article review online

Article Review Generator

Here is your article critique :

Writing an article review can become a daunting task for any student. It requires analyzing the article's content, evaluating it, and sharing personal insights. Stuck with summarizing the article rather than criticizing it? Use this article review generator!

• ️🎤 What Is This Review Generator?
• ️👑 Article Review Generator Benefits
• ️🤔 When to Use the Tool
• ️✍️ How to Write an Article Review
• ️❓ Article Review Generator Free: FAQ
• ️🔗 References

🎤 What Is the Article Review Generator?

Our online article review generator is an excellent solution for crafting comprehensive reviews. It offers in-depth analysis while ensuring that the main ideas from the article are effectively highlighted. The tool allows students to focus on critical evaluation and personal insights rather than getting bogged down in summarization.

An article review is a piece that critically evaluates and analyzes a scholarly article or research paper. It involves summarizing the article's main points, assessing its strengths and weaknesses, and providing personal opinion.

You may need to write an article analysis:

• To provide a critique of a specific article or paper.
• To contribute to academic discourse by evaluating scholarly work.
• To improve your writing skills via summarizing, analyzing, and critiquing complex texts.
• To deepen understanding of a topic.
• To prepare for future research projects.

👑 Online Article Review Generator: 6 Benefits

Many benefits make our article review summary generator stand out. For example, it is:

🤔 When to Use the Article Reviewer Tool?

Our tool is not only helpful in writing article reviews, but it also comes in handy for a variety of other purposes. Here are some cases when you can use the article review summary generator:

• Analyze the article's strengths and weaknesses.
• Quickly understand the key points and arguments of the article.
• Get a new perspective on the article's content and structure.
• Generate a concise summary of an article.
• Understand complex articles more effectively.
• Improve writing skills .
• Be informed about current developments.
• Prepare for exams or presentations.
• Facilitate collaboration during group projects.
• Get multiple article summaries for the literature review.

✍️ How to Write an Article Review

You can always use our online article review generator to analyze and critique an article quickly. However, if you have time and wish to enhance your academic writing skills, consider writing the review yourself. To help you with this, we've prepared a step-by-step tutorial for crafting a compelling article review .

Step 1 – Preparation

First of all, you should clearly understand the goal of this assignment. An article review is more than just a summary or your opinion on a publication. It involves a critical analysis and assessment of the content.

Here's what to do to prepare for composing an article review:

• Assess the title. Before delving into the paper, consider what the title suggests about its content and the potential focus of the author's argument.
• Analyze the structure. Subheadings can offer a roadmap of the article's organization. Focus on them to get an overview of the key topics the author will explore.
• Understand the main idea. Identify the article's central argument or thesis. It is the primary claim or position the author is asserting.
• Analyze the abstract. An abstract is a condensed version of the article. It offers a glimpse into the main arguments, research methodology, and conclusions.

Step 2 – Reading

Carefully reading an article is vital for making a well-informed evaluation , so don't underestimate this stage. Take notes or use highlighters to keep track of the information you might refer to later. We suggest paying attention to:

• Intended audience. Determine who the article is addressing. Consider potential readers' level of expertise, interests, and background knowledge.
• Author's purpose. Does the writer aim to summarize extant research, put forward a fresh argument, or refute others' claims?
• Key terms. Note whether the author defines key concepts. A straightforward definition of terminology helps understand the writer's arguments better.
• Facts and opinions. Differentiate between objective information and the author's views. Assess the adequacy and reliability of the presented information.
• Central arguments and conclusions. Evaluate their clarity, coherence, and the degree to which they are reinforced by evidence and analysis.
• Methodology and findings. Examine the methods and expected results in the article. Assess the research credibility and the clarity of the reported findings.
• Visual aids. If the article contains illustrations or charts, analyze their effectiveness in communicating information and strengthening the message.

Step 3 – Outlining & Drafting

Outlining an article review can help you arrange your ideas and guarantee that your paper is logical and coherent. Usually, an outline comprises an introduction, the body of the review, and a conclusion.

When outlining, work on your thesis statement . It is a sentence or two that presents your main argument about the article, which you will support and develop in your review.

After finishing your outline, you can move on to writing a draft. These are the main components for each section of an article review:

• Hook (attention-grabbing opening).
• Background information on the article.
• Thesis statement.
• Summary of the article.
• Analysis and evaluation.
• Restated thesis statement.
• Summary of your main points.
• Final evaluation of the article.
• Suggestions for further research or areas for improvement.

Step 4 – Writing

The final stage of writing an article critique involves reviewing and polishing the draft. It is important to revise the piece and check for any mistakes or inconsistencies. Additionally, we recommend double-checking all citations and references and ensuring they are carefully formatted according to the requirements provided in the assignment.

During the review and polishing process, consider the following:

• Review title. Consider creating a suitable title for the article review if a title is not provided. A good article review title should convey the text's main focus, include keywords, and hint at what readers can expect from the review.
• Reference list. Include a reference list to acknowledge and give credit to the sources you have used in your review. Even if the review only references the article being analyzed, the reference list should include this article.

❓ Article Review Generator Free: FAQ

❓ what is an article review.

An article review critically evaluates and analyzes a scholarly article or research paper. It summarizes the main points, critiques the methodology, and discusses the significance and potential limitations of the work. Article reviews are a common assignment among high school and college students.

❓ How to write an article review?

Writing an article review starts with thorough preparation and understanding of the article's context. Then, carefully read the article to identify critical points and evaluate the author's arguments. Finally, provide a well-reasoned and supported assessment of the article's overall quality and contribution. You can always use our article review generator for the best summary and evaluation.

❓ Where is the literature review in an article?

The literature review in an article is typically situated after the introduction or in the body section. It draws a comprehensive overview of existing research relevant to the article's topic. However, not all article reviews require a literature review. It's better to consult the professor or review guidelines to determine if a literature review is necessary for the specific assignment.

❓ How to start an article review?

To begin an article review, start by introducing the article's title, author, and publication date. Provide a brief overview of the article's main topic and purpose. Consider setting the context by explaining the topic's significance and the article's relevance to the field. Lastly, state your thesis or main argument regarding the article's quality and contribution.

Updated: Jun 6th, 2024

🔗 References

• How to Write an Article Review (with Sample Reviews) - wikiHow
• Research Guides: Introduction to Research: Humanities and Social Sciences: Critical Reviews
• How to Review a Journal Article | University of Illinois Springfield
• Research Guides: Writing Help: The Article Review

RAxter is now Enago Read! Enjoy the same licensing and pricing with enhanced capabilities. No action required for existing customers.

Your all in one AI-powered Reading Assistant

A Reading Space to Ideate, Create Knowledge, and Collaborate on Your Research

• Smartly organize your research
• Receive recommendations that cannot be ignored
• Collaborate with your team to read, discuss, and share knowledge

From Surface-Level Exploration to Critical Reading - All in one Place!

Fine-tune your literature search.

Our AI-powered reading assistant saves time spent on the exploration of relevant resources and allows you to focus more on reading.

Select phrases or specific sections and explore more research papers related to the core aspects of your selections. Pin the useful ones for future references.

Our platform brings you the latest research related to your and project work.

Speed up your literature review

Quickly generate a summary of key sections of any paper with our summarizer.

Make informed decisions about which papers are relevant, and where to invest your time in further reading.

Get key insights from the paper, quickly comprehend the paper’s unique approach, and recall the key points.

Bring order to your research projects

Organize your reading lists into different projects and maintain the context of your research.

Quickly sort items into collections and tag or filter them according to keywords and color codes.

Experience the power of sharing by finding all the shared literature at one place.

Decode papers effortlessly for faster comprehension

Highlight what is important so that you can retrieve it faster next time.

Select any text in the paper and ask Copilot to explain it to help you get a deeper understanding.

Ask questions and follow-ups from AI-powered Copilot.

Collaborate to read with your team, professors, or students

Share and discuss literature and drafts with your study group, colleagues, experts, and advisors. Recommend valuable resources and help each other for better understanding.

Work in shared projects efficiently and improve visibility within your study group or lab members.

Keep track of your team's progress by being constantly connected and engaging in active knowledge transfer by requesting full access to relevant papers and drafts.

Find papers from across the world's largest repositories

Testimonials

Privacy and security of your research data are integral to our mission..

Everything you add or create on Enago Read is private by default. It is visible if and when you share it with other users.

You can put Creative Commons license on original drafts to protect your IP. For shared files, Enago Read always maintains a copy in case of deletion by collaborators or revoked access.

We use state-of-the-art security protocols and algorithms including MD5 Encryption, SSL, and HTTPS to secure your data.

Join over 500,000 people saving time

Summarize, analyze and organize your research

Summarize anything

Understand complex research

Organize your knowledge

AI powered tools built specifically for academic papers

From undergrad to postgrad and beyond.

Researchers

“It would normally take me 15mins – 1 hour to skim read the article but with Scholarcy I can do that in 5 minutes.”

Omar Ng , Masters student ‍ @omarng

‍ It’s time to revolutionize your research workflow

So, you have texts coming at you from every angle and need to articulate your understanding of them tomorrow? We’ve been there…

Summarize any paper, article or textbook.

You can summarize videos too! Scholarcy converts long complex texts into interactive summary flashcards, which highlight key information.

We’re compatible!

Import any file, from anywhere. Whether you're browsing articles online, have a chapter downloaded, or a folder of PDFs and Word docs.

Enhance your summaries

Change the summary to match your reading style with our Enhance feature. Choose from a single sentence to a researcher level overview.

Jump to key findings with Spotlight

We’ll take you straight to the important points, key concepts, and contributions. 

Critically evaluate complex texts more easily

Smart highlighting and analyzing features guide you to important sections of text and help you interpret them.

Find order from chaos

Our Flashcards provide a structured, consistent format to read and explore any text from, whether you’re reading just one article or 20.

Highlight, annotate and take notes

Never lose another flash of inspiration. Add notes while you read and pick up right where you left off.

Explore new concepts and terms as you go

We’ll point you to further reading and show you how the article compares to earlier work.

Keep track of your knowledge

Never lose another text. Scholarcy is the perfect tool for saving, organising and getting a quick refresher of your reading.

Save summaries and never lose another paper

Generate and save flashcards to your library even while browsing and reading on the go.

Keep track of important details

Store all of your references, figures and tables and easily find them again.

Refresh your memory

Quickly remind yourself of the key facts and findings before a lecture or meeting with your supervisor.

Synthesize your insights. Export to other apps.

Export your flashcards to a range of file formats that are compatible with lots of research and productivity apps.

Export summaries to a range of formats

Learn more about your texts and how they compare, or connect by exporting to Excel, PKMS and more.

Import directly from Zotero

Convert your Zotero library into Scholarcy Flashcards for more efficient article screening.

Generate bibliographies in a click

Export your flashcards to your favourite citation manager or generate a one-click, fully formatted bibliography in Word.

Apply what you’ve learned. Write that magnum opus 🤌

Transform all that knowledge you’ve built up into a perfectly articulated argument.

Introduction

Try Scholarcy today

Your all in one AI-powered Reading Assistant

A Reading Space to Ideate, Create Knowledge, & Collaborate on Your Research

• Smartly organize your research
• Receive recommendations that can not be ignored
• Collaborate with your team to read, discuss, and share knowledge

From Surface-Level Exploration to Critical Reading - All at One Place!

Fine-tune your literature search.

Our AI-powered reading assistant saves time spent on the exploration of relevant resources and allows you to focus more on reading.

Select phrases or specific sections and explore more research papers related to the core aspects of your selections. Pin the useful ones for future references.

Our platform brings you the latest research news, online courses, and articles from magazines/blogs related to your research interests and project work.

Speed up your literature review

Quickly generate a summary of key sections of any paper with our summarizer.

Make informed decisions about which papers are relevant, and where to invest your time in further reading.

Get key insights from the paper, quickly comprehend the paper’s unique approach, and recall the key points.

Bring order to your research projects

Organize your reading lists into different projects and maintain the context of your research.

Quickly sort items into collections and tag or filter them according to keywords and color codes.

Experience the power of sharing by finding all the shared literature at one place

Decode papers effortlessly for faster comprehension

Highlight what is important so that you can retrieve it faster next time

Find Wikipedia explanations for any selected word or phrase

Save time in finding similar ideas across your projects

Collaborate to read with your team, professors, or students

Share and discuss literature and drafts with your study group, colleagues, experts, and advisors. Recommend valuable resources and help each other for better understanding.

Work in shared projects efficiently and improve visibility within your study group or lab members.

Keep track of your team's progress by being constantly connected and engaging in active knowledge transfer by requesting full access to relevant papers and drafts.

Find Papers From Across the World's Largest Repositories

Testimonials

Privacy and security of your research data are integral to our mission..

Everything you add or create on Enago Read is private by default. It is visible only if and when you share it with other users.

You can put Creative Commons license on original drafts to protect your IP. For shared files, Enago Read always maintains a copy in case of deletion by collaborators or revoked access.

We use state-of-the-art security protocols and algorithms including MD5 Encryption, SSL, and HTTPS to secure your data.

🤖 AI Literature Review Generator

Unleash the power of AI with our Literature Review Generator. Effortlessly access comprehensive and meticulously curated literature reviews to elevate your research like never before!

The landscape of knowledge is vast, diverse, and ever-changing. Navigating it can seem daunting yet exciting, like reading a suspense-filled novel. Welcome to the world of a literature review, a fundamental tool that manages complexity, uncovers answers, and expands understanding in any research venture. A literature review generator simplifies this process and makes it more accessible.

Explore the review of existing literature, moving from the general to the specific, the known to the unknown. A literature review bridges the gap between raw data and informed conclusions. It defines research objectives, highlights key themes of the content, identifies gaps, and outlines future study areas.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of scholarly articles, books, and other sources concerning a particular field of study or a research question. This process involves discussing the state of the art of an area of research and identifying pivotal works and researchers in the domain.

The primary purpose of a literature review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the knowledge that already exists on your chosen subject.

This type of review usually serves as the starting point for many forms of academic research and forms a vital part of dissertations, thesis, research articles, and other documents. Its significance lies in its ability to concentrate the existing knowledge on a subject and reveal gaps that need further research.

A well-crafted literature review also clarifies the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates, and establishes a framework for interpreting the findings of your study in the context of what is already known.

Why Use a Literature Review Generator?

Universities and academic institutions require students to develop literature reviews — these targeted examinations of other studies related to your current research provide a robust foundation for your work.

While these are satisfactory to develop your academic writing skills, they can be time-consuming and challenging due to the extensive research involved. With the contemporary integration of technological tools into our daily lives, literature review generators have become a lifeline for many students.

Now, let’s take a closer look at why you should embrace these generators in the literature review process, and explore the benefits that they pose.

• Ease of Information Gathering : Comprehensive studies require extensive reading and diligent research, which often takes hours to complete. Literature review generators automate the information-gathering process, retrieving relevant articles, journals, and related publications in a matter of seconds. This ensures a momentous saving of time and relieves the user from the tedious job of slogging through numerous resources.
• Coherent and Well-Structured Reviews : Structuring the review in a logical and coherent manner can be a difficult task. These intelligent tools present well-structured reviews, offering well-organized input which can guide you in writing your own well-formulated literature review.
• Finds Good Matches : A literature review generator is designed to find the most relevant literature content according to your research topic. The expertise of these software tools allows users to ease the process of finding relevant scholarly articles and other documents, making it more accurate and faster than doing it manually.
• Reduces Errors and Improves Quality : Humans are prone to making mistakes, especially when tasked with analyzing extensive volumes of data. Literature review generators minimize errors by ensuring access to the most accurate data and providing proper citations hence enhancing the quality of the review.
• Pedagogical Benefits : Using a Literature review generator does not only provide a quick fix for students but it also serves as a tool for learning. It allows the users to understand how professional literature reviews should be structured and can guide them in crafting their work.

How To Use This AI Generator:

• Click “Use Generator” to create a project instantly in your workspace.
• Click “Save Generator” to create a reusable template for you and your team.
• Customize your project , make it your own, and get work done!

The Tech Edvocate

• Advertisement
• Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
• Home Page Four
• Home Page Three
• Home Page Two
• Icons [No Sidebar]
• Left Sidbear Page
• Lynch Educational Consulting
• My Speaking Page
• Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
• Newsletter Unsubscription
• Page Example
• Privacy Policy
• Protected Content
• Request a Product Review
• Shortcodes Examples
• Terms and Conditions
• The Edvocate
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• Write For Us
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Assistive Technology
• Child Development Tech
• Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
• EdTech Futures
• EdTech News
• EdTech Policy & Reform
• EdTech Startups & Businesses
• Higher Education EdTech
• Online Learning & eLearning
• Parent & Family Tech
• Personalized Learning
• Product Reviews
• Tech Edvocate Awards
• School Ratings

A Career Coach Reviewed The 10-Year-Old Résumé That Got Him Into Google. He Would Make 3 Changes Today

Developer successfully boots up linux on google drive, paramount global merges with skydance, creating ‘new paramount’, what does a world without airbnb look like, house of the dragon recap: you win or you die, house of the dragon scorecard: crown roast, ecuador court rules pollution violates rights of a river running through capital, show hn: simulating 20m particles in javascript, daemon’s harrenhal visions in ‘house of the dragon’ season 2, episode 4, explained, house of the dragon’ season 2, episode 4: who is alyn, and why might he be important, how to write an article review (with sample reviews)  .

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

4 Ways to Report Fraud on Craigslist

How to Stop Dogs Licking You: 11 Steps

3 Ways to Buy Clothes That Fit

How to Feed a Diabetic Cat: 13 Steps

How to Dance the Boogie Woogie: 15 Steps

11 Easy Ways to Say “Stupid” in Spanish

How to Review a Journal Article

For many kinds of assignments, like a  literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your  qualified opinion  and  evaluation  of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple  summary  of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes,  annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

• How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
• How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
• How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
• How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
• How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

• How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
• Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
• How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
• What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
• How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
• How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?

Evaluating Methods

• How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
• How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
• Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?

Evaluating Data

• Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
• Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
• How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
• What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.),  Digital games in language learning and teaching  (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an  annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Ayodeji amobonye.

1 Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

2 Writing Centre, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334 KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

Japareng Lalung

3 School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Santhosh Pillai

Associated data.

The data and materials that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable as both students and researchers rely on these articles as the starting point for their research. Interestingly, many postgraduate students are expected to write review articles for journal publications as a way of demonstrating their ability to contribute to new knowledge in their respective fields. However, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide them on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. The dearth of ample guidance or explicit training results in students having to learn all by themselves, usually by trial and error, which often leads to high rejection rates from publishing houses. Therefore, this article seeks to identify these challenges from a beginner's perspective and strives to plug the identified gaps and discrepancies. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a systematic guide for emerging scientists and to summarise the most important information on how to write and structure a publishable review article.

1. Introduction

Early scientists, spanning from the Ancient Egyptian civilization to the Scientific Revolution of the 16 th /17 th century, based their research on intuitions, personal observations, and personal insights. Thus, less time was spent on background reading as there was not much literature to refer to. This is well illustrated in the case of Sir Isaac Newton's apple tree and the theory of gravity, as well as Gregor Mendel's pea plants and the theory of inheritance. However, with the astronomical expansion in scientific knowledge and the emergence of the information age in the last century, new ideas are now being built on previously published works, thus the periodic need to appraise the huge amount of already published literature [ 1 ]. According to Birkle et al. [ 2 ], the Web of Science—an authoritative database of research publications and citations—covered more than 80 million scholarly materials. Hence, a critical review of prior and relevant literature is indispensable for any research endeavour as it provides the necessary framework needed for synthesising new knowledge and for highlighting new insights and perspectives [ 3 ].

Review papers are generally considered secondary research publications that sum up already existing works on a particular research topic or question and relate them to the current status of the topic. This makes review articles distinctly different from scientific research papers. While the primary aim of the latter is to develop new arguments by reporting original research, the former is focused on summarising and synthesising previous ideas, studies, and arguments, without adding new experimental contributions. Review articles basically describe the content and quality of knowledge that are currently available, with a special focus on the significance of the previous works. To this end, a review article cannot simply reiterate a subject matter, but it must contribute to the field of knowledge by synthesising available materials and offering a scholarly critique of theory [ 4 ]. Typically, these articles critically analyse both quantitative and qualitative studies by scrutinising experimental results, the discussion of the experimental data, and in some instances, previous review articles to propose new working theories. Thus, a review article is more than a mere exhaustive compilation of all that has been published on a topic; it must be a balanced, informative, perspective, and unbiased compendium of previous studies which may also include contrasting findings, inconsistencies, and conventional and current views on the subject [ 5 ].

Hence, the essence of a review article is measured by what is achieved, what is discovered, and how information is communicated to the reader [ 6 ]. According to Steward [ 7 ], a good literature review should be analytical, critical, comprehensive, selective, relevant, synthetic, and fully referenced. On the other hand, a review article is considered to be inadequate if it is lacking in focus or outcome, overgeneralised, opinionated, unbalanced, and uncritical [ 7 ]. Most review papers fail to meet these standards and thus can be viewed as mere summaries of previous works in a particular field of study. In one of the few studies that assessed the quality of review articles, none of the 50 papers that were analysed met the predefined criteria for a good review [ 8 ]. However, beginners must also realise that there is no bad writing in the true sense; there is only writing in evolution and under refinement. Literally, every piece of writing can be improved upon, right from the first draft until the final published manuscript. Hence, a paper can only be referred to as bad and unfixable when the author is not open to corrections or when the writer gives up on it.

According to Peat et al. [ 9 ], “everything is easy when you know how,” a maxim which applies to scientific writing in general and review writing in particular. In this regard, the authors emphasized that the writer should be open to learning and should also follow established rules instead of following a blind trial-and-error approach. In contrast to the popular belief that review articles should only be written by experienced scientists and researchers, recent trends have shown that many early-career scientists, especially postgraduate students, are currently expected to write review articles during the course of their studies. However, these scholars have little or no access to formal training on how to analyse and synthesise the research literature in their respective fields [ 10 ]. Consequently, students seeking guidance on how to write or improve their literature reviews are less likely to find published works on the subject, particularly in the science fields. Although various publications have dealt with the challenges of searching for literature, or writing literature reviews for dissertation/thesis purposes, there is little or no information on how to write a comprehensive review article for publication. In addition to the paucity of published information to guide the potential author, the lack of understanding of what constitutes a review paper compounds their challenges. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a guide for writing review papers for journal publishing. This work draws on the experience of the authors to assist early-career scientists/researchers in the “hard skill” of authoring review articles. Even though there is no single path to writing scientifically, or to writing reviews in particular, this paper attempts to simplify the process by looking at this subject from a beginner's perspective. Hence, this paper highlights the differences between the types of review articles in the sciences while also explaining the needs and purpose of writing review articles. Furthermore, it presents details on how to search for the literature as well as how to structure the manuscript to produce logical and coherent outputs. It is hoped that this work will ease prospective scientific writers into the challenging but rewarding art of writing review articles.

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

Analysing literature gives an overview of the “WHs”: WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [ 11 ]. For new or aspiring researchers in a particular field, it can be quite challenging to get a comprehensive overview of their respective fields, especially the historical trends and what has been studied previously. As such, the importance of review articles to knowledge appraisal and contribution cannot be overemphasised, which is reflected in the constant demand for such articles in the research community. However, it is also important for the author, especially the first-time author, to recognise the importance of his/her investing time and effort into writing a quality review article.

Generally, literature reviews are undertaken for many reasons, mainly for publication and for dissertation purposes. The major purpose of literature reviews is to provide direction and information for the improvement of scientific knowledge. They also form a significant component in the research process and in academic assessment [ 12 ]. There may be, however, a thin line between a dissertation literature review and a published review article, given that with some modifications, a literature review can be transformed into a legitimate and publishable scholarly document. According to Gülpınar and Güçlü [ 6 ], the basic motivation for writing a review article is to make a comprehensive synthesis of the most appropriate literature on a specific research inquiry or topic. Thus, conducting a literature review assists in demonstrating the author's knowledge about a particular field of study, which may include but not be limited to its history, theories, key variables, vocabulary, phenomena, and methodologies [ 10 ]. Furthermore, publishing reviews is beneficial as it permits the researchers to examine different questions and, as a result, enhances the depth and diversity of their scientific reasoning [ 1 ]. In addition, writing review articles allows researchers to share insights with the scientific community while identifying knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research. The review writing process can also be a useful tool in training early-career scientists in leadership, coordination, project management, and other important soft skills necessary for success in the research world [ 13 ]. Another important reason for authoring reviews is that such publications have been observed to be remarkably influential, extending the reach of an author in multiple folds of what can be achieved by primary research papers [ 1 ]. The trend in science is for authors to receive more citations from their review articles than from their original research articles. According to Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero [ 14 ], review articles are, on average, three times more frequently cited than original research articles; they also asserted that a 20% increase in review authorship could result in a 40–80% increase in citations of the author. As a result, writing reviews can significantly impact a researcher's citation output and serve as a valuable channel to reach a wider scientific audience. In addition, the references cited in a review article also provide the reader with an opportunity to dig deeper into the topic of interest. Thus, review articles can serve as a valuable repository for consultation, increasing the visibility of the authors and resulting in more citations.

