 6 (2021) / ISSN 2181-1415
68
INTRODUCTION
A systematic methodological review of the literature, including “grey” literature,
such as reports, doctoral dissertations, and book chapters, was conducted to test existing
guidance and recommended practices for conducting and presenting meta-ethnographic
reports in any discipline.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We first conduct a comprehensive search of the database and then do a
comprehensive search to discover published and unpublished research in any language.
These searches are iterative and evolutionary because the review has progressed and
because it is intended to provide us with advice and guidance on conducting and reporting
meta-ethnography, rather than answering a strictly defined research question. Literature
reviews are in high demand in most scientific fields. Its demand comes from the increasing
production of scientific publications [1]. For example, compared to 1991, the number of
articles on malaria, obesity and biodiversity indexed by Web of Science in 2008 increased
3, 8 and 40 times, respectively [2]. Given the pile of articles, scientists cannot be expected
to scrutinize every new article related to their interests [3]. Therefore, it is desirable and
necessary to rely on regular summaries of recent literature. Although the recognition of
scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can bring new
comprehensive insights and are often widely read [4]. However, in order for these
abstracts to be useful, they must be professionally compiled [5].
METHODS
When starting from scratch, searching for the literature can take a lot of work. That
is why researchers who dedicate their careers to a research problem are in the perfect
position to review the literature. Since most graduate students begin their projects by
outlining the research questions that have been completed [6], some graduate schools now
offer literature review courses. However, most scientists may not have considered in detail
how to conduct a literature review. Literature review requires the ability to handle
multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant materials to synthesizing information
from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluation, and citation
skills [7]. In this article, I shared ten simple rules that I learned as a doctoral and postdoc
in approximately 25 literature reviews. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with
co-authors and colleagues, as well as comments from reviewers and editors.
How to choose a review topic? There are so many questions in contemporary
science that you could spend a lifetime attending lectures and reading literature
wondering what to review. For one thing, if it takes you a few years to make up your mind,
other people may have the same idea during this period. On the other hand, only well
thought out topics can guide an excellent literature review [8]. The topic must at least be:
Very interesting to you (ideally, you should find some recent articles related to
your work and decide to make a critical summary),
A key aspect of the field (many readers will be curious about the review, and there
will be enough material to write it), and
A well-defined topic (otherwise it might contain thousands of posts, which might
make comments useless).
Жамият ва инновациялар – Общество и инновации – Society and innovations
Special Issue – 6 (2021) / ISSN 2181-1415
69
Ideas for possible comments can come from articles that provide a list of key
research questions to be answered [9], or from accidental moments in out-of-line reading
and discussions. In addition to choosing a topic, you must also choose your target audience.
In many cases, topics (for example, Web services in computational biology) automatically
define the audience (for example, computational biologists), but the same topic may also
arouse interest in neighboring fields (for example, computer science, biology, etc.) . .
After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and
downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:
keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10],
keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve
them later with alternative strategies),
use a paper management system
define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these
criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek
previous reviews.
discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past
reviews,
trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous
reviews, and
incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.
When searching for related articles and reviews in the literature, the usual rules apply:
Completely,
Use different keywords and database sources (such as DBLP, Google Scholar,
ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) and
See who has cited relevant previous book chapters and articles.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
If you read the article first and then start to write comments, you will need a very
good memory to remember who wrote what, and their impressions and associations when
reading each article. My suggestion is to write interesting data snippets, ideas on how to
organize comments and thoughts on the content of the writing while reading. This way,
when you read the selected literature, you may have already obtained a draft of the review.
Of course, this draft still requires a lot of rewriting, reorganization, and rethinking to get a
text with coherent arguments [11], but you have avoided the danger of viewing blank
documents. If you are temporarily copying verbatim from a document, be careful to use
quotes when taking notes. Therefore, it is recommended to restate these quotes in your
own words in the final draft. When writing references that are already at this stage, be
careful to avoid false attributions. Using the reference software in the early stages of your
efforts will save you time.
