If you’re looking for a guide that explains the different types of reviews that you’ll more than likely come across in academic writing, this one is for you.
There are many types of reviews, but only about 10 seems to make a comeback from time to time. In this respect, our focus will be only on these reviews. In other words, we’ll look at:
- Umbrella review
- Scoping review
- Critical review
- Literature review
- Realistic review
- Integrative review
- Mapping review
- Rapid review
- Quantitative systematic review
Without further ado, let’s get down to discussing every type of review we’ve listed.
10 Types of Review in Academic Writing Explained
The following are the 10 types of reviews common in academic writing:
1. Umbrella review
An umbrella review is the master review that takes evidence from already existing reviews to provide a high-level summary. We use the umbrella review when we have several competitive interventions, especially because it turns evidence into practice.
Apart from just determining what is already obvious on a topic, umbrella review also determines what remains unknown and it gives relevant recommendation, which will help to carry out further investigations.
Note that information in an umbrella review is most of the time presented using tables. People who are much involved with this type of review are librarians. You could therefore approach a librarian if you need help with the umbrella review.
2. Scoping Reviews
A scoping review is a scooping project used to categorize existing literature, often grouped according to features, volume, and nature.
Many students confuse this review with the mapping review, but mapping is more of questions while the scooping review has its foundation on topics.
Scooping reviews helps one to identify nature through research. As such, scooping is ideal for discovering opportunities in existing literature, explaining functional definitions, and labeling the body of a research.
It takes time to prepare a scoping review. Also, instead of single structured research, you will need multiple structural pieces of research.
3. Critical Reviews
A critical review will summarize and evaluate ideas and summarize reports on an article. Writers use this review to express what they already know about the subject. Before expressing their view, they need to think carefully and consider both weaknesses and strengths in what they are reviewing.
The best way to do critical reviews is by scanning the research to be informed and effectively reviewing the literature as you question the information provided in the text.
Look at the texts from various angles to evaluate the theories, frameworks, and approaches in the text. And remember, the elements of a critical review include the introduction, summary, critique (the main body), conclusion, and references.
4. Literature Reviews
Literature reviews are writings that academically highlight knowledge and understanding of the literature on a given topic placed in a given setting. A literature review is the best way to summarize and analyze a theory or investigation, identify gaps that exist in research, and identify areas of controversy.
Unlike a literature report, a literature review will evaluate essential materials. Apart from the critic’s evaluation, a literature review should also include a brief synopsis.
Although this type of review forms part of a research project, you can treat it as an independent piece of work.
The purpose of having literature reviews is to establish familiarity and get to understand research on a given field before conducting a new investigation.
5. Realist Reviews
A realistic review, sometimes known as a realistic synthesis, is helpful in studying interventions that are too complex to perceive the limitations of conventional methodology. It also highlights mechanisms, context, and outcomes to explain the intended or unintended differences.
Realistic reviews are crucial because they unpack the impact of complex interventions as they strive to answer questions such as “under what circumstance does a given thing work” and “to who does the thing in discussion work for”.
6. Integrative Reviews
An integrative review will summarize theatrical research to give a better understanding of a given situation. The integrative review methodology can build upon informing research, policy initiation, and nursing science.
This review accepts the inclusion of various approaches. The integrative review approach is appropriate when research focuses on the occurrence of interest and when research supports a vast variety of inquiries.
7. Mapping Reviews
A mapping review will classify trends/themes, categorize trends/themes and characterize patterns in evidence production.
A mapping review is supposed to make you thematically understand research on a provided topic. That way, it is possible to assess gaps that you can fill by future research. The review is appropriate when there many foregoing literature.
8. Rapid Reviews
A rapid review is a variation of structured review. The structured review can balance constraints even when considerations are corrupt.
Many institutions in the world conduct rapid reviews. Rapid reviews can examine reports, articles, and books to compare reviews using Scoping reviews.
9. Mixed Study Review
Researchers use the mixed study review to gather and analyze qualitative and quantitative information under the same topic of study.
The mixed study review features various methods of designs that include embedded, explanatory, exploratory, and parallel designs.
The review provides answers to questions quantitative and qualitative methods cannot answer.
Mixed study reviews can also enrich the researchers’ experience by illuminating issues of study.
10. Quantitative Systematic Reviews
Quantitative Systematic Review is useful in nursing research. To reduce biases and make the review more trustworthy, reviews based on protocol are ideal. That way, there will be reproducibility and transparency.
Developing quantitative systematic reviews is not hard; the only thing that limits it is inadequate resources.
A quantitative systematic review aims to guide researchers as they develop systematic review protocols. Moreover, this review also helps them enhance trustworthiness and realize the importance of completing quantitative systematic findings.
Since this review is useful in clinical practices, it is important to base it on the planned protocol. That way trustworthiness becomes more apparent.
Everything that appears on the quantitative systematic review should be outlined in detail processes used to undertake the review.