3. Types of Review Articles

The first step in writing a good literature review is to decide on the particular type of review to be written; hence, it is important to distinguish and understand the various types of review articles. Although scientific review articles have been classified according to various schemes, however, they are broadly categorised into narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses [ 15 ]. It was observed that more authors—as well as publishers—were leaning towards systematic reviews and meta-analysis while downplaying narrative reviews; however, the three serve different aims and should all be considered equally important in science [ 1 ]. Bibliometric reviews and patent reviews, which are closely related to meta-analysis, have also gained significant attention recently. However, from another angle, a review could also be of two types. In the first class, authors could deal with a widely studied topic where there is already an accumulated body of knowledge that requires analysis and synthesis [ 3 ]. At the other end of the spectrum, the authors may have to address an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations; hence, their contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model [ 3 ].

3.1. Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviewers are mainly focused on providing clarification and critical analysis on a particular topic or body of literature through interpretative synthesis, creativity, and expert judgement. According to Green et al. [ 16 ], a narrative review can be in the form of editorials, commentaries, and narrative overviews. However, editorials and commentaries are usually expert opinions; hence, a beginner is more likely to write a narrative overview, which is more general and is also referred to as an unsystematic narrative review. Similarly, the literature review section of most dissertations and empirical papers is typically narrative in nature. Typically, narrative reviews combine results from studies that may have different methodologies to address different questions or to formulate a broad theoretical formulation [ 1 ]. They are largely integrative as strong focus is placed on the assimilation and synthesis of various aspects in the review, which may involve comparing and contrasting research findings or deriving structured implications [ 17 ]. In addition, they are also qualitative studies because they do not follow strict selection processes; hence, choosing publications is relatively more subjective and unsystematic [ 18 ]. However, despite their popularity, there are concerns about their inherent subjectivity. In many instances, when the supporting data for narrative reviews are examined more closely, the evaluations provided by the author(s) become quite questionable [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, if the goal of the author is to formulate a new theory that connects diverse strands of research, a narrative method is most appropriate.

3.2. Systematic Reviews

In contrast to narrative reviews, which are generally descriptive, systematic reviews employ a systematic approach to summarise evidence on research questions. Hence, systematic reviews make use of precise and rigorous criteria to identify, evaluate, and subsequently synthesise all relevant literature on a particular topic [ 12 , 20 ]. As a result, systematic reviews are more likely to inspire research ideas by identifying knowledge gaps or inconsistencies, thus helping the researcher to clearly define the research hypotheses or questions [ 21 ]. Furthermore, systematic reviews may serve as independent research projects in their own right, as they follow a defined methodology to search and combine reliable results to synthesise a new database that can be used for a variety of purposes [ 22 ]. Typically, the peculiarities of the individual reviewer, different search engines, and information databases used all ensure that no two searches will yield the same systematic results even if the searches are conducted simultaneously and under identical criteria [ 11 ]. Hence, attempts are made at standardising the exercise via specific methods that would limit bias and chance effects, prevent duplications, and provide more accurate results upon which conclusions and decisions can be made.

The most established of these methods is the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines which objectively defined statements, guidelines, reporting checklists, and flowcharts for undertaking systematic reviews as well as meta-analysis [ 23 ]. Though mainly designed for research in medical sciences, the PRISMA approach has gained wide acceptance in other fields of science and is based on eight fundamental propositions. These include the explicit definition of the review question, an unambiguous outline of the study protocol, an objective and exhaustive systematic review of reputable literature, and an unambiguous identification of included literature based on defined selection criteria [ 24 ]. Other considerations include an unbiased appraisal of the quality of the selected studies (literature), organic synthesis of the evidence of the study, preparation of the manuscript based on the reporting guidelines, and periodic update of the review as new data emerge [ 24 ]. Other methods such as PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols), MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) have since been developed for systematic reviews (and meta-analysis), with most of them being derived from PRISMA.

Consequently, systematic reviews—unlike narrative reviews—must contain a methodology section which in addition to all that was highlighted above must fully describe the precise criteria used in formulating the research question and setting the inclusion or exclusion criteria used in selecting/accessing the literature. Similarly, the criteria for evaluating the quality of the literature included in the review as well as for analysing, synthesising, and disseminating the findings must be fully described in the methodology section.

3.3. Meta-Analysis

Meta-analyses are considered as more specialised forms of systematic reviews. Generally, they combine the results of many studies that use similar or closely related methods to address the same question or share a common quantitative evaluation method [ 25 ]. However, meta-analyses are also a step higher than other systematic reviews as they are focused on numerical data and involve the use of statistics in evaluating different studies and synthesising new knowledge. The major advantage of this type of review is the increased statistical power leading to more reliable results for inferring modest associations and a more comprehensive understanding of the true impact of a research study [ 26 ]. Unlike in traditional systematic reviews, research topics covered in meta-analyses must be mature enough to allow the inclusion of sufficient homogeneous empirical research in terms of subjects, interventions, and outcomes [ 27 , 28 ].

Being an advanced form of systematic review, meta-analyses must also have a distinct methodology section; hence, the standard procedures involved in the traditional systematic review (especially PRISMA) also apply in meta-analyses [ 23 ]. In addition to the common steps in formulating systematic reviews, meta-analyses are required to describe how nested and missing data are handled, the effect observed in each study, the confidence interval associated with each synthesised effect, and any potential for bias presented within the sample(s) [ 17 ]. According to Paul and Barari [ 28 ], a meta-analysis must also detail the final sample, the meta-analytic model, and the overall analysis, moderator analysis, and software employed. While the overall analysis involves the statistical characterization of the relationships between variables in the meta-analytic framework and their significance, the moderator analysis defines the different variables that may affect variations in the original studies [ 28 , 29 ]. It must also be noted that the accuracy and reliability of meta-analyses have both been significantly enhanced by the incorporation of statistical approaches such as Bayesian analysis [ 30 ], network analysis [ 31 ], and more recently, machine learning [ 32 ].

3.4. Bibliometric Review

A bibliometric review, commonly referred to as bibliometric analysis, is a systematic evaluation of published works within a specific field or discipline [ 33 ]. This bibliometric methodology involves the use of quantitative methods to analyse bibliometric data such as the characteristics and numbers of publications, units of citations, authorship, co-authorship, and journal impact factors [ 34 ]. Academics use bibliometric analysis with different objectives in mind, which includes uncovering emerging trends in article and journal performance, elaborating collaboration patterns and research constituents, evaluating the impact and influence of particular authors, publications, or research groups, and highlighting the intellectual framework of a certain field [ 35 ]. It is also used to inform policy and decision-making. Similarly to meta-analysis, bibliometric reviews rely upon quantitative techniques, thus avoiding the interpretation bias that could arise from the qualitative techniques of other types of reviews [ 36 ]. However, while bibliometric analysis synthesises the bibliometric and intellectual structure of a field by examining the social and structural linkages between various research parts, meta-analysis focuses on summarising empirical evidence by probing the direction and strength of effects and relationships among variables, especially in open research questions [ 37 , 38 ]. However, similarly to systematic review and meta-analysis, a bibliometric review also requires a well-detailed methodology section. The amount of data to be analysed in bibliometric analysis is quite massive, running to hundreds and tens of thousands in some cases. Although the data are objective in nature (e.g., number of citations and publications and occurrences of keywords and topics), the interpretation is usually carried out through both objective (e.g., performance analysis) and subjective (e.g., thematic analysis) evaluations [ 35 ]. However, the invention and availability of bibliometric software such as BibExcel, Gephi, Leximancer, and VOSviewer and scientific databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus have made this type of analysis more feasible.

3.5. Patent Review

Patent reviews provide a comprehensive analysis and critique of a specific patent or a group of related patents, thus presenting a concise understanding of the technology or innovation that is covered by the patent [ 39 ]. This type of article is useful for researchers as it also enhances their understanding of the legal, technical, and commercial aspects of an intellectual property/innovation; in addition, it is also important for stakeholders outside the research community including IP (intellectual property) specialists, legal professionals, and technology-transfer officers [ 40 ]. Typically, patent reviews encompass the scope, background, claims, legal implications, technical specifications, and potential commercial applications of the patent(s). The article may also include a discussion of the patent's strengths and weaknesses, as well as its potential impact on the industry or field in which it operates. Most times, reviews are time specified, they may be regionalised, and the data are usually retrieved via patent searches on databases such as that of the European Patent Office ( https://www.epo.org/searching.html ), United States Patent and Trademark Office ( https://patft.uspto.gov/ ), the World Intellectual Property Organization's PATENTSCOPE ( https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf ), Google Patent ( https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts ), and China National Intellectual Property Administration ( https://pss-system.cponline.cnipa.gov.cn/conventionalSearch ). According to Cerimi et al. [ 41 ], the retrieved data and analysed may include the patent number, patent status, filing date, application date, grant dates, inventor, assignee, and pending applications. While data analysis is usually carried out by general data software such as Microsoft Excel, an intelligence software solely dedicated to patent research and analysis, Orbit Intelligence has been found to be more efficient [ 39 ]. It is also mandatory to include a methodology section in a patent review, and this should be explicit, thorough, and precise to allow a clear understanding of how the analysis was carried out and how the conclusions were arrived at.

4. Searching Literature

One of the most challenging tasks in writing a review article on a subject is the search for relevant literature to populate the manuscript as the author is required to garner information from an endless number of sources. This is even more challenging as research outputs have been increasing astronomically, especially in the last decade, with thousands of new articles published annually in various fields. It is therefore imperative that the author must not only be aware of the overall trajectory in a field of investigation but must also be cognizant of recent studies so as not to publish outdated research or review articles. Basically, the search for the literature involves a coherent conceptual structuring of the topic itself and a thorough collation of evidence under the common themes which might reflect the histories, conflicts, standoffs, revolutions, and/or evolutions in the field [ 7 ]. To start the search process, the author must carefully identify and select broad keywords relevant to the subject; subsequently, the keywords should be developed to refine the search into specific subheadings that would facilitate the structure of the review.

Two main tactics have been identified for searching the literature, namely, systematic and snowballing [ 42 ]. The systematic approach involves searching literature with specific keywords (for example, cancer, antioxidant, and nanoparticles), which leads to an almost unmanageable and overwhelming list of possible sources [ 43 ]. The snowballing approach, however, involves the identification of a particular publication, followed by the compilation of a bibliography of articles based on the reference list of the identified publication [ 44 ]. Many times, it might be necessary to combine both approaches, but irrespective, the author must keep an accurate track and record of papers cited in the search. A simple and efficient strategy for populating the bibliography of review articles is to go through the abstract (and sometimes the conclusion) of a paper; if the abstract is related to the topic of discourse, the author might go ahead and read the entire article; otherwise, he/she is advised to move on [ 45 ]. Winchester and Salji [ 5 ] noted that to learn the background of the subject/topic to be reviewed, starting literature searches with academic textbooks or published review articles is imperative, especially for beginners. Furthermore, it would also assist in compiling the list of keywords, identifying areas of further exploration, and providing a glimpse of the current state of the research. However, past reviews ideally are not to serve as the foundation of a new review as they are written from someone else's viewpoint, which might have been tainted with some bias. Fortunately, the accessibility and search for the literature have been made relatively easier than they were a few decades ago as the current information age has placed an enormous volume of knowledge right at our fingertips [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, when gathering the literature from the Internet, authors should exercise utmost caution as much of the information may not be verified or peer-reviewed and thus may be unregulated and unreliable. For instance, Wikipedia, despite being a large repository of information with more than 6.7 million articles in the English language alone, is considered unreliable for scientific literature reviews, due to its openness to public editing [ 47 ]. However, in addition to peer-reviewed journal publications—which are most ideal—reviews can also be drawn from a wide range of other sources such as technical documents, in-house reports, conference abstracts, and conference proceedings. Similarly, “Google Scholar”—as against “Google” and other general search engines—is more appropriate as its searches are restricted to only academic articles produced by scholarly societies or/and publishers [ 48 ]. Furthermore, the various electronic databases, such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, many of which focus on specific fields of research, are also ideal options [ 49 ]. Advancement in computer indexing has remarkably expanded the ease and ability to search large databases for every potentially relevant article. In addition to searching by topic, literature search can be modified by time; however, there must be a balance between old papers and recent ones. The general consensus in science is that publications less than five years old are considered recent.

It is important, especially in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, that the specific method of running the computer searches be properly documented as there is the need to include this in the method (methodology) section of such papers. Typically, the method details the keywords, databases explored, search terms used, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied in the selection of data and any other specific decision/criteria. All of these will ensure the reproducibility and thoroughness of the search and the selection procedure. However, Randolph [ 10 ] noted that Internet searches might not give the exhaustive list of articles needed for a review article; hence, it is advised that authors search through the reference lists of articles that were obtained initially from the Internet search. After determining the relevant articles from the list, the author should read through the references of these articles and repeat the cycle until saturation is reached [ 10 ]. After populating the articles needed for the literature review, the next step is to analyse them individually and in their whole entirety. A systematic approach to this is to identify the key information within the papers, examine them in depth, and synthesise original perspectives by integrating the information and making inferences based on the findings. In this regard, it is imperative to link one source to the other in a logical manner, for instance, taking note of studies with similar methodologies, papers that agree, or results that are contradictory [ 42 ].

5. Structuring the Review Article

The title and abstract are the main selling points of a review article, as most readers will only peruse these two elements and usually go on to read the full paper if they are drawn in by either or both of the two. Tullu [ 50 ] recommends that the title of a scientific paper “should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and not be misleading.” In addition to providing “just enough details” to entice the reader, words in the titles are also used by electronic databases, journal websites, and search engines to index and retrieve a particular paper during a search [ 51 ]. Titles are of different types and must be chosen according to the topic under review. They are generally classified as descriptive, declarative, or interrogative and can also be grouped into compound, nominal, or full-sentence titles [ 50 ]. The subject of these categorisations has been extensively discussed in many articles; however, the reader must also be aware of the compound titles, which usually contain a main title and a subtitle. Typically, subtitles provide additional context—to the main title—and they may specify the geographic scope of the research, research methodology, or sample size [ 52 ].

Just like primary research articles, there are many debates about the optimum length of a review article's title. However, the general consensus is to keep the title as brief as possible while not being too general. A title length between 10 and 15 words is recommended, since longer titles can be more challenging to comprehend. Paiva et al. [ 53 ] observed that articles which contain 95 characters or less get more views and citations. However, emphasis must be placed on conciseness as the audience will be more satisfied if they can understand what exactly the review has contributed to the field, rather than just a hint about the general topic area. Authors should also endeavour to stick to the journal's specific requirements, especially regarding the length of the title and what they should or should not contain [ 9 ]. Thus, avoidance of filler words such as “a review on/of,” “an observation of,” or “a study of” is a very simple way to limit title length. In addition, abbreviations or acronyms should be avoided in the title, except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as AIDS, DNA, HIV, and RNA. In summary, to write an effective title, the authors should consider the following points. What is the paper about? What was the methodology used? What were the highlights and major conclusions? Subsequently, the author should list all the keywords from these answers, construct a sentence from these keywords, and finally delete all redundant words from the sentence title. It is also possible to gain some ideas by scanning indices and article titles in major journals in the field. It is important to emphasise that a title is not chosen and set in stone, and the title is most likely to be continually revised and adjusted until the end of the writing process.

5.2. Abstract

The abstract, also referred to as the synopsis, is a summary of the full research paper; it is typically independent and can stand alone. For most readers, a publication does not exist beyond the abstract, partly because abstracts are often the only section of a paper that is made available to the readers at no cost, whereas the full paper may attract a payment or subscription [ 54 ]. Thus, the abstract is supposed to set the tone for the few readers who wish to read the rest of the paper. It has also been noted that the abstract gives the first impression of a research work to journal editors, conference scientific committees, or referees, who might outright reject the paper if the abstract is poorly written or inadequate [ 50 ]. Hence, it is imperative that the abstract succinctly represents the entire paper and projects it positively. Just like the title, abstracts have to be balanced, comprehensive, concise, functional, independent, precise, scholarly, and unbiased and not be misleading [ 55 ]. Basically, the abstract should be formulated using keywords from all the sections of the main manuscript. Thus, it is pertinent that the abstract conveys the focus, key message, rationale, and novelty of the paper without any compromise or exaggeration. Furthermore, the abstract must be consistent with the rest of the paper; as basic as this instruction might sound, it is not to be taken for granted. For example, a study by Vrijhoef and Steuten [ 56 ] revealed that 18–68% of 264 abstracts from some scientific journals contained information that was inconsistent with the main body of the publications.

Abstracts can either be structured or unstructured; in addition, they can further be classified as either descriptive or informative. Unstructured abstracts, which are used by many scientific journals, are free flowing with no predefined subheadings, while structured abstracts have specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed. Structured abstracts have been noted to be more informative and are usually divided into subsections which include the study background/introduction, objectives, methodology design, results, and conclusions [ 57 ]. No matter the style chosen, the author must carefully conform to the instructions provided by the potential journal of submission, which may include but are not limited to the format, font size/style, word limit, and subheadings [ 58 ]. The word limit for abstracts in most scientific journals is typically between 150 and 300 words. It is also a general rule that abstracts do not contain any references whatsoever.

Typically, an abstract should be written in the active voice, and there is no such thing as a perfect abstract as it could always be improved on. It is advised that the author first makes an initial draft which would contain all the essential parts of the paper, which could then be polished subsequently. The draft should begin with a brief background which would lead to the research questions. It might also include a general overview of the methodology used (if applicable) and importantly, the major results/observations/highlights of the review paper. The abstract should end with one or few sentences about any implications, perspectives, or future research that may be developed from the review exercise. Finally, the authors should eliminate redundant words and edit the abstract to the correct word count permitted by the journal [ 59 ]. It is always beneficial to read previous abstracts published in the intended journal, related topics/subjects from other journals, and other reputable sources. Furthermore, the author should endeavour to get feedback on the abstract especially from peers and co-authors. As the abstract is the face of the whole paper, it is best that it is the last section to be finalised, as by this time, the author would have developed a clearer understanding of the findings and conclusions of the entire paper.

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

Since the mid-2000s, an increasing number of journals now require authors to provide a graphical abstract (GA) in addition to the traditional written abstract, to increase the accessibility of scientific publications to readers [ 60 ]. A study showed that publications with GA performed better than those without it, when the abstract views, total citations, and downloads were compared [ 61 ]. However, the GA should provide “a single, concise pictorial, and visual summary of the main findings of an article” [ 62 ]. Although they are meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole paper, it has been noted that they are not so easily comprehensible without having read through the traditionally written abstract [ 63 ]. It is important to note that, like traditional abstracts, many reputable journals require GAs to adhere to certain specifications such as colour, dimension, quality, file size, and file format (usually JPEG/JPG, PDF, PNG, or TIFF). In addition, it is imperative to use engaging and accurate figures, all of which must be synthesised in order to accurately reflect the key message of the paper. Currently, there are various online or downloadable graphical tools that can be used for creating GAs, such as Microsoft Paint or PowerPoint, Mindthegraph, ChemDraw, CorelDraw, and BioRender.

5.4. Keywords

As a standard practice, journals require authors to select 4–8 keywords (or phrases), which are typically listed below the abstract. A good set of keywords will enable indexers and search engines to find relevant papers more easily and can be considered as a very concise abstract [ 64 ]. According to Dewan and Gupta [ 51 ], the selection of appropriate keywords will significantly enhance the retrieval, accession, and consequently, the citation of the review paper. Ideally, keywords can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, the abstract, and the main text, but they should ideally not be the exact words in the main title. Choosing the most appropriate keywords for a review article involves listing down the key terms and phrases in the article, including abbreviations. Subsequently, a quick review of the glossary/vocabulary/term list or indexing standard in the specific discipline will assist in selecting the best and most precise keywords that match those used in the databases from the list drawn. In addition, the keywords should not be broad or general terms (e.g., DNA, biology, and enzymes) but must be specific to the field or subfield of study as well as to the particular paper [ 65 ].

5.5. Introduction

The introduction of an article is the first major section of the manuscript, and it presents basic information to the reader without compelling them to study past publications. In addition, the introduction directs the reader to the main arguments and points developed in the main body of the article while clarifying the current state of knowledge in that particular area of research [ 12 ]. The introduction part of a review article is usually sectionalised into background information, a description of the main topic and finally a statement of the main purpose of the review [ 66 ]. Authors may begin the introduction with brief general statements—which provide background knowledge on the subject matter—that lead to more specific ones [ 67 ]. It is at this point that the reader's attention must be caught as the background knowledge must highlight the importance and justification for the subject being discussed, while also identifying the major problem to be addressed [ 68 ]. In addition, the background should be broad enough to attract even nonspecialists in the field to maximise the impact and widen the reach of the article. All of these should be done in the light of current literature; however, old references may also be used for historical purposes. A very important aspect of the introduction is clearly stating and establishing the research problem(s) and how a review of the particular topic contributes to those problem(s). Thus, the research gap which the paper intends to fill, the limitations of previous works and past reviews, if available, and the new knowledge to be contributed must all be highlighted. Inadequate information and the inability to clarify the problem will keep readers (who have the desire to obtain new information) from reading beyond the introduction [ 69 ]. It is also pertinent that the author establishes the purpose of reviewing the literature and defines the scope as well as the major synthesised point of view. Furthermore, a brief insight into the criteria used to select, evaluate, and analyse the literature, as well as the outline or sequence of the review, should be provided in the introduction. Subsequently, the specific objectives of the review article must be presented. The last part of the “introduction” section should focus on the solution, the way forward, the recommendations, and the further areas of research as deduced from the whole review process. According to DeMaria [ 70 ], clearly expressed or recommended solutions to an explicitly revealed problem are very important for the wholesomeness of the “introduction” section. It is believed that following these steps will give readers the opportunity to track the problems and the corresponding solution from their own perspective in the light of current literature. As against some suggestions that the introduction should be written only in present tenses, it is also believed that it could be done with other tenses in addition to the present tense. In this regard, general facts should be written in the present tense, specific research/work should be in the past tense, while the concluding statement should be in the past perfect or simple past. Furthermore, many of the abbreviations to be used in the rest of the manuscript and their explanations should be defined in this section.

5.6. Methodology

Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [ 71 ], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary. Hence, the methodological section of a review paper (which can also be referred to as the review protocol) details how the relevant literature was selected and how it was analysed as well as summarised. The selection details may include, but are not limited to, the database consulted and the specific search terms used together with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. As earlier highlighted in Section 3 , a description of the methodology is required for all types of reviews except for narrative reviews. This is partly because unlike narrative reviews, all other review articles follow systematic approaches which must ensure significant reproducibility [ 72 ]. Therefore, where necessary, the methods of data extraction from the literature and data synthesis must also be highlighted as well. In some cases, it is important to show how data were combined by highlighting the statistical methods used, measures of effect, and tests performed, as well as demonstrating heterogeneity and publication bias [ 73 ].

The methodology should also detail the major databases consulted during the literature search, e.g., Dimensions, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. For meta-analysis, it is imperative to highlight the software and/or package used, which could include Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, OpenMEE, Review Manager (RevMan), Stata, SAS, and R Studio. It is also necessary to state the mathematical methods used for the analysis; examples of these include the Bayesian analysis, the Mantel–Haenszel method, and the inverse variance method. The methodology should also state the number of authors that carried out the initial review stage of the study, as it has been recommended that at least two reviews should be done blindly and in parallel, especially when it comes to the acquisition and synthesis of data [ 74 ]. Finally, the quality and validity assessment of the publication used in the review must be stated and well clarified [ 73 ].