After taking notes while reading the literature, you may have a rough idea of the
number of fabrics available for review. This may be a good time to decide whether to travel
for a minimum or full review. In recent years, some magazines prefer to publish fairly short
professional reviews and limit the number of words and citations. The short comment is
not necessarily a minor revision: it should attract more attention from busy readers,
although due to space limitations, it will inevitably simplify some issues and omit some
Жамият ва инновациялар – Общество и инновации – Society and innovations
Special Issue – 6 (2021) / ISSN 2181-1415
70
related materials. The advantage of a full review is that it can hide the complexity of a
particular scientific development more freely and well, but then readers may not have time
to focus on the main monograph and leave it in the pile of important “read” articles.
There may be continuity between mini reviews and full reviews. The same argument
applies to the dichotomy of descriptive and comprehensive reviews. Descriptive reviews
focus on the methodology, findings, and explanations of each research reviewed, while
comprehensive reviews try to find common ideas and concepts from the materials
reviewed [12]. There is a similar distinction between narrative reviews and systematic
reviews: Although narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews try to test
hypotheses based on published evidence, which is collected using predefined protocols to
reduce bias [13], [14]. When systematic reviews analyze quantitative results in a
quantitative manner, they become meta-analysis. The choice between different types of
reviews must be made on a case-by-case basis, not only on the nature of the material found
and the preferences of the target journal, but also on the time available to write reviews
and numbers [15].
CONCLUSION
Whether your plan is to write a short review or a complete review, staying focused
16,17 are good suggestions. Including material in order to include material can easily lead
to comments trying to do too many things at once. The need to maintain focused reviews
can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, with the goal of bridging the gap between
fields [18]. For example, if you are writing a review on how to use epidemiological methods
to simulate the spread of ideas, you may tend to include materials from the two main areas
of epidemiology and cultural communication research. This may be necessary to some
extent, but in this case, the focused review will only deal with the interface between
epidemiology and the spread of ideas in detail. Although the focus is an important feature
of a successful review, this requirement must be balanced with the need to make the
review relevant to a broad audience. You can circle this box to discuss the broader impact
of the revised theme on other disciplines.
REFERENCES:
1.
Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information
overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org
/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.
pdf. Accessed May 2013.
2.
Pautasso M. (2010) Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural,
medical and social science databases. Scientometrics 85. – PP. 193–202.
3.
Erren T.C., Cullen P, Erren M. (2009) How to surf today’s information tsunami: on
the craft of effective reading. Med Hypotheses 73. – PP. 278–279
4.
Hampton S.E., Parker J.N. (2011) Collaboration and productivity in scientific
synthesis. Bioscience 61. – PP. 900–910.
5.
Ketcham C.M., Crawford J.M. (2007) The impact of review articles. Lab Invest 87.
– PP. 1174–1185.
6.
Boote D.N., Beile P. (2005) Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the
dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educ Res 34. – PP. 3–15.
Жамият ва инновациялар – Общество и инновации – Society and innovations
Special Issue – 6 (2021) / ISSN 2181-1415
71
7.
Budgen D., Brereton P. (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in
software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, –
PP. 1051–1052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500.
8.
Maier H.R. (2013) What constitutes a good literature review and why does its
quality matter? Environ Model Softw 43. – PP. 3–4.
9.
Sutherland W.J., Fleishman E., Mascia M.B., Pretty J., Rudd M.A. (2011) Methods
for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and
policy. Methods Ecol Evol 2. – PP. 238–247.
10.
Maggio L.A., Tannery N.H., Kanter S.L. (2011) Reproducibility of literature
search reporting in medical education reviews. Acad Med 86. – PP. 1049–1054.
11.
Torraco R.J. (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and
examples. Human Res Develop Rev 4. – PP. 356–367.
12.
Khoo C.S.G, Na J.C., Jaidka K. (2011) Analysis of the macro-level discourse
structure of literature reviews. Online Info Rev 35. – PP. 255–271.
13.
Rosenfeld R.M. (1996) How to systematically review the medical literature.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115. – PP. 53–63.
14.
Cook D.A., West C.P. (2012) Conducting systematic reviews in medical
education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ 46. – PP. 943–952.
15.
Dijkers M (2009) The Task Force on Systematic Reviews and Guidelines (2009)
The value of “traditional” reviews in the era of systematic reviewing. Am J. Phys Med
Rehabil 88. – PP. 423–430.
16.
Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.
17.
Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research
imagination. London: SAGE.