5.7. Main Body of the Review

Ideally, the main body of a publishable review should answer these questions: What is new (contribution)? Why so (logic)? So what (impact)? How well it is done (thoroughness)? The flow of the main body of a review article must be well organised to adequately maintain the attention of the readers as well as guide them through the section. It is recommended that the author should consider drawing a conceptual scheme of the main body first, using methods such as mind-mapping. This will help create a logical flow of thought and presentation, while also linking the various sections of the manuscript together. According to Moreira [ 75 ], “reports do not simply yield their findings, rather reviewers make them yield,” and thus, it is the author's responsibility to transform “resistant” texts into “docile” texts. Hence, after the search for the literature, the essential themes and key concepts of the review paper must be identified and synthesised together. This synthesis primarily involves creating hypotheses about the relationships between the concepts with the aim of increasing the understanding of the topic being reviewed. The important information from the various sources should not only be summarised, but the significance of studies must be related back to the initial question(s) posed by the review article. Furthermore, MacLure [ 76 ] stated that data are not just to be plainly “extracted intact” and “used exactly as extracted,” but must be modified, reconfigured, transformed, transposed, converted, tabulated, graphed, or manipulated to enable synthesis, combination, and comparison. Therefore, different pieces of information must be extracted from the reports in which they were previously deposited and then refined into the body of the new article [ 75 ]. To this end, adequate comparison and combination might require that “qualitative data be quantified” or/and “quantitative data may be qualitized” [ 77 ]. In order to accomplish all of these goals, the author may have to transform, paraphrase, generalize, specify, and reorder the text [ 78 ]. For comprehensiveness, the body paragraphs should be arranged in a similar order as it was initially stated in the abstract or/and introduction. Thus, the main body could be divided into thematic areas, each of which could be independently comprehensive and treated as a mini review. Similarly, the sections can also be arranged chronologically depending on the focus of the review. Furthermore, the abstractions should proceed from a wider general view of the literature being reviewed and then be narrowed down to the specifics. In the process, deep insights should also be provided between the topic of the review and the wider subject area, e.g., fungal enzymes and enzymes in general. The abstractions must also be discussed in more detail by presenting more specific information from the identified sources (with proper citations of course!). For example, it is important to identify and highlight contrary findings and rival interpretations as well as to point out areas of agreement or debate among different bodies of literature. Often, there are previous reviews on the same topic/concept; however, this does not prevent a new author from writing one on the same topic, especially if the previous reviews were written many years ago. However, it is important that the body of the new manuscript be written from a new angle that was not adequately covered in the past reviews and should also incorporate new studies that have accumulated since the last review(s). In addition, the new review might also highlight the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of the past studies. But the authors must not be excessively critical of the past reviews as this is regarded by many authors as a sign of poor professionalism [ 3 , 79 ]. Daft [ 79 ] emphasized that it is more important for a reviewer to state how their research builds on previous work instead of outright claiming that previous works are incompetent and inadequate. However, if a series of related papers on one topic have a common error or research flaw that needs rectification, the reviewer must point this out with the aim of moving the field forward [ 3 ]. Like every other scientific paper, the main body of a review article also needs to be consistent in style, for example, in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense. It is also important to note that tables and figures can serve as a powerful tool for highlighting key points in the body of the review, and they are now considered core elements of reviews. For more guidance and insights into what should make up the contents of a good review article, readers are also advised to get familiarised with the Boote and Beile [ 80 ] literature review scoring rubric as well as the review article checklist of Short [ 81 ].

5.8. Tables and Figures

An ideal review article should be logically structured and efficiently utilise illustrations, in the form of tables and figures, to convey the key findings and relationships in the study. According to Tay [ 13 ], illustrations often take a secondary role in review papers when compared to primary research papers which are focused on illustrations. However, illustrations are very important in review articles as they can serve as succinct means of communicating major findings and insights. Franzblau and Chung [ 82 ] pointed out that illustrations serve three major purposes in a scientific article: they simplify complex data and relationships for better understanding, they minimise reading time by summarising and bringing to focus on the key findings (or trends), and last, they help to reduce the overall word count. Hence, inserting and constructing illustrations in a review article is as meticulous as it is important. However, important decisions should be made on whether the charts, figures, or tables to be potentially inserted in the manuscript are indeed needed and how best to design them [ 83 ]. Illustrations should enhance the text while providing necessary information; thus, the information described in illustrations should not contradict that in the main text and should also not be a repetition of texts [ 84 ]. Furthermore, illustrations must be autonomous, meaning they ought to be intelligible without having to read the text portion of the manuscript; thus, the reader does not have to flip back and forth between the illustration and the main text in order to understand it [ 85 ]. It should be noted that tables or figures that directly reiterate the main text or contain extraneous information will only make a mess of the manuscript and discourage readers [ 86 ].

Kotz and Cals [ 87 ] recommend that the layout of tables and figures should be carefully designed in a clear manner with suitable layouts, which will allow them to be referred to logically and chronologically in the text. In addition, illustrations should only contain simple text, as lengthy details would contradict their initial objective, which was to provide simple examples or an overview. Furthermore, the use of abbreviations in illustrations, especially tables, should be avoided if possible. If not, the abbreviations should be defined explicitly in the footnotes or legends of the illustration [ 88 ]. Similarly, numerical values in tables and graphs should also be correctly approximated [ 84 ]. It is recommended that the number of tables and figures in the manuscript should not exceed the target journal's specification. According to Saver [ 89 ], they ideally should not account for more than one-third of the manuscript. Finally, the author(s) must seek permission and give credits for using an already published illustration when necessary. However, none of these are needed if the graphic is originally created by the author, but if it is a reproduced or an adapted illustration, the author must obtain permission from the copyright owner and include the necessary credit. One of the very important tools for designing illustrations is Creative Commons, a platform that provides a wide range of creative works which are available to the public for use and modification.

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

It has been observed that many reviews end abruptly with a short conclusion; however, a lot more can be included in this section in addition to what has been said in the major sections of the paper. Basically, the conclusion section of a review article should provide a summary of key findings from the main body of the manuscript. In this section, the author needs to revisit the critical points of the paper as well as highlight the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the inferences drawn in the article review. A good conclusion should highlight the relationship between the major points and the author's hypothesis as well as the relationship between the hypothesis and the broader discussion to demonstrate the significance of the review article in a larger context. In addition to giving a concise summary of the important findings that describe current knowledge, the conclusion must also offer a rationale for conducting future research [ 12 ]. Knowledge gaps should be identified, and themes should be logically developed in order to construct conceptual frameworks as well as present a way forward for future research in the field of study [ 11 ].

Furthermore, the author may have to justify the propositions made earlier in the manuscript, demonstrate how the paper extends past research works, and also suggest ways that the expounded theories can be empirically examined [ 3 ]. Unlike experimental studies which can only draw either a positive conclusion or ambiguous failure to reject the null hypothesis, four possible conclusions can be drawn from review articles [ 1 ]. First, the theory/hypothesis propounded may be correct after being proven from current evidence; second, the hypothesis may not be explicitly proven but is most probably the best guess. The third conclusion is that the currently available evidence does not permit a confident conclusion or a best guess, while the last conclusion is that the theory or hypothesis is false [ 1 ]. It is important not to present new information in the conclusion section which has link whatsoever with the rest of the manuscript. According to Harris et al. [ 90 ], the conclusions should, in essence, answer the question: if a reader were to remember one thing about the review, what would it be?

5.10. References

As it has been noted in different parts of this paper, authors must give the required credit to any work or source(s) of information that was included in the review article. This must include the in-text citations in the main body of the paper and the corresponding entries in the reference list. Ideally, this full bibliographical list is the last part of the review article, and it should contain all the books, book chapters, journal articles, reports, and other media, which were utilised in the manuscript. It has been noted that most journals and publishers have their own specific referencing styles which are all derived from the more popular styles such as the American Psychological Association (APA), Chicago, Harvard, Modern Language Association (MLA), and Vancouver styles. However, all these styles may be categorised into either the parenthetical or numerical referencing style. Although a few journals do not have strict referencing rules, it is the responsibility of the author to reference according to the style and instructions of the journal. Omissions and errors must be avoided at all costs, and this can be easily achieved by going over the references many times for due diligence [ 11 ]. According to Cronin et al. [ 12 ], a separate file for references can be created, and any work used in the manuscript can be added to this list immediately after being cited in the text [ 12 ]. In recent times, the emergence of various referencing management software applications such as Endnote, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero has even made referencing easier. The majority of these software applications require little technical expertise, and many of them are free to use, while others may require a subscription. It is imperative, however, that even after using these software packages, the author must manually curate the references during the final draft, in order to avoid any errors, since these programs are not impervious to errors, particularly formatting errors.

6. Concluding Remarks

Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. Thus, the reviewer must develop the ability to think critically, spot patterns in a large volume of information, and must be invested in writing without tiring. The prospective author must also be inspired and dedicated to the successful completion of the article while also ensuring that the review article is not just a mere list or summary of previous research. It is also important that the review process must be focused on the literature and not on the authors; thus, overt criticism of existing research and personal aspersions must be avoided at all costs. All ideas, sentences, words, and illustrations should be constructed in a way to avoid plagiarism; basically, this can be achieved by paraphrasing, summarising, and giving the necessary acknowledgments. Currently, there are many tools to track and detect plagiarism in manuscripts, ensuring that they fall within a reasonable similarity index (which is typically 15% or lower for most journals). Although the more popular of these tools, such as Turnitin and iThenticate, are subscription-based, there are many freely available web-based options as well. An ideal review article is supposed to motivate the research topic and describe its key concepts while delineating the boundaries of research. In this regard, experience-based information on how to methodologically develop acceptable and impactful review articles has been detailed in this paper. Furthermore, for a beginner, this guide has detailed “the why” and “the how” of authoring a good scientific review article. However, the information in this paper may as a whole or in parts be also applicable to other fields of research and to other writing endeavours such as writing literature review in theses, dissertations, and primary research articles. Finally, the intending authors must put all the basic rules of scientific writing and writing in general into cognizance. A comprehensive study of the articles cited within this paper and other related articles focused on scientific writing will further enhance the ability of the motivated beginner to deliver a good review article.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa under grant number UID 138097. The authors would like to thank the Durban University of Technology for funding the postdoctoral fellowship of the first author, Dr. Ayodeji Amobonye.

Data Availability

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

5 literature review tools to ace your research (+2 bonus tools)

Table of Contents

Your literature review is the lore behind your research paper . It comes in two forms, systematic and scoping , both serving the purpose of rounding up previously published works in your research area that led you to write and finish your own.

A literature review is vital as it provides the reader with a critical overview of the existing body of knowledge, your methodology, and an opportunity for research applications.

Some steps to follow while writing your review:

• Pick an accessible topic for your paper
• Do thorough research and gather evidence surrounding your topic
• Read and take notes diligently
• Create a rough structure for your review
• Synthesis your notes and write the first draft
• Edit and proofread your literature review

To make your workload a little lighter, there are many literature review AI tools. These tools can help you find academic articles through AI and answer questions about a research paper.  

Best literature review tools to improve research workflow

A literature review is one of the most critical yet tedious stages in composing a research paper. Many students find it an uphill task since it requires extensive reading and careful organization .

Using some of the best literature review tools listed here, you can make your life easier by overcoming some of the existing challenges in literature reviews. From collecting and classifying to analyzing and publishing research outputs, these tools help you with your literature review and improve your productivity without additional effort or expenses.

1. SciSpace

SciSpace is an AI for academic research that will help find research papers and answer questions about a research paper. You can discover, read, and understand research papers with SciSpace making it an excellent platform for literature review. Featuring a repository with over 270 million research papers, it comes with your AI research assistant called Copilot that offers explanations, summaries , and answers as you read.

Get started now:

Find academic articles through AI

SciSpace has a dedicated literature review tool that finds scientific articles when you search for a question. Based on semantic search, it shows all the research papers relevant for your subject. You can then gather quick insights for all the papers displayed in your search results like methodology, dataset, etc., and figure out all the papers relevant for your research.

Identify relevant articles faster

Abstracts are not always enough to determine whether a paper is relevant to your research question. For starters, you can ask questions to your AI research assistant, SciSpace Copilot to explore the content and better understand the article. Additionally, use the summarize feature to quickly review the methodology and results of a paper and decide if it is worth reading in detail.

Learn in your preferred language

A big barrier non-native English speakers face while conducting a literature review is that a significant portion of scientific literature is published in English. But with SciSpace Copilot, you can review, interact, and learn from research papers in any language you prefer — presently, it supports 75+ languages. The AI will answer questions about a research paper in your mother tongue.

Integrates with Zotero

Many researchers use Zotero to create a library and manage research papers. SciSpace lets you import your scientific articles directly from Zotero into your SciSpace library and use Copilot to comprehend your research papers. You can also highlight key sections, add notes to the PDF as you read, and even turn helpful explanations and answers from Copilot into notes for future review.

Understand math and complex concepts quickly

Come across complex mathematical equations or difficult concepts? Simply highlight the text or select the formula or table, and Copilot will provide an explanation or breakdown of the same in an easy-to-understand manner. You can ask follow-up questions if you need further clarification.

Discover new papers to read without leaving

Highlight phrases or sentences in your research paper to get suggestions for related papers in the field and save time on literature reviews. You can also use the 'Trace' feature to move across and discover connected papers, authors, topics, and more.

SciSpace Copilot is now available as a Chrome extension , allowing you to access its features directly while you browse scientific literature anywhere across the web.

Get citation-backed answers

When you're conducting a literature review, you want credible information with proper references.  Copilot ensures that every piece of information provided by SciSpace Copilot is backed by a direct reference, boosting transparency, accuracy, and trustworthiness.

Ask a question related to the paper you're delving into. Every response from Copilot comes with a clickable citation. This citation leads you straight to the section of the PDF from which the answer was extracted.

By seamlessly integrating answers with citations, SciSpace Copilot assures you of the authenticity and relevance of the information you receive.

2. Mendeley

Mendeley Citation Manager is a free web and desktop application. It helps simplify your citation management workflow significantly. Here are some ways you can speed up your referencing game with Mendeley.

Generate citations and bibliographies

Easily add references from your Mendeley library to your Word document, change your citation style, and create a bibliography, all without leaving your document.

Retrieve references

It allows you to access your references quickly. Search for a term, and it will return results by referencing the year, author, or source.

Add sources to your Mendeley library by dragging PDF to Mendeley Reference Manager. Mendeley will automatically remove the PDF(s) metadata and create a library entry.‌

Read and annotate documents

It helps you highlight and comment across multiple PDFs while keep them all in one place using Mendeley Notebook . Notebook pages are not tied to a reference and let you quote from many PDFs.

A big part of many literature review workflows, Zotero is a free, open-source tool for managing citations that works as a plug-in on your browser. It helps you gather the information you need, cite your sources, lets you attach PDFs, notes, and images to your citations, and create bibliographies.

Import research articles to your database

Search for research articles on a keyword, and add relevant results to your database. Then, select the articles you are most interested in, and import them into Zotero.

Add bibliography in a variety of formats

With Zotero, you don’t have to scramble for different bibliography formats. Simply use the Zotero-Word plug-in to insert in-text citations and generate a bibliography.

Share your research

You can save a paper and sync it with an online library to easily share your research for group projects. Zotero can be used to create your database and decrease the time you spend formatting citations.

Sysrev is an AI too for article review that facilitates screening, collaboration, and data extraction from academic publications, abstracts, and PDF documents using machine learning. The platform is free and supports public and Open Access projects only.

Some of the features of Sysrev include:

Group labels

Group labels can be a powerful concept for creating database tables from documents. When exported and re-imported, each group label creates a new table. To make labels for a project, go into the manage -> labels section of the project.

Group labels enable project managers to pull table information from documents. It makes it easier to communicate review results for specific articles.

Track reviewer performance

Sysrev's label counting tool provides filtering and visualization options for keeping track of the distribution of labels throughout the project's progress. Project managers can check their projects at any point to track progress and the reviewer's performance.

Tool for concordance

The Sysrev tool for concordance allows project administrators and reviewers to perform analysis on their labels. Concordance is measured by calculating the number of times users agree on the labels they have extracted.

Colandr is a free, open-source, internet-based analysis and screening software used as an AI for academic research. It was designed to ease collaboration across various stages of the systematic review procedure. The tool can be a little complex to use. So, here are the steps involved in working with Colandr.

Create a review

The first step to using Colandr is setting up an organized review project. This is helpful to librarians who are assisting researchers with systematic reviews.

The planning stage is setting the review's objectives along with research queries. Any reviewer can review the details of the planning stage. However, they can only be modified by the author for the review.

Citation screening/import

In this phase, users can upload their results from database searches. Colandr also offers an automated deduplication system.

Full-text screening

The system in Colandr will discover the combination of terms and expressions that are most useful for the reader. If an article is selected, it will be moved to the final step.

Data extraction/export

Colandr data extraction is more efficient than the manual method. It creates the form fields for data extraction during the planning stage of the review procedure. Users can decide to revisit or modify the form for data extraction after completing the initial screening.

Bonus literature review tools

SRDR+ is a web-based tool for extracting and managing systematic review or meta-analysis data. It is open and has a searchable archive of systematic reviews and their data.

7. Plot Digitizer

Plot Digitizer is an efficient tool for extracting information from graphs and images, equipped with many features that facilitate data extraction. The program comes with a free online application, which is adequate to extract data quickly.

Final thoughts

Writing a literature review is not easy. It’s a time-consuming process, which can become tiring at times. The literature review tools mentioned in this blog do an excellent job of maximizing your efforts and helping you write literature reviews much more efficiently. With them, you can breathe a sigh of relief and give more time to your research.

As you dive into your literature review, don’t forget to use SciSpace ResearchGPT to streamline the process. It facilitates your research and helps you explore key findings, summary, and other components of the paper easily.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. what is rrl in research.

RRL stands for Review of Related Literature and sometimes interchanged with ‘Literature Review.’ RRL is a body of studies relevant to the topic being researched. These studies may be in the form of journal articles, books, reports, and other similar documents. Review of related literature is used to support an argument or theory being made by the researcher, as well as to provide information on how others have approached the same topic.

2. What are few softwares and tools available for literature review?

• SciSpace Discover

• Mendeley

• Zotero

• Sysrev

• Colandr

• SRDR+

3. How to generate an online literature review?

The Scispace Discover tool, which offers an excellent repository of millions of peer-reviewed articles and resources, will help you generate or create a literature review easily. You may find relevant information by utilizing the filter option, checking its credibility, tracing related topics and articles, and citing in widely accepted formats with a single click.

4. What does it mean to synthesize literature?

To synthesize literature is to take the main points and ideas from a number of sources and present them in a new way. The goal is to create a new piece of writing that pulls together the most important elements of all the sources you read. Make recommendations based on them, and connect them to the research.

5. Should we write abstract for literature review?

Abstracts, particularly for the literature review section, are not required. However, an abstract for the research paper, on the whole, is useful for summarizing the paper and letting readers know what to expect from it. It can also be used to summarize the main points of the paper so that readers have a better understanding of the paper's content before they read it.

6. How do you evaluate the quality of a literature review?

• Whether it is clear and well-written.

• Whether Information is current and up to date.

• Does it cover all of the relevant sources on the topic.

• Does it provide enough evidence to support its conclusions.

7. Is literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research and provide a background for the rest of your work.

8. What are the sources for a literature review?

• Reports

• Theses

• Conference proceedings

• Company reports

• Some government publications

• Journals

• Books

• Newspapers

• Articles by professional associations

• Indexes

• Databases

• Catalogues

• Encyclopaedias

• Dictionaries

• Bibliographies

• Citation indexes

• Statistical data from government websites

9. What is the difference between a systematic review and a literature review?

A systematic review is a form of research that uses a rigorous method to generate knowledge from both published and unpublished data. A literature review, on the other hand, is a critical summary of an area of research within the context of what has already been published.

Suggested reads!

Types of essays in academic writing Citation Machine Alternatives — A comparison of top citation tools 2023

QuillBot vs SciSpace: Choose the best AI-paraphrasing tool

ChatPDF vs. SciSpace Copilot: Unveiling the best tool for your research

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,120,351 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Review Articles

Expanding chemistry through in vitro and in vivo biocatalysis

This Review considers developments in enzymes, biosynthetic pathways and cellular engineering that enable their use in catalysis for new chemistry and beyond.

• Elijah N. Kissman
• Max B. Sosa
• Michelle C. Y. Chang

Decoding the interplay between genetic and non-genetic drivers of metastasis

This Review discusses the importance of genetic and non-genetic reprogramming events during the metastatic cascade.

• Panagiotis Karras
• James R. M. Black
• Jean-Christophe Marine

Bridging structural and cell biology with cryo-electron microscopy

The interplay between cryo-electron microscopy and cryo-electron tomography to define complex macromolecular assemblies and visualize them in situ is explored.

• Eva Nogales
• Julia Mahamid

Ion and lipid orchestration of secondary active transport

This Review describes the various mechanisms of ion-coupled transport across membranes and how the activities of transporter proteins are modulated by the composition of the lipid bilayer.

• Olga Boudker

Natural killer cell therapies

This Review explores in detail the complexity of NK cell biology in humans and highlights the role of these cells in cancer immunity.

• Eric Vivier
• Lucas Rebuffet
• Valeria R. Fantin

A break in mitochondrial endosymbiosis as a basis for inflammatory diseases

We suggest that as mitochondrial signals probably contribute to the homeostatic role of inflammation, dysregulation of these processes may lead to autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, with increasing evidence pointing to the recent failure of endosymbiosis being crucial.

• Michael P. Murphy
• Luke A. J. O’Neill

Molecular pathology of neurodegenerative diseases by cryo-EM of amyloids

Structural studies of amyloid filaments purified from brains of people with neurodegenerative diseases link specific amyloid folds with distinct diseases and provide a basis for the development of models of neurodegenerative disease.

• Sjors H. W. Scheres
• Benjamin Ryskeldi-Falcon
• Michel Goedert

From target discovery to clinical drug development with human genetics

This Review provides a perspective on the development of non-cancer therapies based on human genetics studies and suggests measures that can be taken to streamline the pipeline from initial genetic discovery to approved therapy.

• Katerina Trajanoska
• Claude Bhérer
• Vincent Mooser

Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence

The advances in artificial intelligence over the past decade are examined, with a discussion on how artificial intelligence systems can aid the scientific process and the central issues that remain despite advances.

• Hanchen Wang
• Marinka Zitnik

Physiology and diseases of tissue-resident macrophages

This Review addresses the current understanding of the roles of tissue-resident macrophages in physiology and disease, including their development and their functions in tissue remodelling and nutrient recycling.

• Tomi Lazarov
• Sergio Juarez-Carreño
• Frederic Geissmann

A second wave of topological phenomena in photonics and acoustics

The current state of the art of topological phenomena in photonics and acoustics is reviewed and future research directions for valuable applications are discussed.

• Xiujuan Zhang
• Farzad Zangeneh-Nejad
• Johan Christensen

The neuroscience of cancer

This Review examines the interplay between the nervous system and tumours, from cancer initiation to progression and metastasis.

• Rebecca Mancusi
• Michelle Monje

Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus

This Review examines the palaeobiology of Australopithecus in terms of morphology, phylogeny, diet, tool use, locomotor behaviour and other characteristics, and considers the role of this genus of hominins in human evolution.

• Zeresenay Alemseged

Computational approaches streamlining drug discovery

Recent advances in computational approaches and challenges in their application to streamlining drug discovery are discussed.

• Anastasiia V. Sadybekov
• Vsevolod Katritch

Revisiting the Holocene global temperature conundrum

Examination of available evidence on whether anthropogenic global warming was preceded by a long-term warming trend or by global cooling provides support for a relatively mild millennial-scale global thermal maximum during the mid-Holocene.

• Darrell S. Kaufman
• Ellie Broadman

River ecosystem metabolism and carbon biogeochemistry in a changing world

A review of current river ecosystem metabolism research quantifies the organic and inorganic carbon flux from land to global rivers and demonstrates that the carbon balance can be influenced by a changing world.

• Tom J. Battin
• Ronny Lauerwald
• Pierre Regnier

Topological kagome magnets and superconductors

Recent key developments in the exploration of kagome materials are reviewed, including fundamental concepts of a kagome lattice, realizations of Chern and Weyl topological magnetism, flat-band many-body correlations, and unconventional charge-density waves and superconductivity.

• Jia-Xin Yin
• M. Zahid Hasan

Brain borders at the central stage of neuroimmunology

Anatomical, cellular and molecular immune interactions at the borders of the central nervous system control homeostatic brain function and can lead to neurological or psychiatric diseases, representing potential therapeutic targets.

• Justin Rustenhoven
• Jonathan Kipnis

Origin of life-forming volatile elements in the inner Solar System

The processes that distributed life-forming volatile elements throughout the early Solar System and how they then became incorporated into planetary building blocks are reviewed.

• Michael W. Broadley
• David V. Bekaert
• Bernard Marty

Response of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet to past and future climate change

 Analysis of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet response to past warm periods and current observations of change highlight the importance of satisfying the Paris Climate Agreement to avoid a multi-metre contribution to sea level over the next few centuries.

• Chris R. Stokes
• Nerilie J. Abram
• Pippa L. Whitehouse

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Find and Use Review Articles

Looking for an efficient way to get an overview of a body of research on your topic? A review article is a great place to start.

A review article provides an analysis of the state of research on a set of related research questions. Review articles often:

• summarize key research findings;
• reference must-read articles;
• describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates;
• point out gaps in knowledge and unanswered questions;
• suggest directions for future research.

You can use a review article to get a better understanding of the existing research on a topic, to identify research questions you would like to explore, and to find relevant sources. A review article’s bibliography often contains references to research articles that have made an impact on the field and advanced understanding of a research topic.

Reading a review article can save you time and give you a more well-rounded and coherent understanding of your topic.

Unlike typical research articles, review articles do not present any original primary research. For this reason, some assignments may not allow you to directly cite a review article in your paper. However, you can still use the article to get a general understanding of the field and to find important primary research articles.

Also note that for most senior theses in the sciences, the proper place to cite a review article is in the first few paragraphs of your introduction. By placing references to a review article in your early intro, you give your reader a place to go for more information if they are unfamiliar with your field.

Be sure to review the writing prompt and check with your instructor to be sure!

How do I Find Review Articles?

Finding a review article is relatively simple, though it varies slightly depending on what database you are using.

Web of Science

Start with a search in Web of Science .

Then, on the results page, look for the “Document Types” filter on the left side of the page.

Click the checkbox next to "Review" and then click "Refine" to see only the results classified as review articles.

After your initial search in PubMed , look for the "Articles Types" filter on the left side of the page.

Click "Customize..." and then click the checkbox next to review article related filters.

Be sure to uncheck other article types if you would like to limit your search to review articles.

Click "Show" to filter your search results.

UCLA Library Journal Search

From the UCLA Library homepage , click the " Journals " tab to search for academic journals that focus on publishing review articles.

Search for your discipline or subject area, and Review (e.g., Sociology Review or Psychology Review ).

Be sure to change the drop-down menu to "Contains"

On the results page, browse the list of journals, and then click on a title to visit the journal's website.

Google Scholar and ArticlesPlus

In both Google Scholar and ArticlesPlus you can add review , "literature review" , "annual review" or "review article" to your search terms.

Be sure to check that your results really are review articles! See our tips below to make sure.

How do I know if an article is a Review Article or a Primary Research Article?

Related resources.

• Beginning Your Research Journey Accepted to the PRIMO database of Peer reviewed materials online 5-star editor review on merlot.org (Workshop)
• Breaking Down Academic Articles 5-star editor review on merlot.org (Tutorial)
• CREATES (Tutorial)
• Crafting a Research Question 5-star editor review on merlot.org (Workshop)
• Find the Right Research Guides (Tutorial)
• Finding Scholarly Articles 5-star editor review on merlot.org (Tutorial)

About this tutorial

Caitlin Meyer , Shannon Roux

Contributors

UCLA Undergraduate Research Center - Sciences, UCLA Undergraduate Research Center - Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, UCLA Undergraduate Writing Center, Doug Worsham

https://uclalibrary.github.io/research-tips/research-tips/review-articles/

Learning Outcomes

• Summarize a review article and its purpose
• Find review articles in various databases
• Identify signifcant filter terms for searching review articles
• Distinguish a review article from a primary research article

Accessibility Information

• WAVE tested - 0 errors - Oct 02, 2020

The Core Competencies for Research and Information Literacy at UCLA

• Investigate diverse sources and perspectives
• Gather and organize information and data
• Evaluate and synthesize information and data

How to Write an Article Review That Stands Out

An article review is a critical assessment that aims to expand one’s knowledge by evaluating the original author’s research.

According to statistical research, 5.14 million research papers are published every year, including short surveys, article reviews, and conference proceedings.

The process of how to write an article review could be tricky, but a few expert tips and tricks can get you on the right track. So, ensure you read it till the end to make the most out of it.

Table of Contents

Who Needs To Know About Article Review Writing?

• Students are usually assigned to write article reviews in order to showcase their comprehension and critical analysis skills.
• Teachers who wanted to evaluate their student’s critical and analytical skills.
• Professionals who publish research articles on diverse topics.
• People who evaluate the quality of a research paper and article.
• People who are interested in writing critique.

How Important Are Article Reviews?

Learning how to write a review article is very important in order to present a comprehensive overview of the research paper. They tend to investigate the methodology, findings, current state of knowledge, and discuss future prospects of research on that topic.

They are also the indicators of how great and accurate an article is and pointing out what critical points the original writers have left.

The writer of this comprehensive guide shared, “Analyzing someone’s article seems easy at first but when you realize how comprehensive and analytical work is, it gets challenging. You need to have knowledge and practice of how to write an article review in order to do justice with someone’s years of research.”

Which Industry Has the Most Published Articles?

Before you write an article review, you have to determine the industry or sector you are going to choose the article to review. It can be anything of your interest and you should have your interest resonate with the industry you are picking an article from.

We are sharing data of 3 decades from different industries to find out which industry publishes the most articles as per ResearchGate. Let’s take a look at which industry can give you more options for article review.

A Step-by-Step Guide on How to Write an Article Review

Master the art of how to write a review article with this step-by-step guide from professional paper help providers. 

Step 1: Select the Right Article 

The first step is to pick a suitable article for a review. Choose a scholarly source that’s connected to your area of study. You can look for pieces printed in trustworthy journals or by respected authors.

For Example:

For reviewing an article on climate change, consider selecting one from scientific journals like Nature or Science.

Step 2: Read and Understand the Article

How to write an article review with complete accuracy? It’s super important to read and understand the article before writing your review. Read the article a few times and jot down the notes as you go.

No matter what is the  length of a literature review , go through it and focus on the main arguments, major points, evidence, and how it’s structured. 

Let’s say you’re looking at an article on how social media affects mental health. Ensure to take note of the following: 

• The number of people involved
• How the data is analyzed 
• The Results 

Step 3: Structure and Introduction

To start a solid review, start with an introduction that gives readers the background info they need. Must include the article’s title, the author, and where it was published. Also, write a summary of the main point or argument in the article.

“In the article ‘The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health by John Smith, published in the Journal of Psychology: 

The author examines the correlation between excessive social media usage and adolescent mental health disorders.”

Step 4: Summarize the Article

In this part of how to write an article review process, you’ll need to quickly go over the main points and arguments from the article. Make it short but must cover the most important elements and the evidence that backs them up. Leave your opinions and analysis out of it for now. Practice with a practice article review example to learn summarizing in a better way. 

For instance, you could write:

“The author discusses various studies highlighting the negative effects of excessive social media usage on mental health.

Smith’s research reveals a significant correlation between increased social media consumption and higher rates of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem among teenagers. 

The article also explores the underlying mechanisms, such as social comparison and cyberbullying. All are contributing to the adverse mental health outcomes.”

Step 5: Critically Analyze and Evaluate

Now that you’ve given a rundown of the article, it’s time to take a closer look. It will help you learn how to evaluate an article to discover what the author did well and what could have been done better. Most students confuse it but reviewing articles has a different process than  how to write a reflection paper  process. 

Check out the proof they used and if it seems solid. Give a thorough assessment, and use examples from the text to support your thoughts. 

Article Review Example

“While the article presents compelling evidence linking social media usage to mental health issues, it is important to acknowledge some limitations in Smith’s study. 

The sample size of the research was relatively small. It comprises only 100 participants, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. 

Additionally, the study primarily focused on one specific age group, namely adolescents. This way, there’s room for further research on other demographic groups.”

Step 6: Express Your Perspective

Here’s your chance to give your two cents and show off your smarts in learning how to write an article review process. Put your spin on the article by pointing out the pros, cons, and other potential improvements. Remember to back up your thoughts with facts and sound arguments.

Continuing with the Previous Example

Despite the limitations, Smith’s research offers valuable insights into the complex relationship between social media and mental health. 

Future studies could expand the sample size and include a more diverse range of age groups. It is better to understand the broader impact of social media on mental well-being. 

Furthermore, exploring strategies for developing digital literacy programs could be potential avenues for future research.

Step 7: Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The final step of how to write an article review process is to wrap it up with a brief and powerful conclusion. Give a summary of your main points and overall thoughts about the article. 

Point out its importance to the field and the impact of the study. Finish off with a thought-provoking conclusion. Give the reader a sense of finality and emphasize the need for additional research or discussion.

For instance

“In conclusion, John Smith’s article provides valuable insights into the detrimental effects of excessive social media usage on adolescent mental health. 

While the research has limitations, it serves as a starting point for further investigation in this rapidly evolving field.

By addressing the research gaps and implementing targeted interventions:

We can strive to promote a healthier relationship between social media and mental well-being in our digitally connected society.”

Step 8: Editing and Proofreading

Before submission, set aside some time for editing and proofreading. Make sure that you use a  spell checker  to maintain accuracy and everything makes sense and everything is correct. Check out how it reads and if your points come across clearly.

Get feedback from other people to get a different point of view and make it even better. Proofreading and ensuring the quality is one of the best practices to learn how to evaluate an article. 

Types of Article Reviews

Before you learn how to write an article review, you need to have an understanding of it;s types. In college, you might be asked to write different types of review articles, including: 

Narrative Review

This type of review needs you to look into the author’s background and experiences. You have to go through the specialist’s theories and practices and compare them. 

For the success of a narrative review, ensure that your arguments are qualitative and make sense.

We have some comprehensive narrative articles and  narrative essay examples , you can go through them to understand the narrative approach in reviews. 

Evidence Review 

For a solid evidence paper, you have to put in the work and study the topic. You’ll need to research the facts, analyze the author’s ideas, their effects, and more. 

Systematic Review

This task involves reviewing a bunch of research papers and summarizing the existing knowledge about a certain subject. A systematic paper type uses an organized approach and expects you to answer questions linked to the research.

Tips For How To Write An Article Review Outstandingly

Here are some expert tips you could use to write an exceptional article review:

• It will help you catch up on the key points.
• It will give you a better understanding of the article you’re looking at.
• It will help people read your review and get a good idea of what it’s about. Don’t hesitate to use a  grammar checker  to ensure quality and accuracy. 
• It should help readers get a better grasp of the topic.

Standard Outline for How To Write An Article Review 

Here’s an outline to write an excellent article review. 

Introduction

– Begin with a summary of the article 

– Put in background knowledge of the topic 

– State why you are writing the review 

– Give an overview of the article’s main points 

– Figure out why the author choose to write something 

– Look at the article and consider what it does well and what it could have done better.

– Highlight the shortcomings in the article

– Restate why you are writing the review 

– Sum up the main points in a few sentences 

– Suggest what could be achieved in the future research 

Resources To Solve The Biggest Challenge of Article Review Writing

One of the biggest challenges faced by students in the process of how to write an article review effectively, is to find the best topic for it.

Not every article is suitable for review because of the research methodologies and the nature of the thesis statements of different articles.

Below we have shared some of the most popular journals that have thousands of quality published articles that you can shortlist according to your interest.

Important Take Away For How To Write An Article Review

How should i structure my article review.

When writing an article review, it’s best to go in with a plan. Start with the basics – title, author, date published, and what the article’s about. 

Then, give a quick summary of the main points and note the main arguments and facts.

After that, point out the good and bad of the article. How it was written, any possible biases, etc.

Finally, wrap it up with your opinion on the article and what it might mean. Feel free to get help from  professional college paper writers  to go through the process without headache.

Review Article Example: How To Write An Article Review

Article Review sample for Brene Brown’s Daring Greatly

What is an article review?

How to write a good review article.

Think about different features of the article when you analyze it. Like its importance, the sources it uses, how it's put together, and if it's a good read. 

Check out the arguments made by the author, looking at the facts they give. You should also look at the writing style, organization, and how it's communicated. 

Give a fair review and back up what you say with examples and references to improve it.

Order Original Papers & Essays

Your First Custom Paper Sample is on Us!

Timely Deliveries

No Plagiarism & AI

100% Refund

Try Our Free Paper Writing Service

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

What is a review article?

Learn how to write a review article.

What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.

Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.

Why write a review article?

To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.

To explain the current state of knowledge.

To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.

To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

Did you know? 

There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.

Make sure you check the  aims and scope  of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.

How to write a review article

Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.

Check the journal’s aims and scope

Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.

Define your scope

Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field. 

As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.” 

Finding sources to evaluate

When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.” 

For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences,  read advice from NCBI . 

Writing your title, abstract and keywords

Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative. 

For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title  and our  researcher’s guide to search engine optimization . 

Introduce the topic

Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact. 

Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.

Include critical discussion

Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.

What researchers say

Angus Crake, researcher

As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.

Use a critical friend

Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission. 

You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.

Find out more about how  Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.

What is the difference between a research article and a review article?

Before you submit your review article…

Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:

Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?

Have you defined the scope of your article?

Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?

Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?

Did you start with an overview of the topic?

Have you presented a critical discussion?

Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?

Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services  offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to edit your paper

Writing a scientific literature review

What makes an online review credible? A systematic review of the literature and future research directions

• Open access
• Published: 05 December 2022
• Volume 74 , pages 627–659, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• K. Pooja   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7735-8308 1 &
• Pallavi Upadhyaya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4523-2051 2  

14k Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Online reviews of products and services are strategic tools for e-commerce platforms, as they aid in consumers’ pre-purchase decisions. Past research studies indicate online reviews impact brand image and consumer behaviour. With several instances of fake reviews and review manipulations, review credibility has become a concern for consumers and service providers. In recent years, due to growing webcare attitude among managers, the need for maintaining credible online reviews on the e-commerce platforms has gained attention. Though, there are several empirical studies on review credibility, the findings are diverse and contradicting. Therefore, in this paper, we systematically review the literature to provide a holistic view of antecedents of online review credibility. We examine variables, methods, and theoretical perspective of online review credibility research using 69 empirical research papers shortlisted through multi-stage selection process. We identify five broad groups of antecedents: source characteristics, review characteristics, consumer characteristics, interpersonal determinants in the social media platform and product type. Further, we identify research issues and propose directions for future research. This study contributes to existing knowledge in management research by providing the holistic understanding of the “online review credibility” construct and helps understand what factors lead to consumers’ belief in the credibility of online review. The insights gained would provide managers adequate cues to design effective online review systems.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Influence of Online Ratings and Reviews in Consumer Buying Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review

Perceived Credibility of Online Consumer Reviews: an Investigation Across Three Service Categories

An Extended Abstract: To Trust, or Not to Trust—That Is the Question: A Cross-Cultural Study of the Drivers and Moderators of Online Review Trustworthiness

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Online reviews of products and services have become an integral component of product information on e-commerce platforms and are often used as strategic instrument to gain competitive advantage (Gutt et al. 2019 ). They are influential in marketing communications and help shoppers identify the products (Chen and Xie 2008 ) and make informed pre-purchase decisions (Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Eslami et al. 2018 ; Klaus and Changchit 2019 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ). In the absence of physical interaction with the product, they aid consumers to take decisions based on experiences shared by previous users on the e-commerce platform (Klaus and Changchit 2019 ). Reviews facilitate the free flow of consumer-generated content that help managers promote their products or brand or company (Smith 2011 ). The products that get at least 5 reviews have a 270% higher conversion rate compared to the products with no reviews (Collinger et al. 2017 ).

With the growing popularity of online reviews, there is an overwhelming interest among researchers to understand the characteristics of reviews and reviewer that contribute to the credibility of online reviews (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Chih et al. 2020 ; Fang and Li 2016 ; Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ; Liu and Ji 2018 ; Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Qiu et al. 2012 ; Tran and Can 2020 ; Yan et al. 2016 ). The credibility of online information and digital media is often contested, due to the lack of quality control standards and ambiguity concerning the ownership of the information with the convergence of information and media channels (Flanagin and Metzger 2007 ). As all online reviews cannot be trusted (Johnson and Kaye 2016 ) and when sources are uncertain (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ) consumers often use cues to assess review credibility. The credibility issue also arises due to review manipulation practices by asking the reviewers to write a positive review in favour of the brand and to write a negative review attacking the competitor's product, by incentivizing the reviewer (Wu et al. 2015 ).

Recent meta-analysis studies on electronic word of mouth (eWOM) communications have focused on factors impacting eWOM providing behaviour (Ismagilova et al. 2020a ), the effect of eWOM on intention to buy (Ismagilova et al. 2020b ), the effect of source credibility on consumer behaviour (Ismagilova et al. 2020c ), factors affecting adoption of eWOM message (Qahri-Saremi and Montazemi 2019 ) and eWOM elasticity (You et al. 2015 ). Moran and Muzellec ( 2017 ) and recently Verma and Dewani ( 2020 ) have proposed four-factor frameworks for eWOM Credibility. Zheng ( 2021 ) presented a systematic review of literature on the classification of online consumer reviews.

Even though there are literature reviews and meta-analysis on eWOM, they address different research questions or constructs in eWOM and no attempt to synthesise the antecedents of online review credibility, in the context of products and services has been made. Xia et al. ( 2009 ) posit that all eWOM are not formulated equally and classify eWOM as “many to one” (e.g., No of ratings, downloads calculated by computers), “many to many” (e.g., Discussion forums), “one to many” (e.g., Text-based product reviews), and “one to one” (instant messaging). Studies confirm that the effort to process and persuasiveness of different forms of eWOM vary (Weisfeld -Spolter et al. 2014 ). Senecal and Nantel ( 2004 ) argue that consumers spend significantly more time and effort to process online reviews than any other form of eWOM. Hence understanding credibility of the online reviews and the factors that influence credibility is important for managers of e-commerce platforms.

Our objective in this paper is three-fold: First, we revisit, review, and synthesize 69 empirical research on online review credibility that focuses on textual online reviews of products and services (“one to many” form of eWOM). Second, we identify the antecedents of review credibility. Finally, we identify gaps and propose future research directions in the area of online reviews and online review credibility. From theoretical perspective, this systematic review synthesises the antecedents of review credibility, in the context of online reviews of products and services. As in past literature, eWOM and online reviews are interchangeably used, we carefully analysed both the eWOM credibility and online review credibility and selected studies that focused on reviews of products and services. Studies on sponsored posts on social media, blogs, the brand initiated eWOM communication were excluded. From managerial perspective, this study would aid managers of e-commerce platforms, a holistic view of review credibility and aid in the design of online review systems.

1.1 Defining online review credibility

Mudambi and Schuff ( 2010 ) define online reviews as “peer-generated product evaluations, posted on company or third-party websites”. Person-to-person communication via the internet is eWOM. An online review is a form of eWOM. There are various channels of eWOM such as social media, opinion forums, review platforms, and blogs. Past literature posits that credible eWOM is one that is perceived as believable, true, or factual (Fogg et al. 2001 ; Tseng and Fogg. 1999 ).

The perception a consumer holds regarding the veracity of online review is considered as the review credibility (Erkan and Evans 2016 ). Several research studies (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Dong 2015 ) define credible online reviews as a review that the consumers perceive as truthful, logical, and believable. Past research defines credibility to be associated with consumers’ perception and evaluation and not as a direct measure of the reality of reviews (Chakraborty and Bhat 2018a ). The credibility of online reviews is described as consumers’ assessment of the accuracy (Zha et al. 2015 ) and validity of the reviews (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 ).

2 Research methods

This paper uses the systematic literature review method (Linnenluecke et al. 2020 ; Moher et al. 2009 ; Neumann 2021 ; Okoli 2015 ; Snyder 2019 ) to synthesize the research findings. Liberati et al. ( 2009 ) explains systematic review as a process for identifying, critically appraising relevant research and analyzing data. Systematic reviews differ from meta-analysis with respect to methods of analysis used. While meta-analysis focuses primarily on quantitative and statistical analysis; systematic reviews use both quantitative and qualitative analysis and critical appraisal of the literature. In a systematic review, pre-specified protocols on inclusion and exclusion of the articles are used to identify the evidence that fits the criteria to answer the research question (Snyder 2019 ). In this paper, we follow the steps proposed by Okoli ( 2015 ) for conducting the systematic review process and the recommendations given by Fisch and Block ( 2018 ) to improve the quality of the review. The purpose of our systematic literature review is to identify and synthesize the antecedents of online review credibility.

The study uses journal articles from two popular research databases (Scopus and Web of Science) to conduct a systematic search of articles on review credibility/eWOM credibility. As online reviews are interchangeably used with other related concepts such as eWOM, user-generated content, and online recommendations in the literature, we used a diverse pool of sixteen keywords (refer Fig.  1 ) for the initial search. The keywords were identified through an initial review of literature and articles having these terms in the title, abstract, and keywords were chosen. Initial search and document retrieval were done in January 2022. Studies published till October 2022 were later updated in the paper. A set of filters using inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to arrive at a focused set of relevant papers. The full-length empirical articles in English language, related to business management and allied areas were included for systematic review. Using multiple phases of filtering and reviewing (refer Fig.  1 ), we shortlisted the final list of 69 empirical papers that used either review credibility or eWOM credibility as a construct with a focus on reviews of products and services. In line with previous systematic reviews (Kuckertz and Brändle 2022 ; Nadkarni and Prügl 2021 ; Walter 2020) we excluded work in progress papers, conference papers, dissertations or books from the analysis.

Systematic review process

2.1 Descriptive analysis of empirical research on online review credibility

The 69 empirical research articles included 36 experimental design studies and 33 cross-sectional survey-based studies. Figure  2 summarises the review credibility publication trends in the last decade with their research design choices.

Research designs of Review credibility articles

Research on review credibility has used samples from diverse geographical regions, the highest number of studies being in the USA, China, and Taiwan (refer to Table 1 ). Table 2 and Table 3 summarizes the sample and analysis methods used in these studies. Even though online review is commonly used in tourism and hospitality, there are only six studies examining review credibility.

3 Theoretical perspectives in review credibility literature

Most of the empirical research (88 percent) on review credibility has used theories to explain the antecedents of review credibility. A total of 48 different theories have been invoked in explaining various dimensions of review credibility antecedents.

We observed five broad groups of theories from the underlying 48 theories that contribute to understanding the different aspects of online review credibility assessment by consumers. We discuss them in the following sections.

3.1 Information processing in online review

Several theories provide a lens to understand ways in which individual consumes or processes the information available in the online reviews. The popular theories discussed in the review credibility literature such as the elaboration likelihood model, heuristic—systematic model, accessibility—diagnosticity theory, and attribution theory describe how an individual processes information.

Building on the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) several studies have examined characteristics of online review content such as argument quality (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Hussain et al. 2018 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ), review sidedness (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Brand and Reith 2022 ), review consistency (Brand et al. 2022 ; Brand and Reith 2022 ; Cheung et al. 2012 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ), and source credibility (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Hussain et al. 2018 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ). These dimensions are also examined using the heuristics-systematic model (HSM). These two theories are similar in their function as both ELM and HSM posit two routes (the central vs. peripheral route and the systematic vs. heuristic route) for judging the persuasiveness of messages (Chang and Wu 2014 ). In literature, the elaboration likelihood model has received more empirical support compared to the heuristics systematic model. The yale persuasive communication theory covers a wider array of factors that can affect the acceptance of the message (Chang and Wu 2014 ). This theory has been adopted by studies to evaluate the relationship between these factors with review credibility.

The psychological choice model posits that the effectiveness of online reviews gets influenced by environmental factors like product characteristics and consumer’s past experience. These factors influences the credibility assessment by the consumer and purchase decision based on their interaction with the online reviews.

Consumers’ use of information for judgment also depends upon the accessibility and diagnosticity of the input as proposed in accessibility-diagnosticity theory. This theory helps in understanding the utilization of information by individuals and posits that the information in hand has more value than information stored as a form of memory (Tsao and Hseih 2015 ; Chiou et al. 2018 ). The attribution theory helps in understanding the nature of the causal conclusion drawn by the consumers in the presence of negative and positive information (Chiou et al. 2018 ).

Overall, the theories related to information processing have contributed well to understanding the influence of strength of the message, argument, valence, source reputation, consistency, persuasiveness, and diagnosability.

Theories such as media richness theory (Tran and Can 2020 ) and language expectancy theory (Seghers et al. 2021 ) provided insights into the relevance of the quality of the information shared in online reviews. Several other theories focus on the information adoption process (ex. Information adoption mode, informational influence theory, dual-process theory). For example, cognitive cost theory has been used to explain review adoption due to the effect of different levels of cognitive involvement of the consumer when they are exposed to reviews from different platforms simultaneously (Yan et al. 2016 ).

The contribution of technology acceptance model (TAM) to the review credibility literature is operationalized in the study by Liu and Ji ( 2018 ). Hussain et al. ( 2018 ) uses TAM to complement ELM in the computer-mediated communication adoption process.

We observe that the theories in information processing in the online review have provided a theoretical lens to understand the role of the quality of the information in the online review credibility assessment.

3.2 Trust in online reviews

Studies have examined the trust formation and perception of the trustworthiness of the source of the information in online reviews using the theoretical lens of trust transfer theory and source credibility theory. Virtual communities do not support the face-to-face interaction between sender and receiver of the message. Therefore, the receiver has to rely on cues such as the reputation of the source, credibility of the source, and the reviewer profile. These cues are observed as some of the antecedents of review credibility. Trust transfer theory contributes to our understanding of how online reviews shared on a trusted e-commerce website makes the consumer consider that review is credible compared to the review shared on a website that is not trustworthy (Park and Lee 2011 ). Source credibility theory suggests trustworthiness and expertise of the source of the review have a positive relationship with review credibility (Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Shamhuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ). These theories note that when a person perceives the origin of online review as trustworthy, he would be more likely to consume the information.

3.3 Socio-cultural influence in online reviews

Individuals’ innate values or beliefs help shape their behaviour. As online reviews are more complex social conversations (Kozinets 2016 ) there is a need to gain perspectives on how these conversations differ in terms of country and culture (Bughin et al. 2010 ). The theories such as culture theory, and Hall’s categorization provide a lens to examine the influence of culture on online review consumption and assessment of review credibility (Brand and Reith 2022 ; Chiou et al. 2014 ; Luo et al. 2014 ).

In general, attention paid to understanding the influence of cultural factors on online reviews is very limited (Mariani et al. 2019 ; Gao et al. 2017 ). However, much attention has been given to understanding the role of social influence through the use of theories like social influence theory, role theory, social identity theory, social information processing theory, socio-cognitive systems theory, and value theory. The most prominent theory related to this theme is the social influence theory. Social influence theory emphasizes the social pressure faced by consumers to form a decision based on online reviews (Jha and Shah 2021 ). Social identity theory posits that an individual may reduce uncertainty by choosing to communicate with other people who share similar values and social identities (Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ).

Social information processing theory posits the importance of the closeness between review writer and reader on social networking as an alternative cue, in the absence of physical interaction (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ). The social standings of an individual in terms of the number of friends on social networks (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ), nonverbal cues such as profile photos (Xu 2014 ), and their impact on review credibility have been studied using this theory. In a nutshell, these theories explain individuals’ belief that gets shaped due to the influence of the social groups and how it impacts the credibility of the review.

3.4 Consumer attitude and behaviour towards online reviews

Consumers attitude towards computer-mediated communications and online reviews have been examined in past studies (Chakraborty and bhat 2017 ; Chih et al. 2020 ; Hussain et al. 2018 ; Isci and Kitapci 2020 ; Jha and Shah 2021 ) using several theoretical frameworks. Theories such as attitude—behaviour linkage, cognition-affection-behaviour (CAB) model, expectancy-disconfirmation theory (EDT), needs theory, regulatory focus theory, search and alignment theory, stimulus- organism-response model, theory of planned behaviour, yale attitude change model, associative learning theory were used in literature to examine the factors that influence the formation of the attitude and behaviour towards online reviews. These factors and their relationship with credibility evaluation have been studied by the yale attitude change model (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ), and the stimulus-organism-response model (Chakraborty 2019 ). Jha and Shah ( 2021 ) adapted attitude-behavior linkage theory to study how the exposure to past reviews acts as an influence to write credible reviews.

The consumer’s expectation about product experience and credibility assessment is studied using theories like expectancy-disconfirmation theory (Jha and Shah 2021 ), needs theory (Anastasiei et al. 2021 ), and regulatory focus theory (Isci and Kitapci, 2020 ; Lee and Koo, 2012 ). Overall, these theories have contributed to the advancement of the understanding of the holistic process involved in consumer attitude formation and behaviour in online reviews.

3.5 Risk aversion

The theories such as category diagnosticity theory, prospect theory, uncertainty management theory, and uncertainty reduction theory provide a theoretical lens to examine how consumers rely on credible information to avoid uncertain outcomes. Hong and Pittman ( 2020 ) use category diagnosticity theory and prospect theory to hypothesize negative online reviews as more credible than positive reviews. An individual who focuses on reducing loss perceives negative online reviews as more diagnostic and credible. Kusumasondjaja et al. ( 2012 ) also argue that consumers try to avoid future losses by spending effort to find credible information before making a decision. With the help of these underlying assumptions, studies have used perspectives drawn from theories to understand the loss-aversion behaviour and higher perceived diagnostic value of negative information. Prospect theory suggests consumers attempt to avoid risks or loss and expect gain. Consumers avoid choosing the experience which has more negative online reviews because of the risk and loss associated with the negativity of the reviews (Floh et al. 2013 ). The risk aversion-related theories have contributed to understanding the consumers’ quest for credible information in negative reviews.

4 Antecedents of online review credibility

Literature on review credibility reveals varied nomenclature and operationalisation of antecedents of review credibility. However, we can broadly categorize review credibility antecedents into five broad groups: source characteristics, message characteristics, consumer characteristics, social/interpersonal influence, and product type (Refer to Fig.  3 ).

Anteeedents of review credibility

We discuss these antecedent themes along with the major constructs in each theme in the following sections. In the final section, we also summarise the theoretical perspectives in each antecedent themes.

4.1 Source characteristics

Literature reveals that several characteristics of the source influence the credibility perception and evaluation of review by consumers. Chakraborty and Bhat ( 2017 ) define a source as the person who writes online reviews. Researchers have operationalized the source characteristics primarily through reviewers’ knowledge and reliability (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 ); reviewer characteristics such as identity disclosure, level of expertise, review experience, and total useful votes (Liu and Ji 2018 ). In several studies (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Chih et al. 2013 ; Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Newell and Goldsmith 2001 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ; Yan et al. 2016 ), expertise and trustworthiness of the reviewer is one of the most common conceptualizations of source credibility. Cheung and Thadani ( 2012 ) define source credibility as the “message source’s perceived ability (expertise) or motivation to provide accurate and truthful (trustworthiness) information”.

Source credibility is used as a single construct in several studies (Abedin et al. 2021 ; Chih et al. 2013 ; Cheung et al. 2009 , 2012 ; Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Reyes-Menendez et al. 2019 ; Yan et al. 2016 ; Luo et al. 2014 ). Studies have also conceptualized its sub-dimensions such as source trustworthiness (Chih et al. 2020 ; Lo and Yao 2018 ; Shamhuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ; Siddiqui et al. 2021 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tien et al. 2018 ); reviewer expertise (Anastasiei et al. 2021 ; Fang 2014 ; Fang and Li 2016 ; Jha and Shah 2021 ) and reviewers’ authority (Shamhuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ), as separate antecedents to review credibility. Mumuni et al. ( 2019 ) posited that reviewer expertise and reviewer trustworthiness as two distinct constructs. Chih et al. ( 2020 ) define source trustworthiness as the credibility of the information presented by the message sender. Thomas et al. ( 2019 ) operationalize reviewer expertise as a peripheral cue and found that the amount of knowledge that a reviewer has about a product or service is influential in consumer’s perception of review credibility. Information presented by professional commentators who are perceived as experts in the specific field was found to have a positive influence on credibility (Chiou et al. 2014 ).

Source cues help in assessing the credibility and usefulness of the information shared in product reviews (Liu and Ji 2018 ). Reviews written by the source whose identity is disclosed have higher credibility compared to the reviews written by unidentified sources (Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ). However, in case of positive reviews with disclosed identity of the sponsor the review, credibility is negatively affected (Wang et al. 2022 ). Zhang et al. ( 2020 ) found that suspicion about the identity of the message sender influences negatively on the message’s credibility. Past studies found that when the number of friends of a reviewer (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ) and a number of trusted members of the reviewer (Xu 2014 ) are high in the online review community, reviews of such reviewers are considered as more credible. If a reviewer involves very actively in writing the review, the number of reviews posted by the reviewer provides evidence to the reader that the reviews written by such reviewers are credible (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ). The consumer also believes online reviews to be credible when they perceive the reviewer as honest (Yan et al. 2021) and caring (Yan et al. 2021). The source characteristics as antecedents of review credibility are summarized in Table 4 .

Several studies also define the source with the characteristics of the platform where the review is published. Consumers’ trust on the website (Lee et al. 2011 ) and the reputation of the website (Chih et al. 2013 ) were found as antecedents of the review credibility. If a consumer perceives an online shopping mall as trustworthy, he would believe that reviews posted in shopping mall as credible (Lee et al. 2011 ). Chih et al. ( 2013 ) posit that in addition to the source credibility (reviewer expertise), consumers evaluate the quality of contents of a website based on website reputation, which in turn leads to higher trust on the website and higher perceived credibility of the review. Website reputation is defined as the extent to which consumers perceive the platform where the review is published to be believable and trustworthy (Chih et al. 2013 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ; Guzzo et al. 2022 ; Majali et al. 2022 ). Bae and Lee ( 2011 ) found that consumer-developed sites were perceived as more credible than marketer-developed sites. Similarly, Tsao and Hsieh ( 2015 ) found that review quality as perceived by consumers had a higher impact on review credibility on independent platforms than on corporate-run platforms. Ha and Lee ( 2018 ) found that for credence service (eg. Hospital), the provider-driven platform and reviews were more credible and for experience goods (eg. Restaurant), consumer-driven platforms were perceived as more credible.

4.2 Review characteristics

Several characteristics of the message or the review are found to influence the review credibility on online review platforms (presented in Table 5 ). A product with a large number of reviews provides evidence of higher sales and popularity of the product (Flanagin and Metzger 2013 ; Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ). When online review for a product or service is higher, it directly influences the review credibility (Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ).

If the reviewer agrees with most of online reviews or recommendations of others those reviews are considered as consistent reviews (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ). The consistent online reviews were found to have higher credibility (Abedin et al. 2021 ; Baharuddin and Yaacob 2020 ; Brand and Reith 2022 ; Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ; Cheung et al. 2009 , 2012 ; Luo et al. 2014 ; Tran and Can 2020 ). Fang and Li ( 2016 ) found out that receiver of the information actively monitors the consistency of the information while perceiving the credibility of review. The degree of agreement in aggregated review ratings on the review platform creates consensus among the reviewers (Qiu et al. 2012 ). Information evolved from such consensus is perceived as highly credible (Lo and Yao 2018 ; Qiu et al. 2012 ). However, a few studies (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Luo et al. 2015 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ) have reported contradicting findings and argue that when the involvement of consumers is low and consumers are knowledgeable, review consistency has an insignificant impact on the review credibility.

Past studies have found strong evidence on the impact of review argument quality (Anastasiei et al. 2021 ; Baharuddin and Yaacob 2020 ; Cheung et al. 2012 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ; Tsao and Hsieh 2015 ) and review quality (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold 2010 ; Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ; Liu and Ji 2018 ) and argument strength (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Fang 2014 ; Fang and Li 2016 ; Luo et al. 2015 ) on review credibility. Concreteness in the argument also positively impacts the review credibility (Shukla and Mishra 2021 ).

According to Petty et al. ( 1983 ), the strength of the argument provided in the message represents the quality of the message. Cheung et al. ( 2009 ) define argument strength as the quality of the information in the online review. Chakraborty and Bhat ( 2017 ) present review quality as the logical and reliable argument in the online review. Recent studies (Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ) considered accuracy and completeness as dimensions of argument quality.

Review attribute helps in classifying the review as an objective review or subjective review based on the information captured (Lee and Koo 2012 ). Jimenez and Mendoza (2013); Gvili and Levy ( 2016 ) operationalize the level of detail as the amount of information present in the review about a product or service. Past studies have found evidence for the positive relationship between different attributes of reviews such as review objectivity (Luo et al. 2015 ; Abedin et al. 2021 ), level of detail (Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ), review attribute (Lee and Koo 2012 ), message readability (Guzzo et al. 2022 ), persuasiveness of eWOM messages (Tien et al. 2018 ), interestingness (Shamuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ), graphics (Fang and Li 2016 ) and suspicion of truthfulness (Zhang et al. 2020 ) with review credibility. Vendemia ( 2017 ) found that the emotional content of information in the review also influences the review credibility. While assessing the review credibility, the utilitarian function of the review (Ran et al. 2021 ) and message content (Siddiqui et al. 2021 ) play an important role.

Several studies confirm that review valence influences review credibility (Lee and Koo 2012 ; Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Lo and Yao 2018 ; Manganari and Dimara 2017 ; Pentina et al. 2018 ; Pentina et al. 2017 ; vanLohuizen and Trujillo-Barrera 2019 ; Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ; Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ; Chiou et al. 2018 ). Chiou et al. ( 2018 ) explain review valence is negative or positive evaluation of the product or service in online reviews. Review valence is often operationalized in experimental research at two levels: positive reviews vs negative reviews. Several studies report that negative reviews are perceived to be more credible than positive reviews (Chiou et al. 2018 ; Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ; Lee and Koo 2012 ; Lo and Yao 2018 ; Manganari and Dimara 2017 ). Negative reviews present a consumer’s bad experience, service failure or low quality and they create a loss-framed argument. Tversky and Kahneman ( 1991 ) explain that loss-framed arguments have a greater impact on the behaviour of consumer than gain-framed arguments. Contradictory to these findings, a few studies found that positive reviews are more credible than negative reviews (Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Pentina et al. 2017 , 2018 ). Lim and Van Der Heide ( 2015 ) found that though negative reviews impact greatly on consumer behavior it is perceived to be less credible.

Several studies (Chakraborty 2019 ; Cheung et al. 2012 ; Luo et al. 2015 ) have observed the impact of review sidedness (positive, negative or two-sided reviews) on review credibility and found that two-sided reviews are perceived as more credible. Further, Cheung et al. ( 2012 ) found that when consumers’ expertise level was high and involvement level was low, review sidedness had a stronger impact on review credibility.

Star ratings are numerical evidence of product performance (Hong and Pittman 2020 ). Star rating represents the average rating of all the review ratings therefore it helps to assess the conclusions in general (Tran and Can 2020 ). Rating evaluation needs a low amount of cognitive effort while processing the review information (Thomas et al. 2019 ). Past studies have found star ratings (Hong and Pittman 2020 ), aggregated review scores (Camilleri 2017 ), product or service ratings (Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ), review ratings (Luo et al. 2015 ), and recommendation or information rating (Cheung et al. 2009 ) act as peripheral cues influencing the review credibility.

4.3 Consumer characteristics

Receiver is the consumer of the review and consumer needs, traits, motivation, knowledge, and involvement have been found to influence the review credibility. Chih et al. ( 2013 ) posit that online community members have two types of needs: functional need (need to find useful product information) and social need (need to build social relationships with others). These needs motivate consumers to use online reviews and form perceptions of review credibility. Consumers refer to online reviews to understand the product's pros, cons, and costs (Hussain et al. 2018 ); reduce purchase risk, and information search time (Schiffman and Kanuk 2000 ).

Past research studies indicate consumer’s motivation to obtain more information on purchase context (Chih et al. 2013 ), self-worth reinforcement (Hussain et al. 2018 ), opinion seeking from other consumers (Hussain et al. 2018 ), and prior knowledge of the receiver on the product (Cheung and Thadani 2012 ; Wang et al. 2013 ), influences review credibility. When the online reviews are congruous to the consumer’s knowledge and experiences, the message is perceived to be credible (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ; Cheung et al. 2009 ). Chiou et al. ( 2018 ) found that high-knowledge consumers find reviews less credible. Studies in the past have also used prior knowledge of consumers as a control variable (Bae and Lee 2011 ) and moderating variable (Doh and Hwang 2009 ) when studying other factors. Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold ( 2010 ) found that knowledge on manipulations on product reviews influenced consumers' product evaluations, negative reviews, in particular, and when they come from a highly credible source.

Lim and Van Der Heide ( 2015 ) observed differences in the perceived credibility of users and non-users of the review platform and found an interaction effect between users’ familiarity with the review platform and reviewer profile (number of friends and number of reviews) characteristics of review credibility. Consumer experience with online reviews affects their perception of review credibility (Guzzo et al 2022 ). Izogo et al ( 2022 ) posit that consumer experiences such as sensory, cognitive and behavioral experience also influences review credibility. Consumer motivation, beliefs, and knowledge, as antecedents in literature, are summarised in Table 6 .

Cheung et. al ( 2012 ) posited that the influence of source and message characteristics on review credibility depends on two characteristics of the consumer: involvement and expertise. The authors found that level of involvement and knowledge of consumers moderate the relationships between review characteristics (review consistency and review sidedness) source credibility, and review credibility. Consumers process the information through central route, when making high involvement decisions and carefully read the content (Lin et al. 2013 ; Park and Lee 2008 ). When consumers have low involvement decisions, they are more likely to use peripheral cues and pay lesser attention to the review content, resulting in low eWOM credibility. Xue and Zhou ( 2010 ) found that consumers with high involvement decisions trusted negative reviews. In a recent study, Zhang et al. ( 2020 ) found that personality traits such as dispositional trust can trigger suspicion about the truthfulness of the message and may in turn, impact review credibility.

4.4 Interpersonal influence in the social media

Earlier research shows that interpersonal influence (Chu and Kim 2011 ) and tie strength (Bansal and Voyer 2000 ) positively influences online reviews. Consumers perceive online reviews as more credible when social status and cognitive dissonance reduction can be achieved through online forums (Chih et al. 2013 ). The previous studies have considered these factors under the theme related to source or communicator of the message (Verma and Dewani 2020 )). However, the constructs tie strength and homophily represent an interpersonal relationship between the communicator and the reader. Therefore, we discuss them separately. Tie strength is considered to be higher in an online community when the members have close relationships with other members and frequently communicate with each other. Consumers who have similar tastes and preferences share information in brand communities and enjoy meeting other members in a meaningful way (Xiang et al. 2017 ). Reviews are found to be more credible when review writers get exposed to past reviews written by others (Jha and Shah 2021 ). The exposure to past reviews moderates the relationship between disconfirmation and perception of online review credibility (Jha and Shah 2021 ). The recommendations of the members on social networking sites have also been found to be influencing the credibility of online reviews (Siddiqui et al. 2021 ).

Consumers’ perceptions of their similarity to the source of message are believed to impact their credibility assessment (Gilly et al. 1998 ; Wangenheim and Bayon 2004). Brown and Reingen ( 1987 ) define similarity or homophily as the “degree to which individuals are similar to sources in terms of certain attributes”. Herrero and Martin ( 2015 ) found that hotel consumers would perceive reviews more credible when there is a similarity between users and content creators. Source homophily is found to have an impact on review credibility in the e-commerce context as well (Abedin et al. 2021 ). Similarity of the source is often described in terms of interests of consumers and content generators. Xu ( 2014 ) posits that when a greater number of trusted members for reviewers are present on the website, it increases trust, thereby impacting the perceived credibility of the review. (Table 7 ).

4.5 Product type

The type of the product (search or experience product) is found to impact user’s evaluation of review credibility (Bae and Lee 2011 ; Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ) and review helpfulness (Mudambi and Schuff 2010 ). Experience products differ from search products. They require more effort in retrieving product’s attribute-related information online and often require direct experience to assess the product features accurately. Bae and Lee ( 2011 ) found that when review originates from the consumer-owned online community, consumers find review credible for experience products. Tsao and Hsieh ( 2015 ) found that the credibility of eWOM is stronger for credence products than search products. Credence goods are those whose qualities cannot be confirmed even after purchase, such as antivirus software and sellers often cheat consumers due to information asymmetry and charge higher prices for inferior goods.

Jimenez and Mendoza ( 2013 ) found differences in consumers’ evaluation of review credibility for search and experience products. The study found that for search products detailed reviews were considered more credible and for experience products, reviewer agreement impacted review credibility (Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ). Chiou et al. ( 2014 ) found that the review credibility was perceived differently for elite (eg: Classical musical concerts) and mass (eg: movies) cultural offerings. The study posited that when consumers read reviews of elite cultural offerings, and it originates from professionals, it is perceived as more credible. (Table 8 ).

4.6 Summary of antecedent themes and theoretical perspectives

Review characteristics, followed by source characteristics, are the most researched themes in terms of the number of studies and theories used (refer to Fig.  4 ). It indicates the wide coverage of different theoretical perspectives examined in these two areas. Consumer characteristics, interpersonal determinants in social media, and product type were less researched antecedent themes and lesser examined through a theoretical lens.

Anteeedent themewise articles and theories

The most popular theories in review credibility literature are the elaboration likelihood model, social influence theory, accessibility- diagnosticity theory, attribution theory, and theory of reasoned action. Contribution from these theories was noted in at least four antecedent themes identified in our study. Table 9 summarizes the theories used in each antecedent theme identified in the current review.

5 Review credibility: future research directions

Though there is ample research on online review credibility, there are several gaps in understanding the aspects of consumer behavior in online review evaluation and mitigation of issues with credibility. We identify six research issues that need further investigation and empirical evidence.

5.1 Research issue 1: review credibility in a high-involvement decision-making context

Several studies have examined credibility of reviews in experience products such as movies (Chiou et al. 2014 ; Flanagin and Metzer 2013 ), restaurants (Ha and Lee 2018 ; Pentina et al. 2017 ; vanLohuizen and Trujillo-Barrera 2019 ), hotels (Lo and Yao 2018 ; Manganari and Dimara 2017 ), and search goods such as audiobooks (Camilleri 2017 ), consumer electronics (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold 2010 ; Chiou et al. 2018 ; Lee et al. 2011 ; Lee and Koo 2012 ; Tsao and Hsieh 2015 ; Xu 2014 ), few studies (Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ; Doh and Hwang 2009 ; Xue and Zhou 2010 ; Bae and Lee 2011 ) have examined both experience and search products.

However, most of the products involve low to medium involvement of consumers and there is a gap in understanding online review usage, credibility, and impact in the context of high involvement decisions. There are several online review platforms on high involvement goods and services such as cars (eg: carwale, auto-drive), and destination holiday planning (TripAdvisor). Consumers often use online reviews to reduce purchase risk. As purchase risks are higher in high involvement decisions, consumers would spend more time searching online to evaluate the product. It is also necessary to understand to what extent consumers trust online reviews in a high involvement decision context, which often combines online information, reviews, and offline experiences (eg: visit to a car dealership for a test drive). Previous studies on consumer involvement (Hussain et al. 2018 ; Lin et al. 2013 ; Park and Lee 2008 ; Reyes-Menendez et al. 2019 ; Xue and Zhou, 2010 ) have operationalized involvement as a multi-item construct that captures the level of involvement of consumers, using consumers’ response. Experimental design studies, using high involvement goods and their reviews would help to establish causal relationships, in high involvement goods context. As an exception, one of the recent studies by Isci and Kitapci ( 2020 ) uses experimental design using automobile products as the stimuli for the experiment. However, as observed in our analysis, there are scarce studies in high involvement decision making context.

5.2 Research issue 2: mitigation of low credibility of the online review

While extant literature is available on factors affecting review credibility and its impact on brand and consumer behavior, there is limited literature and discussion on how companies can mitigate the impact of low credibility of reviews and improve trust. More evidence and empirical research is required to demonstrate effectiveness of measures that firms can take to build credibility and improve trust. As reviews are an important component of product information in e-commerce websites and reviews are used to form pre-purchase decisions, research on mitigation of poor credibility would be useful. For example, while past research shows that reviews on marketer-developed sites are perceived less credible for experience products than consumer-developed sites (Bae and Lee 2011 ). There is a need to study strategies that marketers can use to gain the trust of consumers.

5.3 Research issue 3: mitigating impact of negative online reviews

Past studies have indicated that consumers pay more attention to negative reviews (Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ; Lee and Koo 2012 ; vanLohuizen and Barrera 2019 ; Yang and Mai 2010 ), and trust (Xue and Zhou 2010 ; Banerjee and Chua 2019 ) more than positive reviews. Negative reviews are found to be persuasive and have a higher impact on brand interest and purchase intention (Xue and Zhou 2010 ). There are also limited studies discussing the ways to mitigate the impact of negative reviews and strategies to deal with them in a wide variety of contexts. While extant literature is available on review characteristics such as review sidedness, review valence, and its impact on review credibility (Refer to Table 5 ), there is little empirical evidence on strategies to deal with negative reviews. An exception is a study by Pee ( 2016 ), that addressed this issue by focusing on marketing mix and suggested that managing the marketing mix can mitigate the impact of negative reviews. However, more research is needed to equip marketers with mitigation techniques and fair strategies to deal with negative reviews.

5.4 Research issue 4: credibility of brand initiated online reviews

Brand-initiated eWOM often incentivizes consumers to share the content with their friends and it is unclear whether such initiatives are perceived as less credible. Brands use a variety of strategies to promote products on social media and facilitate person-to-person communications of brand content such as referral rewards, coupons, and bonus points (Abu-El-Rub et al. 2017 ). Incentivized reviews can easily manipulate consumers as their motive is not to provide unbiased information to make an informed decision (Mayzlin et al. 2014 ).

These practices followed by the service providers, or the vendors could jeopardize the trust consumers have towards them. More research in this area would provide insights into the best social media marketing practices that are considered credible. Future research must focus on guiding marketers on ethical and credible practices in social media marketing and managing online reviews.

5.5 Research issue 5: presence of fake online reviews

Unlike incentivized reviews, deceptive opinion spams are written to sound real and to deceive the review readers (Ott, Cardie and Hancock 2013 ; Hernández Fusilier et al. 2015 ). Spammers use extreme language when it comes to praising or criticizing (Gao et al. 2021 ). These spammers are active on several social media and review platforms. As technology is continuously evolving deceptive opinion spam has found a way through the use of artificial intelligence. The social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have experienced the rise of bot or automated accounts. This trend is even entering into online review systems and is a threat to the online review system Tousignant ( 2017 ). A study conducted by Yao et al. ( 2017 ) argues that the reviews generated by bots are not only undetectable but also scored as useful reviews. This is a serious issue as the whole purpose of online review platforms is to provide information that would lead an individual to make an informed decision, but these fake reviews severely damage the credibility of review site (Munzel 2016 ). In recent years, researchers started contributing to this area and have proposed models to detect fake reviews in different platforms such as app stores (Martens and Maalej 2019 ), online review platforms (Singh and Kumar 2017 ), and filtering fake reviews on TripAdvisor (Cardoso et al. 2018 ). However, presence of fake reviews can make the review users skeptical towards using the reviews. Future research must focus on the role of artificial intelligence in online review systems and its impact on consumers’ assessment of online review credibility. Research into tools to detect and curb the spread of fake reviews is needed to improve credibility of reviews.

5.6 Research issue 6: new forms of online reviews

Rapid technological developments have resulted in new digital formats of online reviews such as video and images. Past experimental design studies have primarily used stimuli in the form of textual reviews. As consumers use more and more multimedia data and engage in platforms such as Youtube.com or Instagram.com, research is required to examine the online review credibility and practices using new forms of reviews.

6 Theoretical contribution and managerial implications and conclusions

This paper makes three important theoretical contributions. First, it provides a consolidated account of antecedents, mediators and moderators of the construct online review credibility identifies five broad groups of antecedents. Second, this paper also makes a maiden attempt to map the antecedent themes to the theoretical frameworks in the literature. This mapping provides a holistic understanding of theories that examine various facets of online review credibility. In the process, we also identify theoretical lenses that are less investigated. Third we identify research gaps and issues that needs further investigation in the area of online review credibility. Some of the areas of future research include mitigation strategies for negative reviews and credibility of reviews in purchase of high-involvement product or service. Emergence of new forms of multimedia reviews, fake reviews and sponsored reviews have also triggered the need to push research beyond simple text reviews. Future research could use theoretical lens that have been less explored to investigate research issues in review credibility. There is a need to advance online review credibility research beyond the popular theoretical frameworks such as elaboration likelihood model, social influence theory, accessibility- diagnosticity theory, attribution theory, and theory of reasoned action.

The paper has several managerial implications. The lower credibility of reviews poses threat to its relevance in digital marketing and electronic commerce. Therefore, managers of electronic commerce must strive to adopt practices to preserve the trust and integrity of online reviews. Our review indicated five groups of antecedents of online review credibility: source characteristics, review characteristics, consumer characteristics, interpersonal characteristics in social media, and product type. Managers cannot control completely all the factors on the social media. However, by appropriately designing the e-commerce platform with the elements that influence credibility, managers will be able to improve their marketing communications. Awareness of review characteristics that impact review credibility would help managers to choose more appropriate measures to deal with negative and positive reviews. Managers must adopt a social media marketing strategy that is suitable to the context of the review and type of product.

Data availability

The dataset was generated by two licensed databases and thus cannot be made accessible.

Abedin E, Mendoza A, Karunasekera S (2021) Exploring the moderating role of readers’ perspective in evaluations of online consumer reviews. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 16:3406–3424. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070184

Article   Google Scholar  

Abu-El-Rub N, Minnich A, Mueen A (2017) Anomalous reviews owing to referral incentive. Proc 2017 IEEE/ACM int conf adv soc networks anal mining. ASONAM 2017:313–316. https://doi.org/10.1145/3110025.3110100

Anastasiei B, Dospinescu N, Dospinescu O (2021) Understanding the adoption of incentivized word-of-mouth in the online environment. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 16:992–1007. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040056

Bae S, Lee T (2011) Product type and consumers’ perception of online consumer reviews. Electron Mark 21:255–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0072-0

Baharuddin NA, Yaacob M (2020) Dimensions of EWOM credibility on the online purchasing activities among consumers through social media. J Komun Malaysian J Commun 36:335–352

Bambauer-Sachse S, Mangold S (2010) The role of perceived review credibility in the context of brand equity dilution through negative product reviews on the internet. Adv Consum Res 18:38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.09.003

Banerjee S, Chua AYK (2019) Trust in online hotel reviews across review polarity and hotel category. Comput Human Behav 90:265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.010

Bansal HS, Voyer PA (2000) Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. J Serv Res 3:166–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050032005

Brand BM, Reith R (2022) Cultural differences in the perception of credible online reviews – the influence of presentation format. Decis Support Syst 154:113710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113710

Brand BM, Kopplin CS, Rausch TM (2022) Cultural differences in processing online customer reviews: holistic versus analytic thinkers. Electron Mark. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00543-1

Brown JJ, Reingen PH (1987) Referral ties beav and word-of or *. J Consum Res 14:350–362. https://doi.org/10.1086/209118

Bughin J, Doogan J, Vetvik OJ (2010) A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing. McKinsey Quarterly 2:113–6. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/a-new-way-to-measure-word-of-mouth-marketing . Accessed 13 March 2022

Camilleri AR (2017) The presentation format of review score information influences consumer preferences through the attribution of outlier reviews. J Interact Mark 39:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.02.002

Cardoso EF, Silva RM, Almeida TA (2018) Towards automatic filtering of fake reviews. Neurocomputing 309:106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.04.074

Chakraborty U (2019) Perceived credibility of online hotel reviews and its impact on hotel booking intentions. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31:3465–3483. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2018-0928

Chakraborty U, Bhat S (2017) The effects of credible online reviews on brand equity dimensions and its consequence on consumer behavior. J Promot Manag 24:57–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2017.1346541

Chakraborty U, Bhat S (2018a) Credibility of online reviews and its impact on brand image. Manag Res Rev 41:148–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2017-0173

Chakraborty U, Bhat S (2018b) Online reviews and its impact on brand equity. Int J Internet Mark Advert 12:159. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijima.2018.10011683

Chang HH, Wu LH (2014) An examination of negative e-WOM adoption: brand commitment as a moderator. Decis Support Syst 59:206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.11.008

Chen Y, Xie J (2008) Online consumer review: word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Manage Sci 54:477–491. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0810

Cheung CMK, Thadani DR (2012) The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: a literature analysis and integrative model. Decis Support Syst 54:461–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008

Cheung M, Luo C, Sia C, Chen H (2009) Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. Int J Electron Commer 13:9–38. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415130402

Cheung CMY, Sia CL, Kuan KKY (2012) Is this review believable? A study of factors affecting the credibility of online consumer reviews from an ELM perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst 13:618–635. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00305

Chih WH, Wang KY, Hsu LC, Huang SC (2013) Investigating electronic word-of-mouth effects on online discussion forums: The role of perceived positive electronic word-of-mouth review credibility. Cyberpsychology, Behav Soc Netw 16:658–668. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0364

Chih WH, Hsu LC, Ortiz J (2020) The antecedents and consequences of the perceived positive eWOM review credibility. Ind Manag Data Syst 120:1217–1243. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2019-0573

Chiou JS, Hsiao CC, Su FY (2014) Whose online reviews have the most influences on consumers in cultural offerings? Professional vs consumer commentators. Internet Res 24:353–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2013-0046

Chiou JS, Hsiao CC, Chiu TY (2018) The credibility and attribution of online reviews: differences between high and low product knowledge consumers. Online Inf Rev 42:630–646. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2017-0197

Chu SC, Kim Y (2011) Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int J Advert 30:47–75. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075

Collinger T, Malthouse E, Maslowska E, et al (2017) How online reviews influence sales. Evidence of the power of online reviews to shape customer behavior. In: Spiegel Res. Cent. https://spiegel.medill.northwestern.edu/how-online-reviews-influence-sales/%0A . Accessed 2 Nov 2021

Daowd A, Hasan R, Eldabi T et al (2020) Factors affecting eWOM credibility, information adoption and purchase intention on generation Y: a case from Thailand. J Enterp Inf Manag 34:838–859. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-04-2019-0118

Doh SJ, Hwang JS (2009) How consumers evaluate eWOM (electronic word-of-mouth) messages. Cyberpsychol Behav 12:193–197. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0109

Dong Z (2015) How to persuade adolescents to use nutrition labels: effects of health consciousness, argument quality, and source credibility. Asian J Commun 25:84–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2014.989241

Erkan I, Evans C (2016) The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: an extended approach to information adoption. Comput Human Behav 61:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.003

Eslami SP, Ghasemaghaei M, Hassanein K (2018) Which online reviews do consumers find most helpful? A multi-method investigation. Decis Support Syst 113:32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.06.012

Fang Y (2014) Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth : exploring eWOM adoption on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspectives. Int J Electron Comm 18(3):67–102

Fang Y, Li C (2016) Electronic word-of-mouth on social networking sites : cue validity and cue utilization perspectives. Human Syst Manage 35:35–50. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-150853

Fisch C, Block J (2018) Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Manag Rev Q 68:103–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ (2007) The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media Soc 9:319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015

Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ (2013) Trusting expert versus user-generated ratings online: the role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics. Comput Human Behav 29:1626–1634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.001

Floh A, Koller M, Zauner A (2013) Taking a deeper look at online reviews: the asymmetric effect of valence intensity on shopping behavior. J Mark Manag 29:646–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.776620

Fogg BJ, Marshall J, Laraki O, et al (2001) What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. In proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Accessed 10 Jan 2021

Gao B, Hu N, Bose I (2017) Follow the herd or be myself? An analysis of consistency in behavior of reviewers and helpfulness of their reviews. Decis Support Syst 95:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.11.005

Gao Y, Gong M, Xie Y, Qin AK (2021) An attention-based unsupervised adversarial model for movie review spam detection. IEEE Trans Multimed 23:784–796. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2020.2990085

Gilly MC, Graham JL, Wolfinbarger MF, Yale LJ (1998) A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. J Acad Mark Sci 26:83–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398262001

Gutt D, Neumann J, Zimmermann S et al (2019) Design of review systems – a strategic instrument to shape online reviewing behavior and economic outcomes. J Strateg Inf Syst 28:104–117

Guzzo T, Ferri F, Grifoni P (2022) What factors make online travel reviews credible? The consumers’ credibility perception-CONCEPT model. Societies. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12020050

Gvili Y, Levy S (2016) Antecedents of attitudes toward eWOM communication: differences across channels. Internet Res 26:1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-08-2014-0201

Ha EY, Lee H (2018) Projecting service quality: the effects of social media reviews on service perception. Int J Hosp Manag 69:132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.006

Hernández Fusilier D, Montes-y-Gómez M, Rosso P, Guzmán Cabrera R (2015) Detecting positive and negative deceptive opinions using PU-learning. Inf Process Manag 51:433–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2014.11.001

Herrero Á, Martín HS (2015) How online search behavior is influenced by user-generated content on review websites and hotel interactive websites. 27:1573–1597 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0255 .

Hong S, Pittman M (2020) eWOM anatomy of online product reviews : interaction effects of review number, valence, and star ratings on perceived credibility. Int J Advert. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1703386

Hsu LC, Chih WH, Liou DK (2016) Investigating community members’ eWOM effects in Facebook fan page. Ind Manag Data Syst 116:978–1004. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0313

Hussain S, Guangju W, Jafar RMS et al (2018) Consumers’ online information adoption behavior: motives and antecedents of electronic word of mouth communications. Comput Human Behav 80:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.019

Işçi Ü, Kitapçi H (2020) Responses of Turkish consumers to product risk information in the context of negative EWOM. J Bus Econ Manag 21:1593–1609. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13383

Ismagilova E, Rana NP, Slade EL, Dwivedi YK (2020a) A meta-analysis of the factors affecting eWOM providing behaviour. Eur J Mark 55:1067–1102. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2018-0472

Ismagilova E, Slade EL, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK (2020b) The effect of electronic word of mouth communications on intention to buy: a meta-analysis. Inf Syst Front 22:1203–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09924-y

Ismagilova E, Slade E, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK (2020c) The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: a meta-analysis. J Retail Consum Serv 53:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.005

Izogo EE, Jayawardhena C, Karjaluoto H (2022) Negative eWOM and perceived credibility: a potent mix in consumer relationships. Int J Retail Distrib Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-01-2022-0039

Jha AK, Shah S (2021) Disconfirmation effect on online review credibility: an experimental analysis. Decis Support Syst 145:113519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113519

Jiménez FR, Mendoza NA (2013) Too popular to ignore : the influence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products. J Interact Mark 27:226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.04.004

Johnson TJ, Kaye BK (2016) Some like it lots: the influence of interactivity and reliance on credibility. Comput Human Behav 61:136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.012

Klaus T, Changchit C (2019) Toward an understanding of consumer attitudes on online review usage. J Comput Inf Syst 59:277–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2017.1348916

Kozinets RV (2016) Amazonian forests and trees: Multiplicity and objectivity in studies of online consumer-generated ratings and reviews, a commentary on de Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein. J Consum Res 42:834–839. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv090

Kuckertz A, Brändle L (2022) Creative reconstruction: a structured literature review of the early empirical research on the COVID-19 crisis and entrepreneurship. Manag Rev Q 72:281–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00221-0

Kusumasondjaja S, Shanka T, Marchegiani C (2012) Credibility of online reviews and initial trust: the roles of reviewer’s identity and review valence. J Vacat Mark 18:185–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766712449365

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

Lee KT, Koo DM (2012) Effects of attribute and valence of e-WOM on message adoption: moderating roles of subjective knowledge and regulatory focus. Comput Human Behav 28:1974–1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.018

Lee J, Park DH, Han I (2011) The different effects of online consumer reviews on consumers’ purchase intentions depending on trust in online shopping malls: an advertising perspective. Internet Res 21:187–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111123766

Lim Y, Van Der Heide B (2015) Evaluating the wisdom of strangers: the perceived credibility of online consumer reviews on yelp. J Comput Commun 20:67–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12093

Lin C, Wu Y-S, Chen J-CV (2013) Electronic word-of-mouth: the moderating roles of product involvement and brand image. In proceedings of 2013 international conference on technology innovation and industrial management. Accessed 14 Jan 2021

Linnenluecke MK, Marrone M, Singh AK (2020) Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Aust J Manag 45:175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678

Liu W, Ji R (2018) Examining the role of online reviews in Chinese online group buying context: the moderating effect of promotional marketing. Soc Sci 7:141–157. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080141

Lo AS, Yao SS (2018) What makes hotel online reviews credible?: An investigation of the roles of reviewer expertise, review rating consistency and review valence. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31:41–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2017-0671

Luo C, Wu J, Shi Y, Xu Y (2014) The effects of individualism-collectivism cultural orientation on eWOM information. Int J Inf Manage 34:446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.001

Luo C, Luo X, Xu Y et al (2015) Examining the moderating role of sense of membership in online review evaluations. Inf Manag 52:305–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.12.008

Majali T, Alsoud M, Yaseen H et al (2022) The effect of digital review credibility on Jordanian online purchase intention. Int J Data Netw Sci 6:973–982. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.1.014

Manganari EE, Dimara E (2017) Enhancing the impact of online hotel reviews through the use of emoticons. Behav Inf Technol 36:674–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1275807

Mariani MM, Borghi M, Kazakov S (2019) The role of language in the online evaluation of hospitality service encounters: an empirical study. Int J Hosp Manag 78:50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.11.012

Martens D, Maalej W (2019) Towards understanding and detecting fake reviews in app stores. Empir Softw Eng 24:3316–3355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09706-9

Mayzlin D, Dover Y, Chevalier J (2014) Promotional reviews: an empirical investigation of online review manipulation. Am Econom Rev 104(8):2421–2455

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:332–336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

Moran G, Muzellec L (2017) eWOM credibility on social networking sites: a framework. J Mark Commun 23:149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.969756

Mudambi SM, Schuff D, Schuff D (2010) What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on amazon. com. MIS Q 34:185–200

Mumuni AG, O’Reilly K, MacMillan A et al (2019) Online product review impact: the relative effects of review credibility and review relevance. J Int Commer 19:153–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2019.1700740

Munzel A (2016) Journal of retailing and consumer services assisting consumers in detecting fake reviews : the role of identity information disclosure and consensus. J Retail Consum Serv 32:96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.002

Nadkarni S, Prügl R (2021) Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research. Manag Rev Q 71:233–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00185-7

Neumann T (2021) The impact of entrepreneurship on economic, social and environmental welfare and its determinants: a systematic review. Manag Rev Q 71:553–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00193-7

Newell SJ, Goldsmith RE (2001) The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. J Bus Res 52:235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00104-6

Niu W, Huang L, Li X et al (2022) Beyond the review information: an investigation of individual- and group-based presentation forms of review information. Inf Technol Manag. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-022-00361-z

Okoli C (2015) A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 37:879–910. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.03743

Ott M, Cardie C, Hancock JT (2013) Negative deceptive opinion spam. NAACL HLT 2013.In: proceedings of the 2013 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies 497–501

Park DH, Lee J (2008) eWOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention depending on consumer involvement. Electron Commer Res Appl 7:386–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2007.11.004

Pee LG (2016) Negative online consumer reviews: can the impact be mitigated? Int J Mark Res 58:545–568. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2016-035

Pentina I, Basmanova O, Sun Q (2017) Message and source characteristics as drivers of mobile digital review persuasiveness: does cultural context play a role? Int J Internet Mark Advert 11:1–21

Google Scholar  

Pentina I, Bailey AA, Zhang L (2018) Exploring effects of source similarity, message valence, and receiver regulatory focus on yelp review persuasiveness and purchase intentions. J Mark Commun 24:125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2015.1005115

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D (1983) Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J Consum Res 10:135. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954

Qahri-Saremi H, Montazemi AR (2019) Factors affecting the adoption of an electronic word of mouth message: a meta-analysis. J Manag Inf Syst 36:969–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1628936

Qiu L, Pang J, Lim KH (2012) Effects of conflicting aggregated rating on eWOM review credibility and diagnosticity: the moderating role of review valence. Decis Support Syst 54:631–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.020

Ran L, Zhenpeng L, Bilgihan A, Okumus F (2021) Marketing China to U.S travelers through electronic word-of-mouth and destination image: taking Beijing as an example. J Vacat Mark. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766720987869

Reyes-Menendez A, Saura JR, Martinez-Navalon JG (2019) The Impact of e-WOM on hotels management reputation: exploring tripadvisor review credibility with the ELM model. IEEE Access 7:68868–68877. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2919030

Schiffman LG, Kanuk LL (2000) Consumer behavior, 7th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

Seghers M, De Clerck B, Lybaert C (2021) When form deviates from the norm: attitudes towards old and new vernacular features and their impact on the perceived credibility and usefulness of Facebook consumer reviews. Lang Sci 87:101413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101413

Senecal S, Nantel J (2004) The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’ online choices. J Retail 80:159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2004.04.001

Shamhuyenhanzva RM, van Tonder E, Roberts-Lombard M, Hemsworth D (2016) Factors influencing generation Y consumers’ perceptions of eWOM credibility: a study of the fast-food industry. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res 26:435–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2016.1170065

Shin E, Chung T, Damhorst ML (2020) Are negative and positive reviews regarding apparel fit influential? J Fash Mark Manag 25:63–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-02-2020-0027

Shukla A, Mishra A (2021) Effects of visual information and argument concreteness on purchase intention of consumers towards online hotel booking. Vision. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629211038069

Shukla A, Mishra A (2022) Role of review length, review valence and review credibility on consumer’s online hotel booking intention. FIIB Bus Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145221099683

Siddiqui MS, Siddiqui UA, Khan MA et al (2021) Creating electronic word of mouth credibility through social networking sites and determining its impact on brand image and online purchase intentions in India. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 16:1008–1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040057

Singh M, Kumar L S (2017) Model for detecting fake or spam reviews. In: advances in intelligent systems and computing pp 213–217. Accessed 05 Jan 2022

Smith KT (2011) Digital marketing strategies that Millennials find appealing, motivating, or just annoying. J Strateg Mark 19:489–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.581383

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Thomas MJ, Wirtz BW, Weyerer JC (2019) Determinants of online review credibility and its impact on consumers’ purchase intention. J Electron Commer Res 20:1–20

Tien DH, Amaya Rivas AA, Liao YK (2018) Examining the influence of customer-to-customer electronic word-of-mouth on purchase intention in social networking sites. Asia Pacific Manag Rev 24:238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2018.06.003

Tousignant L (2017) Robots learned how to write fake Yelp reviews like a human. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2017/08/31/robots-learned-how-to-write-fake-yelp-reviews-like-a-human/ . Accessed 10 Jan 2021

Tran VD, Can TK (2020) Factors affecting the credibility of online reviews on tiki: An assessment study in vietnam. Int J Data Netw Sci 4:115–126. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2020.2.005

Tsao WC, Hsieh MT (2015) eWOM persuasiveness: do eWOM platforms and product type matter? Electron Commer Res 15:509–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9198-z

Tseng S, Fogg BJ (1999) Credibility and computing technology. Commun ACM 42:39

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice. Q J Econ 106:1039–1061

v. Wangenheim F, Bayón T, (2004) The effect of word of mouth on services switching. Eur J Mark 38:1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410548924

Van Lohuizen AW, Trujillo-Barrera A (2019) The influence of online reviews on restaurants: the roles of review valence, platform, and credibility. J Agric Food Ind Organ. https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2018-0020

Vendemia MA (2017) (Re)viewing reviews: effects of emotionality and valence on credibility perceptions in online consumer reviews. Commun Res Reports 34:230–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1286470

Verma D, Dewani PP (2020) eWOM credibility: a comprehensive framework and literature review. Online Inf Rev 45:481–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2020-0263

Walter AT (2021) Organizational agility: ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualization. Manag Rev Q 71:343–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00186-6

Wang Y, Chan SCF, Ngai G, Leong HV (2013) Quantifying reviewer credibility in online tourism. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8055:381–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40285-2_33

Wang X, Xu F, Luo X, (Robert), Peng L, (2022) Effect of sponsorship disclosure on online consumer responses to positive reviews: the moderating role of emotional intensity and tie strength. Decis Support Syst 156:113741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2022.113741

Weisfeld-Spolter S, Sussan F, Gould S (2014) An integrative approach to eWOM and marketing communications. Corp Commun 19:260–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2013-0015

Wu K, Noorian Z, Vassileva J, Adaji I (2015) How buyers perceive the credibility of advisors in online marketplace: review balance, review count and misattribution. J Trust Manag. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40493-015-0013-5

Xia M, Huang Y, Duan W, Whinston AB (2009) Ballot box communication in online communities. Commun ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1562164.1562199

Xiang Z, Du Q, Ma Y, Fan W (2017) A comparative analysis of major online review platforms: implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism. Tour Manag 58:51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.001

Xu Q (2014) Should i trust him? the effects of reviewer profile characteristics on eWOM credibility. Comput Human Behav 33:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.027

Xue F, Zhou P (2010) The effects of product involvement and prior experience on chinese consumers’ responses to online word of mouth. J Int Consum Mark 23:45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2011.524576

Yan L, Hua C (2021) Which reviewers are honest and caring? The effect of constructive and prosocial information on the perceived credibility of online reviews. Int J Hosp Manag 99:102990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102990

Yan Q, Wu S, Wang L et al (2016) E-WOM from e-commerce websites and social media: which will consumers adopt? Electron Commer Res Appl 17:62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2016.03.004

Yang J, Mai ES (2010) Experiential goods with network externalities effects: an empirical study of online rating system. J Bus Res 63:1050–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.029

Yao Y, Viswanath B, Cryan J et al (2017) Automated crowdturfing attacks and defenses in online review systems. Proc ACM Conf Comput Commun Secur. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3133990

You Y, Vadakkepatt GG, Joshi AM (2015) A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-mouth elasticity. J Mark 79:19–39. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0169

Zha X, Li J, Yan Y (2015) Advertising value and credibility transfer: attitude towards web advertising and online information acquisition. Behav Inf Technol 34:520–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.978380

Zhang X, Wu Y, Wang W (2020) eWOM, what are we suspecting? Motivation, truthfulness or identity. J Inform, Commun Ethics Soc. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-12-2019-0135

Zheng L (2021) The classification of online consumer reviews: a systematic literature review and integrative framework. J Bus Res 135:226–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.038

Download references

Open access funding provided by Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Manipal Institute of Management, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

T A Pai Management Institute, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

Pallavi Upadhyaya

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PK: Writing—Original Draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation. PU: Conceptualization; Validation, Data Curation, Writing—Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pallavi Upadhyaya .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pooja, K., Upadhyaya, P. What makes an online review credible? A systematic review of the literature and future research directions. Manag Rev Q 74 , 627–659 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00312-6

Download citation

Received : 01 March 2022

Accepted : 21 November 2022

Published : 05 December 2022

Issue Date : June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00312-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Review credibility
• Systematic literature review
• Online review
• eWOM credibility

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Special Issues
• Supplements
• Virtual Collection
• Online Only Articles
• International Spotlight
• Free Editor's Choice
• Free Feature Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Calls for Papers
• Why Submit to the GSA Portfolio?
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Advertising
• Reprints and ePrints
• Sponsored Supplements
• Journals Career Network
• About The Gerontologist
• About The Gerontological Society of America
• Editorial Board
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• GSA Journals
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Review Articles and Measurement Articles

The Gerontologist has launched a new policy welcoming submissions using sophisticated scale development procedures and/or literature reviews for consideration for publication. Articles will go through our usual peer review and editing processes. They will receive a DOI, be searchable, and will be available electronically.

Review Articles

Measurement Articles

• Recommend to Your Librarian

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1758-5341
• Copyright © 2024 The Gerontological Society of America
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Online Review

Issue(s) available: 86 – From Volume: 1 Issue: 1 , to Volume: 16 Issue: 6

• Issue 6 1992
• Issue 5 1992
• Issue 4 1992
• Issue 3 1992
• Issue 2 1992
• Issue 1 1992
• Issue 6 1991
• Issue 5 1991
• Issue 3/4 1991
• Issue 2 1991
• Issue 1 1991
• Issue 6 1990
• Issue 5 1990
• Issue 4 1990
• Issue 3 1990
• Issue 2 1990
• Issue 1 1990
• Issue 6 1989
• Issue 5 1989
• Issue 4 1989
• Issue 3 1989
• Issue 2 1989
• Issue 1 1989
• Issue 6 1988
• Issue 5 1988
• Issue 4 1988
• Issue 3 1988
• Issue 2 1988
• Issue 1 1988
• Issue 6 1987
• Issue 5 1987
• Issue 3 1987
• Issue 2 1987
• Issue 1 1987
• Issue 6 1986
• Issue 5 1986
• Issue 4 1986
• Issue 3 1986
• Issue 2 1986
• Issue 1 1986
• Issue 6 1985
• Issue 5 1985
• Issue 4 1985
• Issue 3 1985
• Issue 2 1985
• Issue 1 1985
• Issue 6 1984
• Issue 5 1984
• Issue 4 1984
• Issue 3 1984
• Issue 2 1984
• Issue 1 1984
• Issue 6 1983
• Issue 5 1983
• Issue 4 1983
• Issue 3 1983
• Issue 2 1983
• Issue 1 1983
• Issue 6 1982
• Issue 5 1982
• Issue 4 1982
• Issue 3 1982
• Issue 2 1982
• Issue 1 1982
• Issue 6 1981
• Issue 5 1981
• Issue 4 1981
• Issue 3 1981
• Issue 2 1981
• Issue 1 1981
• Issue 4 1980
• Issue 3 1980
• Issue 2 1980
• Issue 1 1980
• Issue 4 1979
• Issue 3 1979
• Issue 2 1979
• Issue 1 1979
• Issue 4 1978
• Issue 3 1978
• Issue 2 1978
• Issue 1 1978
• Issue 4 1977
• Issue 3 1977
• Issue 2 1977
• Issue 1 1977

Renamed to:

Online date, start – end:, copyright holder:.

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Online Information Review

• Submit your paper
• Author guidelines
• Editorial team
• Indexing & metrics
• Calls for papers & news

Before you start

For queries relating to the status of your paper pre decision, please contact the Editor or Journal Editorial Office. For queries post acceptance, please contact the Supplier Project Manager. These details can be found in the Editorial Team section.

Author responsibilities

Our goal is to provide you with a professional and courteous experience at each stage of the review and publication process. There are also some responsibilities that sit with you as the author. Our expectation is that you will:

• Respond swiftly to any queries during the publication process.
• Be accountable for all aspects of your work. This includes investigating and resolving any questions about accuracy or research integrity .
• Treat communications between you and the journal editor as confidential until an editorial decision has been made.
• Include anyone who has made a substantial and meaningful contribution to the submission (anyone else involved in the paper should be listed in the acknowledgements).
• Exclude anyone who hasn’t contributed to the paper, or who has chosen not to be associated with the research.
• In accordance with COPE’s position statement on AI tools , Large Language Models cannot be credited with authorship as they are incapable of conceptualising a research design without human direction and cannot be accountable for the integrity, originality, and validity of the published work. The author(s) must describe the content created or modified as well as appropriately cite the name and version of the AI tool used; any additional works drawn on by the AI tool should also be appropriately cited and referenced. Standard tools that are used to improve spelling and grammar are not included within the parameters of this guidance. The Editor and Publisher reserve the right to determine whether the use of an AI tool is permissible.
• If your article involves human participants, you must ensure you have considered whether or not you require ethical approval for your research, and include this information as part of your submission. Find out more about informed consent .

Generative AI usage key principles

• Copywriting any part of an article using a generative AI tool/LLM would not be permissible, including the generation of the abstract or the literature review, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The generation or reporting of results using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the creation and interpretation of their work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The in-text reporting of statistics using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible due to concerns over the authenticity, integrity, and validity of the data produced, although the use of such a tool to aid in the analysis of the work would be permissible.
• Copy-editing an article using a generative AI tool/LLM in order to improve its language and readability would be permissible as this mirrors standard tools already employed to improve spelling and grammar, and uses existing author-created material, rather than generating wholly new content, while the author(s) remains responsible for the original work.
• The submission and publication of images created by AI tools or large-scale generative models is not permitted.

Research and publishing ethics

Our editors and employees work hard to ensure the content we publish is ethically sound. To help us achieve that goal, we closely follow the advice laid out in the guidelines and flowcharts on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) website .

We have also developed our research and publishing ethics guidelines . If you haven’t already read these, we urge you to do so – they will help you avoid the most common publishing ethics issues.

A few key points:

• Any manuscript you submit to this journal should be original. That means it should not have been published before in its current, or similar, form. Exceptions to this rule are outlined in our pre-print and conference paper policies .  If any substantial element of your paper has been previously published, you need to declare this to the journal editor upon submission. Please note, the journal editor may use  Crossref Similarity Check  to check on the originality of submissions received. This service compares submissions against a database of 49 million works from 800 scholarly publishers.
• Your work should not have been submitted elsewhere and should not be under consideration by any other publication.
• If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it upon submission; this allows the editor to decide how they would like to proceed. Read about conflict of interest in our research and publishing ethics guidelines .
• By submitting your work to Emerald, you are guaranteeing that the work is not in infringement of any existing copyright.

Third party copyright permissions

Prior to article submission, you need to ensure you’ve applied for, and received, written permission to use any material in your manuscript that has been created by a third party. Please note, we are unable to publish any article that still has permissions pending. The rights we require are:

• Non-exclusive rights to reproduce the material in the article or book chapter.
• Print and electronic rights.
• Worldwide English-language rights.
• To use the material for the life of the work. That means there should be no time restrictions on its re-use e.g. a one-year licence.

We are a member of the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) and participate in the STM permissions guidelines , a reciprocal free exchange of material with other STM publishers.  In some cases, this may mean that you don’t need permission to re-use content. If so, please highlight this at the submission stage.

Please take a few moments to read our guide to publishing permissions  to ensure you have met all the requirements, so that we can process your submission without delay.

Open access submissions and information

All our journals currently offer two open access (OA) publishing paths; gold open access and green open access.

If you would like to, or are required to, make the branded publisher PDF (also known as the version of record) freely available immediately upon publication, you can select the gold open access route once your paper is accepted. 

If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge) . This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.

Alternatively, if you would like to, or are required to, publish open access but your funding doesn’t cover the cost of the APC, you can choose the green open access, or self-archiving, route. As soon as your article is published, you can make the author accepted manuscript (the version accepted for publication) openly available, free from payment and embargo periods.

You can find out more about our open access routes, our APCs and waivers and read our FAQs on our open research page. 

Find out about open

Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines

We are a signatory of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines , a framework that supports the reproducibility of research through the adoption of transparent research practices. That means we encourage you to:

• Cite and fully reference all data, program code, and other methods in your article.
• Include persistent identifiers, such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), in references for datasets and program codes. Persistent identifiers ensure future access to unique published digital objects, such as a piece of text or datasets. Persistent identifiers are assigned to datasets by digital archives, such as institutional repositories and partners in the Data Preservation Alliance for the Social Sciences (Data-PASS).
• Follow appropriate international and national procedures with respect to data protection, rights to privacy and other ethical considerations, whenever you cite data. For further guidance please refer to our  research and publishing ethics guidelines . For an example on how to cite datasets, please refer to the references section below.

Prepare your submission

Manuscript support services.

We are pleased to partner with Editage, a platform that connects you with relevant experts in language support, translation, editing, visuals, consulting, and more. After you’ve agreed a fee, they will work with you to enhance your manuscript and get it submission-ready.

This is an optional service for authors who feel they need a little extra support. It does not guarantee your work will be accepted for review or publication.

Visit Editage

Manuscript requirements

Before you submit your manuscript, it’s important you read and follow the guidelines below. You will also find some useful tips in our structure your journal submission how-to guide.

Submit your manuscript

There are a number of key steps you should follow to ensure a smooth and trouble-free submission.

Double check your manuscript

Before submitting your work, it is your responsibility to check that the manuscript is complete, grammatically correct, and without spelling or typographical errors. A few other important points:

• Give the journal aims and scope a final read. Is your manuscript definitely a good fit? If it isn’t, the editor may decline it without peer review.
• Does your manuscript comply with our research and publishing ethics guidelines ?
• Have you cleared any necessary publishing permissions ?
• Have you followed all the formatting requirements laid out in these author guidelines?
• If you need to refer to your own work, use wording such as ‘previous research has demonstrated’ not ‘our previous research has demonstrated’.
• If you need to refer to your own, currently unpublished work, don’t include this work in the reference list.
• Any acknowledgments or author biographies should be uploaded as separate files.
• Carry out a final check to ensure that no author names appear anywhere in the manuscript. This includes in figures or captions.

You will find a helpful submission checklist on the website Think.Check.Submit .

Consider sharing your data

If you would like to offer readers the opportunity to access the analytical code and data underlying your research findings, the first step is to select an appropriate research data repository to upload it to. This might be one run by your own institution, or it could be a third-party platform such as Dryad ,  Figshare ,  Open Science Framework ,  Zenodo ,  UK Data Service ReShare ,  OpenICPSR , or  Qualitative Data Repository . The repositories will provide you with a citable DOI (Digital Object Identifier) which should be included in your submission. Further repositories can be found on the Registry of Research Data Repositories ( Re3Data ).

A few important points

• In the acknowledgments or first footnote of your paper, you must state whether or not your data, analytic methods, and study materials will be shared with other researchers.
• If you have decided to share them, you must specify where the material can be accessed.
• Emerald encourages responsible data sharing ; if your dataset contains information that an organisation might consider confidential, or it identifies an individual or company and you don’t have their consent, please liaise with your institution before uploading the data. In addition, if your dataset could be considered the property of someone else, you will need their permission before uploading it to a public repository.

Why share your data?

Sharing of research data brings a number of benefits. It can:

• Reduce duplication of data collection and processing efforts
• Increase the impact (citations) of your research
• Aid new research
• Increase the credibility of the findings
• Enable research to be reproduced

Maximise the impact of your research by following best practices when sharing data , for example, compile a data dictionary listing the variables involved.

The submission process

All manuscripts should be submitted through our editorial system by the corresponding author.

The only way to submit to the journal is through the journal’s ScholarOne site as accessed via the Emerald website, and not by email or through any third-party agent/company, journal representative, or website. Submissions should be done directly by the author(s) through the ScholarOne site and not via a third-party proxy on their behalf.

A separate author account is required for each journal you submit to. If this is your first time submitting to this journal, please choose the Create an account or Register now option in the editorial system. If you already have an Emerald login, you are welcome to reuse the existing username and password here.

Please note, the next time you log into the system, you will be asked for your username. This will be the email address you entered when you set up your account.

Don't forget to add your  ORCiD ID during the submission process. It will be embedded in your published article, along with a link to the ORCiD registry allowing others to easily match you with your work.

Don’t have one yet? It only takes a few moments to register for a free ORCiD identifier .

Visit the ScholarOne support centre  for further help and guidance.

What you can expect next

You will receive an automated email from the journal editor, confirming your successful submission. It will provide you with a manuscript number, which will be used in all future correspondence about your submission. If you have any reason to suspect the confirmation email you receive might be fraudulent, please contact the journal editor in the first instance.

Post submission

Review and decision process.

Each submission is checked by the editor. At this stage, they may choose to decline or unsubmit your manuscript if it doesn’t fit the journal aims and scope, or they feel the language/manuscript quality is too low.

If they think it might be suitable for the publication, they will send it to at least two independent referees for double anonymous peer review.  Once these reviewers have provided their feedback, the editor may decide to accept your manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or decline your work.

While all journals work to different timescales, the goal is that the editor will inform you of their first decision within 60 days.

During this period, we will send you automated updates on the progress of your manuscript via our submission system, or you can log in to check on the current status of your paper.  Each time we contact you, we will quote the manuscript number you were given at the point of submission. If you receive an email that does not match these criteria, it could be fraudulent and we recommend you contact the journal editor in the first instance.

Manuscript transfer service

Emerald’s manuscript transfer service takes the pain out of the submission process if your manuscript doesn’t fit your initial journal choice. Our team of expert Editors from participating journals work together to identify alternative journals that better align with your research, ensuring your work finds the ideal publication home it deserves. Our dedicated team is committed to supporting authors like you in finding the right home for your research.

If a journal is participating in the manuscript transfer program, the Editor has the option to recommend your paper for transfer. If a transfer decision is made by the Editor, you will receive an email with the details of the recommended journal and the option to accept or reject the transfer. It’s always down to you as the author to decide if you’d like to accept. If you do accept, your paper and any reviewer reports will automatically be transferred to the recommended journals. Authors will then confirm resubmissions in the new journal’s ScholarOne system.

Our Manuscript Transfer Service page has more information on the process.

If your submission is accepted

Open access.

Once your paper is accepted, you will have the opportunity to indicate whether you would like to publish your paper via the gold open access route.

If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge).  This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.

For UK journal article authors - if you wish to submit your work accepted by Emerald to REF 2021, you must make a ‘closed deposit’ of your accepted manuscript to your respective institutional repository upon acceptance of your article. Articles accepted for publication after 1st April 2018 should be deposited as soon as possible, but no later than three months after the acceptance date. For further information and guidance, please refer to the REF 2021 website.

All accepted authors are sent an email with a link to a licence form.  This should be checked for accuracy, for example whether contact and affiliation details are up to date and your name is spelled correctly, and then returned to us electronically. If there is a reason why you can’t assign copyright to us, you should discuss this with your journal content editor. You will find their contact details on the editorial team section above.

Proofing and typesetting

Once we have received your completed licence form, the article will pass directly into the production process. We will carry out editorial checks, copyediting, and typesetting and then return proofs to you (if you are the corresponding author) for your review. This is your opportunity to correct any typographical errors, grammatical errors or incorrect author details. We can’t accept requests to rewrite texts at this stage.

When the page proofs are finalised, the fully typeset and proofed version of record is published online. This is referred to as the EarlyCite version. While an EarlyCite article has yet to be assigned to a volume or issue, it does have a digital object identifier (DOI) and is fully citable. It will be compiled into an issue according to the journal’s issue schedule, with papers being added by chronological date of publication.

How to share your paper

Visit our author rights page  to find out how you can reuse and share your work.

To find tips on increasing the visibility of your published paper, read about  how to promote your work .

Correcting inaccuracies in your published paper

Sometimes errors are made during the research, writing and publishing processes. When these issues arise, we have the option of withdrawing the paper or introducing a correction notice. Find out more about our  article withdrawal and correction policies .

Need to make a change to the author list? See our frequently asked questions (FAQs) below.

Frequently asked questions

Editor-in-Chief

• Professor Eugenia Siapera Head, School of Information and Communication Studies, University College Dublin - Ireland [email protected]

Associate Editors

• Professor Dan-Andrei Sitar-Taut Babeș-Bolyai University - Romania [email protected]
• Assistant Professor Venkata Ratnadeep Suri Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi - India [email protected]
• Professor Andreas Veglis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki - Greece [email protected]
• Professor Jin Zhang University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee - USA [email protected]

Editorial Assistant

• Dr Andrew Browne University College Dublin - Ireland

Commissioning Editor

• Charlotte Eagles Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Journal Editorial Office (For queries related to pre-acceptance)

• Poonam Sawant Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Supplier Project Manager (For queries related to post-acceptance)

• Lalita Shree Lakshmanamoorthy Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Editorial Advisory Board

• Professor Hing Kai Chan University of Nottingham Ningbo China - People's Republic of China
• Dr Hsin-Liang (Oliver) Chen Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine - USA
• Professor Helen S Du Guangdong University of Technology - People's Republic of China
• Dr Jia Tina Du University of South Australia - Australia
• Professor Ina Fourie Professor, Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria - South Africa
• Dr. Manuel Goyanes University Carlos III of Madrid - Spain
• Professor Jutta Haider Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås - Sweden
• Professor Bruce Chien-Ta Ho National Chung Hsing University - Taiwan
• Dr Orland Hoeber University of Regina - Canada
• Professor Andreas Holzinger Graz University of Technology and Medical University Graz - Austria
• Professor Hong Huang University of South Florida - USA
• Dr Chei Sian Lee Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
• Professor Kun Chang Lee Sungkyunkwan University - Korea
• Professor Dirk Lewandowski Hamburg University of Applied Sciences - Germany
• Dr Ying-Hsang Liu University of Southern Denmark - Denmark
• Dr Yanqin Lu Bowling Green State University - USA
• Professor Michele Notari Bern University of Teacher Education - Switzerland
• Professor Keng-Boon Ooi UCSI University - Malaysia
• Professor Isabella Peters Leibniz Information Centre for Economics - Germany
• Professor Jennifer Rowley Manchester Metropolitan University - UK
• Dr Carla Ruiz Mafé University of Valencia - Spain
• Professor Silvia Schiaffino ISISTAN - CONICET - Argentina
• Professor Donghee Shin Texas Tech University - USA
• Professor Alan D Smith Robert Morris University - USA
• Dr. Alejandro Sposato Zayed University - United Arab Emirates
• Dr David Stuart University of St Andrews - UK, and University of Wolverhampton - UK
• Assistant Professor Venkata Ratnadeep Suri Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi - India
• Dr Geoff Walton Manchester Metropolitan University - UK
• Professor Melius Weideman Cape Peninsula University of Technology - South Africa
• Dr Yejun Wu School of Library and Information Science, Louisiana State University - USA
• Professor Chengzhi Zhang Nanjing University of Science and Technology - People's Republic of China

CiteScore 2023

Further information

CiteScore is a simple way of measuring the citation impact of sources, such as journals.

Calculating the CiteScore is based on the number of citations to documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, book chapters, and data papers) by a journal over four years, divided by the number of the same document types indexed in Scopus and published in those same four years.

For more information and methodology visit the Scopus definition

CiteScore Tracker 2024

(updated monthly)

CiteScore Tracker is calculated in the same way as CiteScore, but for the current year rather than previous, complete years.

The CiteScore Tracker calculation is updated every month, as a current indication of a title's performance.

2023 Impact Factor

The Journal Impact Factor is published each year by Clarivate Analytics. It is a measure of the number of times an average paper in a particular journal is cited during the preceding two years.

For more information and methodology see Clarivate Analytics

5-year Impact Factor (2023)

A base of five years may be more appropriate for journals in certain fields because the body of citations may not be large enough to make reasonable comparisons, or it may take longer than two years to publish and distribute leading to a longer period before others cite the work.

Actual value is intentionally only displayed for the most recent year. Earlier values are available in the Journal Citation Reports from Clarivate Analytics .

Time to first decision

Time to first decision , expressed in days, the "first decision" occurs when the journal’s editorial team reviews the peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Based on this feedback, they decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript.

Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024

Acceptance rate

The acceptance rate is a measurement of how many manuscripts a journal accepts for publication compared to the total number of manuscripts submitted expressed as a percentage %

Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024 .

This journal is abstracted and indexed by

• Social Sciences Citation Index
• BFI (Denmark)
• The Publication Forum (Finland)
• Anvur (Italy) Category A
• Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List
• The Chartered Association of Business Schools' Academic Journal Guide (1)
• ABI/Inform Complete
• ABI/Inform Global
• ABI/Inform Professional Advanced
• ABI/Inform Professional Standard
• Academic Research Library
• Academic Search Alumni Edition
• Academic Search Complete
• Academic Search Premier
• CompuMath Citation Index
• Computer Science Index
• Computers & Applied Sciences Complete
• Current Abstracts
• dblp Computer Science Bibliography
• Education Full Texts;
• Education Research Complete
• EI Compendex;ERIC
• Information Science & Technology Abstracts
• INSPEC (Electrical & Electronics Abstracts)
• Library and Information Science Abstracts
• Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts
• Library Literature and Information Science Full Text
• Library Literature and Information Science

This journal is ranked by

• Internet and Personal Computing Abstracts
• OmniFile Full Text Mega
• OmniFile Full Text Select
• Platinum Periodicals
• Professional ABI/Inform Complete
• Professional ProQuest Central
• ProQuest Advanced Technologies and Advanced Aerospace Collection
• ProQuest Central
• ProQuest Curriculum Essentials
• ProQuest Computer Science Collection
• ProQuest Education Journals
• ProQuest Library Science
• ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source
• ProQuest Pharma Collection
• ProQuest Sci Tech Journals
• ProQuest Technology Journals
• Readcube Discover
• Research Library

Reviewer information

Peer review process.

This journal engages in a double-anonymous peer review process, which strives to match the expertise of a reviewer with the submitted manuscript. Reviews are completed with evidence of thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, provide constructive feedback, and add value to the overall knowledge and information presented in the manuscript.

The mission of the peer review process is to achieve excellence and rigour in scholarly publications and research.

Our vision is to give voice to professionals in the subject area who contribute unique and diverse scholarly perspectives to the field.

The journal values diverse perspectives from the field and reviewers who provide critical, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors. Reviewers come from a variety of organizations, careers, and backgrounds from around the world.

All invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to other reviewers’ “comments to author” which are shared with you on decision.

Resources to guide you through the review process

Discover practical tips and guidance on all aspects of peer review in our reviewers' section. See how being a reviewer could benefit your career, and discover what's involved in shaping a review.

More reviewer information

Thank you to the 2022 Reviewers

The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2022 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...

Thank you to the 2021 Reviewers

The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2021 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...

2020 Reviewers for Online Information Review

Thank you to our 2020 peer reviewers The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2020&n...

Online Information Review is devoted to research in the broad field of digital information and communication, and related technologies.

Aims and scope

The journal provides a multi-disciplinary forum for scholars from a range of fields, including information studies/iSchools, data studies, internet studies, media and communication studies and information systems.

Publishes research on the social, political and ethical aspects of emergent digital information practices and platforms, and welcomes submissions that draw upon critical and socio-technical perspectives in order to address these developments. 

Welcomes empirical, conceptual and methodological contributions on any topics relevant to the broad field of digital information and communication, however, we are particularly interested in receiving submissions that address emerging issues around the below topics.

Coverage includes (but is not limited to):

• Online communities, social networking and social media, including online political communication; crowdsourcing; positive computing and well-being.
• The social drivers and implications of emerging data practices, including open data; big data; data journeys and flows; and research data management.
• Digital transformations including organisations’ use of information technologies (e.g. Internet of Things and digitisation of user experience) to improve economic and social welfare, health and wellbeing, and protect the environment.
• Developments in digital scholarship and the production and use of scholarly content.
• Online and digital research methods, including their ethical aspects

Latest articles

These are the latest articles published in this journal (Last updated: May 2024 )

Investigating users' discontinuous usage intention toward social networking sites: The roles of motivation and affectivity

The meta-commerce paradox: exploring consumer non-adoption intentions, what facilitates users' compliance willingness to health information in online health communities: a subjective norms perspective, top downloaded articles.

These are the most downloaded articles over the last 12 months for this journal (Last updated: May 2024 )

The utilitarian and hedonic value of immersive experiences on WeChat: examining a dual mediation path leading to users' stickiness and the role of social norms

Framework for using online social networks for sustainability awareness, the emergence of preprints: comparing publishing behaviour in the global south and the global north.

These are the top cited articles for this journal, from the last 12 months according to Crossref (Last updated: May 2024 )

What motivates people to counter misinformation on social media? Unpacking the roles of perceived consequences, third-person perception, and social media use

Transforming entrepreneurial research: leveraging library research services and technology innovations for rapid information discovery, understanding health misinformation sharing among the middle-aged or above in china: roles of social media health information seeking, misperceptions, and information processing predispositions.

This journal is aligned with our quality education for all goal

We believe in quality education for everyone, everywhere and by highlighting the issue and working with experts in the field, we can start to find ways we can all be part of the solution.

Related journals

This journal is part of our Library & information sciences collection. Explore our Library & information sciences subject area to find out more.  

See all related journals

Library Management

Library Management publishes articles of interest to senior library managers and academics

Reference Services Review

Reference Services Review is dedicated to the enrichment and advancement of reference knowledge and the improvement of...

Performance Measurement and Metrics

Performance Measurement and Metrics is a leading double-blind refereed, international journal, charting new developments...

• Overall Rating
• Pros and Cons

About Discover Bank

• Personal Bank Accounts
• Credit Cards

How Discover Bank Compares

Discover bank review 2024.

Affiliate links for the products on this page are from partners that compensate us and terms apply to offers listed (see our advertiser disclosure with our list of partners for more details). However, our opinions are our own. See how we rate banking products to write unbiased product reviews.

Discover Bank: Overall Rating

Discover Bank: Pros and Cons

Online-Only Banking Experience

Discover Bank offers online-only products and services. You won't be able to visit a physical branch to open a bank account or speak to a banker in person, so you have to be content with a predominantly online and mobile banking experience.

You have access to a debit card with both the checking and money market account . You can use 60,000 ATMs for free, but unlike some competitors, Discover doesn't reimburse any fees charged by out-of-network ATM providers.

At Discover Bank, you'll still be able to deposit cash at Walmart locations, but it might not be as convenient as heading to a branch from a national brick-and-mortar bank.

Your Discover Bank account is insured by the FDIC for up to $250,000 or up to $500,000 for a joint account.

What You Need to Know About Discover Banking

If you value more simplified banking, Discover Bank will appeal to you. It offers one checking account, one high-yield savings account, and one money market account. For CDs, you'll be able to choose from traditional CDs or IRA CDs .

Other banks might have more checking and savings account options, but that can also make the fee structure complex.

You can also find both online banks and brick-and-mortar banks with specialty CDs, like no-penalty CDs or bump-up CDs . Discover doesn't have any specialty CDs, so that may be a downside if this is important to you.

Discover Bank Digital Experience and App Usability

Discover's mobile banking app is for banking, loan, and credit card customers. You can use the app to view your transaction history, make credit card and loan payments, redeem credit card rewards, make mobile check deposits, find ATMs, and send secure messages. These are standard mobile banking features that you'll find among the best banks .

Discover's website is easy to navigate, and its mobile app has received 4.5 out of 5 stars in the Google Play store and 4.8 stars in the Apple store.

Discover Bank Customer Support Availability and Satisfaction

You can chat 24/7 with a Discover Bank live customer service representative. Discover also provides 24/7 customer service over the phone.

According to the J.D. Power 2024 U.S. Direct Banking Satisfaction Study , Discover ranked below the segment average in overall customer satisfaction for checking account providers among online banks. That said, the same study also showed that the bank ranked 18 points above the segment average in overall customer satisfaction for savings account providers among online banks.

Discover Fees, Rates, and Financial Benefits

Understanding Discover's Fee Structure

Similar to other online banks, Discover does not charge most common bank fees . When you get a bank account, you won't have to worry about monthly service fees and insufficient funds fees. The bank also doesn't charge for official bank checks, expedited delivery on replacement debit cards, or check reorders.

There is a $30 outgoing wire transfer fee, but there isn't a fee for receiving a domestic or international wire transfer in U.S. dollars. If you receive an international wire transfer in a foreign currency, there's a $20 currency exchange charge.

Discover Savings, Money Market, and CD Rates and How They Compare

Discover savings, money market, and CD rates are all more competitive than average bank account interest rates and similar to what you'd find at other national online banks like Ally or Capital One.

Some smaller financial institutions have more competitive interest rates on bank accounts. However, keep in mind that there are a couple of notable distinctions between banking with a local bank versus a national brand. For example, smaller banks tend to have fewer hours of customer support availability and weaker mobile apps.

Discover Trustworthiness and BBB Rating

Discover Bank has received an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau. A strong BBB rating signifies the company is transparent in how it handles business, responds effectively to customer complaints, and is honest in its advertising.

Some other big-name banks — think Bank of America , Wells Fargo, and Chase — have faced public scrutiny in the past few years for issues like discriminatory lending, fake accounts, and wrongful trading. Discover Bank hasn't had any major scandals in recent years, though.

Discover Bank FAQs

Discover offers many services including bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, student loans, and personal loans. For banking, you'll be able to get an online-only checking account, high-yield savings account, money market account, or CDs.

There are a few fees associated with Discover Bank accounts. If you use an out-of-network ATM, Discover won't charge you a fee, but it won't reimburse you if the outside provider charges you. Discover also charges a fee for sending outgoing wire transfers or receiving an international wire transfer in a foreign currency. Discover Bank accounts do not have monthly service fees and insufficient funds fees.

You can contact Discover Bank customer service by calling or sending a message through Discover mobile banking. Customer support is available 24/7.

The pros of banking with Discover Bank include strong mobile banking, competitive bank interest rates, and minimal common bank fees. The cons of banking with Discover Bank include no physical branch presence, no specialty CDs, and no brokerage accounts.

Discover Personal Bank Accounts Review

Discover cashback debit account.

Earn cash back rewards with no fees. Start earning 1% cash back today (see website for details).

no monthly service fee

• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Earn up to 1% cash back on up to $3,000 in purchases per month (See website for details)
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. No monthly service fee
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Over 60,000 in-network ATMs
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Get paid early with direct deposit through Early Pay
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Enroll in free overdraft protection
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Debit card can only be used in the US, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Only 1 branch location
• Earn 1% cash back on up on up to $3,000 per month in eligible debit card purchases (See website for details)
• 100% US-based customer service available 24/7
• No opening deposit or minimum account balance
• No monthly maintenance fees
• Over 60,000 in-network ATMs
• FDIC insured

It isn't very common to find a debit card that offers cash back rewards, but Discover lets you earn 1% cash back on up to $3,000 of purchases per month on the Discover® Cashback Debit Account (see website for details). There are also no monthly service fees with Discover. If you enroll in overdraft protection that links your checking to another Discover account, so this can be a great low-cost checking account.

You have access to 60,000 ATM locations with Discover, but the bank doesn't reimburse any out-of-network ATM fees charged by ATM providers.

Discover Bank Online Savings Account

Earn 4.25% Annual Percentage Yield (APY). $0 minimum deposit. FDIC Insured.

4.25% (as of 3/14/24)

• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Competitive APY
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. No opening deposit
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. No insufficient funds fee
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. No excess withdrawal fee
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. No debit card unless you open a checking account

The best high-yield savings accounts offer competitive interest rates and low fees, and the Discover Online Savings Account comes with both. The minimum opening deposit might be especially attractive to new savers who don't meet the higher initial deposits some banks require.

• No monthly balance requirements
• No hidden fees
• Interest compounded daily, paid monthly

The Discover® Online Savings Account is a worthwhile option for a no-fee savings account. There's no monthly service charge and no insufficient funds charge. The Discover savings rate is competitive, and it doesn't require an initial deposit to open the account.

Discover CDs

2.00% to 4.70%

• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Terms up to 10 years
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. $2,500 opening deposit
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. High early withdrawal penalties for longer terms
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Doesn't offer no-penalty CDs

You may find CDs from Discover Bank appealing if you'd like a competitive CD rate and have a minimum of $2,500.

• Terms ranging from 3 months to 10 years
• Early withdrawal penalties ranging from 3 months to 24 months interest

Discover CDs offer a wider range of terms than many competitors — most offer terms up to 5 years, but Discover also has 7-year and 10-year terms. However, it doesn't offer any unique types of CDs, like no-penalty CDs.

Discover pays competitive rates on CDs, but you'll need $2,500 to open a Discover® CD . While this is lower than some banks' requirements, plenty of online banks require significantly less.

Discover Money Market Account

4.00% to 4.05%

• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Paper checks and debit card
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. No excess transactions fee
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. 60,000 ATMS
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Need $100,000 to earn highest APY
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. No out-of-network ATM fee reimbursements
• Compounding interest to maximize your earnings
• 100% US-based customer service 24/7
• 60,000 ATMs nationwide

The Discover® Money Market Account gives you easy access to your money with a debit card and paper checks. You'll earn 4.00% APY (Annual Percentage Yield) if you have an account balance under $100,000. If you have an account balance of $100,000 and over, the rate increases to 4.05% APY.

You'll need at least $2,500 to open an account, though. Discover has 60,000 free ATMs, but it doesn't reimburse any out-of-network fees charged by ATM providers.

Discover Credit Cards Review

Discover offers an array of credit cards for different types of spenders, and Discover credit cards don't charge annual fees.

• Discover it® Miles
• Discover it® Chrome
• Discover it® Cash Back
• Discover it® Student Chrome
• Discover it® Student Cash Back
• Discover it® Secured Credit Card

See Business Insider's best Discover credit cards .

Discover Loans Review

Discover also has personal loans, home loans, and student loans. Discover is no longer accepting new student loan applications. If you submitted a Discover student loan application before January 31, 2024, it is being processed as normal.

• Discover Personal Loans
• Discover Home Loans
• Discover Undergraduate Student Loans and Discover Graduate Student Loans (Discover is not currently accepting new student loan applications)

Discover Bank vs. Capital One Bank

If you're searching for a variety of CD options, you might prefer Discover to Capital One Bank. Discover has CD terms up to 10 years.

If you don't have a lot of money to deposit into a CD, Capital One may be more suitable. With Discover, you'll need to deposit at least $2,500 into a CD. Capital One doesn't require a minimum opening deposit, though.

Capital One Bank Review

Discover Bank vs. Ally Bank

You might prefer Discover if you want a rewards checking account. Ally offers a good checking account, but it doesn't have a cash-back debit card like Discover does.

If you don't have a lot of money to deposit into a CD, Ally Bank may be more appealing. With Discover, you'll need to deposit at least $2,500 into a CD. Ally doesn't require a minimum opening deposit, though.

Ally also might be the strongest contender if you're planning to get a money market account. Ally lets you open an account with $0 while Discover's money market account requires a minimum of $2,500 or more.

Ally Bank Review

Is Discover Bank Right For You?

Discover Bank is best for people who find online banking convenient and are interested in fee-free bank accounts or a cash-back credit card .

It may not be right for you if you prefer in-person banking. You also may prefer a different online financial institution if you want other products and services, like specialty CDs, more checking account options, or brokerage accounts.

Why You Should Trust Us: How We Reviewed Discover Bank

For our Discover Bank review, we rate bank products and services using our editorial standards .

At Business Insider, we rate products on a scale from zero to five stars. For bank accounts we review different features for distinct types of bank accounts. For example, we'll look at early withdrawal penalties and CD variety specifically for CDs. Meanwhile, for checking accounts, we'll factor in the ATM network size and fees, as well as its overdraft protection options.

We'll consider factors like annual fees and sign-up bonuses for credit cards, and term lengths for loans. In general, we also look at customer service and ethics.

• Bank accounts
• Savings and CD rate trends
• How banks operate

Watch: Why more US banks could collapse

• Main content

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Movie Review: Eddie Murphy returns to Beverly Hills, which is good enough for everyone

his image released by Netflix shows Eddie Murphy, from left, Taylour Paige, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bronson Pinchot in “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F.” (Netflix via AP)

This image released by Netflix shows John Ashton, from left, Eddie Murphy and Judge Reinhold in “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F.” (Netflix via AP)

This image released by Netflix shows Joseph Gordon Levitt, left, and Eddie Murphy in “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F.” (Melinda Sue Gordon/Netflix via AP)

This image released by Netflix shows Kevin Bacon, left, and Eddie Murphy in “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F.” (Netflix via AP)

This image released by Netflix shows Paul Reiser in “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F.” (Netflix via AP)

This image released by Netflix shows Eddie Murphy, left, and Paul Reiser in “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F.” (Netflix via AP)

Judge Reinhold arrives at the premiere of “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F” on Thursday, June 20, 2024, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)

John Ashton arrives at the premiere of “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F” on Thursday, June 20, 2024, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)

Judge Reinhold, Eddie Murphy and John Ashton arrive at the premiere of “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F” on Thursday, June 20, 2024, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)

Kevin Bacon arrives at the premiere of “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F” on Thursday, June 20, 2024, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt arrives at the premiere of “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F” on Thursday, June 20, 2024, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)

Eddie Murphy, left, and Big Sean arrive at the premiere of “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F” on Thursday, June 20, 2024, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)

This image released by Netflix shows Eddie Murphy in “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F.” (Netflix via AP)

This image released by Netflix shows Eddie Murphy, left, and Taylour Paige in “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F.” (Netflix via AP)

• Copy Link copied

Judge Reinhold is in a truck barreling down the highway chased by angry cops when he turns to Eddie Murphy at the wheel and says something we’re all feeling, “God, I missed you, Axel.”

We all really did, but we get the sarcastic and sweet Axel Foley once again in Netflix’s “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F,” exactly 30 years since “1994’s Beverly Hills Cop III.” Is the new movie any good? Who cares?

The fourth outing brings back not just Murphy and Reinhold to the Axel Foley Cinematic Universe, but also long-time co-stars Paul Reiser, John Ashton and Bronson Pinchot. Kevin Bacon, Taylour Paige and Joseph Gordon-Levitt make their debuts.

The plot is pretty simple: Murphy’s Foley is living his best cop life in Detroit — destroying things spectacularly — when he’s asked to urgently return to Beverly Hills to help his estranged daughter, played with real grit by Taylour Paige. He then gets caught up in a murder case that has dirty cops and lets him make fun of snooty Beverly Hills.

Newcomers may be puzzled by the slow pace and ‘80s feel of Mark Molloy’s directed sequel. It’s not as funny as previous ones or ambitious in the way sequels for beloved franchises have gotten . But it has Murphy blowing stuff up and joking about it — all we need, really.

“Goddamn, Foley. Here we go again,” says Ashton, playing the exasperated chief of police, and that sentiment runs through the fourth entry. All you need to make your Gen X friends happy is a montage of Murphy behind the wheel while “The Heat Is On” by Glenn Frey plays. (“Neutron Dance” by The Pointer Sisters also returns).

Speaking of music, the filmmakers seem to want to break some sort of record for Most Theme Song Plays in a Single Movie, as the instrumental tune ”Axel F″ by Harold Faltermeyer is cued up, by one rough count, approximately 5,000 times.

There are also a lot of vehicles commandeered in “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F,” perhaps a nod to the advanced age of the core group. There’s a snowplow, a helicopter, a golf cart and trucks, none of which are returned in mint condition.

The screenwriters — Will Beall, Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten — leave plenty of places for Murphy to improvise but also craft some surprisingly strong dialogue between Foley and his 32-year-old daughter, both nursing hurt feelings.

“You didn’t fight. I’m your daughter. The only thing you’ve ever fought for is your job,” she tells him. “Look, we both messed this thing up. All right? Let’s just call it even.” Come for the explosions, stay for the heart-to-hearts.

Murphy uses Mary J. Blige’s “Family Affair” and proves it. In one scene, Foley is arrested while trying to drive away in a comically small cop car. One of the traffic cops is played by Murphy’s daughter, Bria, one of his 10 kids. Another cop who later tases him is a son-in-law.

A lot has changed in the three decades since Foley was breaking rules and skulls and there’s the feeling of a requiem as these aged men go into battle again. “They don’t want swashbucklers out there anymore. They want social workers,” Reiser’s detective says.

There are jokes about Wesley Snipes, small yappy dogs and Spirit airlines, a scary shootout on Wilshire Boulevard, way too much synth played and an inside joke about the last sequel, a stinker: Gordon-Levitt goes through all of Foley’s brushes with the California police and says “’94, not your finest hour.”

“Axel F” is not exactly Murphy’s finest hour, either. But Murphy just saying “Jesus!” is funny. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait another 30 years for our next Axel Foley fix. God, we’ve missed him.

“Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F,” a Netflix release that starts streaming Wednesday, is rated R for “language throughout, violence and brief drug use.” Running time: 117 minutes. Two stars out of four.

MPAA definition of R: Restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

Online: https://www.netflix.com/title/81076856

Mark Kennedy is at http://twitter.com/KennedyTwits

Watch CBS News

4 major takeaways from the Supreme Court's most consequential term in years

By Melissa Quinn

Updated on: July 5, 2024 / 4:19 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — It was one of the most momentous Supreme Court terms in decades, resulting in a flurry of blockbuster decisions on guns, abortion, the power of federal regulatory agencies and the prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

For most of those cases decided by the nation's highest court, the outcomes reflected its rightward shift that was cemented by Trump himself when he appointed three justices during his four years in office. But others exposed emerging differences among the court's six conservative members, with the spotlight on Justice Amy Coney Barrett in particular.

"It was a tsunami term," Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown Law, told CBS News. 

The significance of the term was evidenced by the flood of decisions in massive cases announced in the last week, capped by its final rulings on July 1. The Supreme Court typically wraps up its terms by the end of June and rarely extends its work into July, most recently doing so during the two terms that were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which concluded in the summer of 2020 and 2021.

Before then, the last time the justices wrapped their work in July was in 1996, according to an analysis from Adam Feldman and Jake Truscott, who conducted empirical research on the court and its most recent term.

Of the decisions that were released, 27 were unanimous, and 22 were divided 6 to 3, with varying combinations of justices. Of those decisions, the justices divided 6-3 along ideological lines in half, Feldman and Truscott found. Chief Justice John Roberts was most frequently in the majority this term, followed by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett, according to their analysis.

Here are the top takeaways from the Supreme Court's term:

Curbing federal agency power while increasing judicial oversight

In one of the most consequential rulings from the court, the conservative majority overruled a 40-year-old decision on regulatory power that said courts should defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute if it is reasonable.

Known as Chevron deference, the framework effectively gave federal agencies the authority to enact rules and regulations to fill gaps in the laws passed by Congress. But after  getting rid of that precedent , it will now be up to courts to decide whether an agency has acted within its authority, leaving judges to make calls about policy that had previously been decided by experts.

In another case, the Supreme Court said people accused of securities fraud are entitled to a jury trial in federal court, stripping the Securities and Exchange Commission of a key enforcement tool. And in yet another, it lengthened the time frame for companies to challenge federal regulations. The court in a fourth decision blocked a rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that seeks to curb air pollution while legal proceedings continue.

"Administrative law boils down to one question, which is, who decides?" said Allison Orr Larsen, a law professor at William and Mary. "These four cases weigh in on that 'who decides' question in very significant ways that tip the balance toward judges and away from an administrative agency." 

In one week, she said, the court has dismantled deference to agencies on ambiguities in the law, elongated the time allowed to bring challenges to agency action, increased the skepticism that courts show agencies on questions of policy and curtailed when agencies can adjudicate disputes internally.

"You could call it an administrative law conservative makeover, or an extreme makeover," Larsen said. "The decisions are truly remarkable in the number of ways that an agency now can lose. Another way to think of it is the breadth of the transfer of power to the judiciary."

Wins for Trump

The most closely watched cases before the high court had significant legal and political ramifications for the former president and were added to the docket months after the Supreme Court's term began in October 2023.

One of the disputes involved an effort to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot because of his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled he could, indeed, be kept off the state's primary and general election ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, an obscure provision that bars oath-taking insurrectionists from holding public office.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed that ruling , finding that states do not have the power to enforce Section 3 and keep a presidential candidate from the ballot. But the justices were fractured as to how far the high court should go with deciding the case.

Five conservative justices in the majority said only Congress, through legislation, could enforce the clause, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Barrett  wrote that it was not necessary for the Supreme Court to go so far as to lay out the means of federal enforcement.

The second dispute involving Trump arose out of his prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith for his alleged scheme to subvert the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election. Trump, who pleaded not guilty to the four charges he faces in Washington, claimed that he was entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal charges because he was president at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct.

In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines , the Supreme Court said former presidents are entitled to immunity for official acts taken while in office. The court's conservative majority sent the case back to the federal district court overseeing Trump's case for additional proceedings, delaying the start of a trial and making it highly unlikely one will take place before the presidential election on Nov. 5.

The Supreme Court divided a president's conduct into three categories: official actions that are part of his "core constitutional powers;" other acts that are within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities; and unofficial, private acts. A former president has absolute immunity for the first category; "presumptive" immunity for the second, which can be rebutted by the government; and no immunity for the third.

In an opinion authored by Roberts, the court said absolute immunity extends to Trump's discussions with Justice Department officials. When it comes to Smith's allegations that Trump pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally delay Congress' certification of Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, the court said it is the government's burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. 

They ordered the district court to determine whether and to what extent the rest of Trump's alleged conduct, such as efforts to organize false slates of electors and urge his supporters to descend on Washington on Jan. 6, is subject to prosecution.

Sidestepping major rulings on abortion

Two cases before the Supreme Court this term involved abortion, and in both, the justices skirted decisions on the merits.

The first involved an effort to roll back a series of actions taken by the Food and Drug Administration to make a widely used abortion pill easier to obtain. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the challenge brought by a group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations, finding they lacked the legal right to sue.

The second case involved the intersection of a federal emergency care law and Idaho's near-total ban on abortion. The court fight marked the first since it overturned Roe v. Wade in which the justices reviewed a state abortion law. 

The Biden administration argued that the federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act or EMTALA, required hospitals in states with the most stringent abortion restrictions to offer emergency abortions to treat certain medical conditions. But Idaho said that would be a violation of its law, which only allows abortions when needed to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest.

The Supreme Court dismissed Idaho's appeal of an adverse appeals court ruling and lifted its own stay to clear the way for physicians in the state to perform emergency abortions. The high court said it had intervened in the dispute too soon and is allowing the legal process to play out.

Both decisions are wins for the Biden administration as it has sought to protect abortion access, although they may be temporary.

In the abortion pill case, three states were involved in the challenge at the district court level and have vowed to continue the legal fight. In the EMTALA dispute, the case is likely to wind up before the justices again after more proceedings. Plus, there is a similar case pitting Texas' near-total abortion ban against EMTALA that will be poised for action from the Supreme Court in its next term.

"Abortion is a special issue for this court because of Dobbs and the reaction to Dobbs," Larsen said of the June 2022 decision reversing Roe. "I think several of the justices don't want to get in the business of deciding many abortion controversies if they can help it."

Barrett forges her own path

Nearly four years after Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, this term showed the willingness of the youngest justice to split from her fellow conservatives on major decisions.

She authored the dissent, joined by the three liberals, to the decision that blocked the EPA's plan to address interstate pollution and accused the majority of basing its ruling on an "underdeveloped theory" that is unlikely to succeed. 

Barrett also joined Kagan and Sotomayor in dissent in a case that narrowed the Justice Department's use of a federal obstruction statute leveled against Jan. 6 defendants. There, Barrett wrote that the conduct of a Pennsylvania man charged for his actions during the Capitol attack was covered by the law. 

While she agreed with the majority that a former president is entitled to immunity from prosecution for official acts, Barrett declined to join a portion of Roberts' opinion that said the government cannot introduce protected official acts as evidence in the prosecution of a former president.

"The Constitution," Barrett wrote, "does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which presidents can be held liable."

In a case involving the constitutionality of a provision of federal copyright law, she also split with Justice Clarence Thomas over his reliance on history and tradition to settle the issue, calling it "wrong twice over." Joining parts of her concurring opinion in that dispute, which involved an attempt to trademark the phrase "Trump Too Small," were Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson.

Barrett "is still a conservative jurist, to be sure," Larsen said, "but she's conservative in the more traditional sense of that word. She's cautious and deliberate. That is coming out in this term, maybe more than it has before."

Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.

More from CBS News

Trump asks judge to halt documents case after Supreme Court ruling

Wisconsin Supreme Court allows expanded use of ballot drop boxes

Kansas Supreme Court rejects 2 anti-abortion laws

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff tests positive for COVID

Advertisement

Supported by

Critic’s Pick

‘MaXXXine’ Review: Fame Monster

Mia Goth returns to Ti West’s horrorverse as an actress fleeing a mysterious stalker and a traumatic past.

• Share full article

By Jeannette Catsoulis

A psychosexual thriller imagined in blood red and cocaine white, “MaXXXine,” the third installment in Ti West’s nostalgia-soaked slasher saga, is part grungy homage to 1980s Hollywood and part sleazy feminist manifesto. Darker, moodier and altogether nastier than its predecessors — “X” (2022) and, later that same year, “Pearl” — this hyperconfident feature is also funny, occasionally wistful and deeply empathetic toward its damaged, driven heroine.

That would be Maxine Minx (Mia Goth), the sole survivor of the dirty-movie cast massacred in “X.” Now a successful porn star, Maxine, eager to break into mainstream movies, has relocated to a Hollywood of spectacular seediness. It is 1985 and, as in real life, a killer known as the Night Stalker is terrorizing the city, the so-called Moral Majority is hyperventilating on the sidelines and rock musicians are fighting accusations of satanic intent. In one pungent shot of Maxine’s boot grinding her cigarette stub into the silent film sex symbol Theda Bara’s star on the Walk of Fame, West underscores the transience of the celebrity status that Maxine so desperately seeks.

“I will not accept a life I do not deserve,” she declares, repeating the mantra taught by her father, a preacher seen in speckled, black-and-white flashback. Securing a role on a low-grade horror sequel brings her under the wing of its industry-toughened director (a perfect Elizabeth Debicki). Yet Maxine is constantly distracted: Her friends are dying, and two homicide detectives (Bobby Cannavale and Michelle Monaghan) want to question her; a Louisiana gumshoe (Kevin Bacon, a skeevy vision in crumpled suits and gold-capped incisors) keeps randomly accosting her; and a mysterious, black-gloved stalker haunts the film’s shadows. No wonder Maxine is plagued by panicked recollections of her traumatic past.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .