SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Reviews are papers that compile, summarize, critique, and synthesize the available information on a topic. Among Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry's 100 most cited papers (Supplemental Data, Table S1) they are disproportionately represented (Supplemental Data, Table S2) for good and obvious reasons. If you wish to provide citation to support your use of a method or assumption, a good review paper will provide that support by showing that the method or assumption is consistent with current knowledge or best practices. The popularity of reviews is illustrated by the criticism of Impact Factors as being biased in favor of reviews relative to original research [1]. In this editorial, I will not review the individual highly cited reviews. Rather, I will encourage you to write more and better reviews as a service to the scientific community and to enhance your career.

WHY WRITE A REVIEW?

  1. Top of page
  2. WHY WRITE A REVIEW?
  3. HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW
  4. WHO SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS?
  5. HOW SHOULD REVIEWS BE USED?
  6. UPGRADING REVIEWS
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
  9. Acknowledgment
  10. REFERENCES
  11. Supporting Information

Writing a good review is a service to the scientific community. The progress of science depends on the development of a consensus version of current scientific truth [2]. That consensus is created and modified by various activities, including the creation, peer review, and publication of review papers. A good review paper can clarify the state of knowledge, explain apparent contradictions, identify needed research, and even create a consensus where none existed before.

Writing a good review can also help to advance your career. Because reviews tend to be highly cited, they help with recognition and promotion. They show that you have mastered a topic that may be important to your organization or clients. They may even demonstrate that you are a good synthetic thinker. Finally, if you are in a situation of not producing original research or not being able to publish original work because of legal or policy constraints, writing a review allows you to continue adding to your publication record.

HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW

  1. Top of page
  2. WHY WRITE A REVIEW?
  3. HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW
  4. WHO SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS?
  5. HOW SHOULD REVIEWS BE USED?
  6. UPGRADING REVIEWS
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
  9. Acknowledgment
  10. REFERENCES
  11. Supporting Information

The most important decision in developing a review is selecting a topic. In general, the topic should be something in which you and others are interested and a topic that has not been reviewed recently. Once upon a time, the next step of compiling the literature to be reviewed was arduous and time consuming, involving traveling to libraries, leafing through bound journal volumes, mailing reprint requests, and so on. Now, thanks to the Internet, tools such as Google Scholar and JSTOR, and the availability of electronic articles, literature compilation is relatively easy. Much of the work now involves extracting the critical information from the publications and organizing it in a way that illuminates the issue.

Finally, you must ask what sort of conclusion is appropriate. At one extreme, the conclusions are simply a condensed summary of the contents of the literature, without interpretation. Other reviews provide an overall interpretation of the literature, such as Ratte's conclusion that the high silver toxicity seen in the laboratory is not expected in ambient waters because of the many processes that render silver unreactive [3]. Erickson's review of the biotic ligand model highlighted complexities in metal toxicity that are not well treated by the model and are overlooked by most users [4]. Some reviews verge on polemic. For example, my contribution to Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry's 100 most cited papers reviewed the uses of the concept of ecosystem health and concluded that the concept should be abandoned [5]. At the highest level, a review identifies new patterns in the data that have not been previously recognized.

WHO SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS?

  1. Top of page
  2. WHY WRITE A REVIEW?
  3. HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW
  4. WHO SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS?
  5. HOW SHOULD REVIEWS BE USED?
  6. UPGRADING REVIEWS
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
  9. Acknowledgment
  10. REFERENCES
  11. Supporting Information

Many reviews are written by researchers who study the topic being reviewed. They are in a good position to review the topic; but unfortunately, they also are biased in favor of their own results and against those who have contradicted them. It takes a real effort of will to be objective in such circumstances. Workshop participants may be good sources of unbiased reviews because their diverse points of view can reduce bias, increase the likelihood of identifying all relevant publications, and promote creative interpretations [6]. In my opinion, the ideal review writers are users of data rather than generators of data. They are likely to have a practical view of the issues and to be less biased. The best standard for science is the question, “Does it work in practice?” —and users know the answer to that question better than generators.

HOW SHOULD REVIEWS BE USED?

  1. Top of page
  2. WHY WRITE A REVIEW?
  3. HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW
  4. WHO SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS?
  5. HOW SHOULD REVIEWS BE USED?
  6. UPGRADING REVIEWS
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
  9. Acknowledgment
  10. REFERENCES
  11. Supporting Information

Reviews provide, at minimum, an entrée to an unfamiliar topic and a quick way to gain some familiarity with the issues and major contributors. They may also provide useful syntheses and original insights. However, their conclusions must be used with caution. Some of the highly cited reviews, for example, were funded by the industries that released the chemicals being reviewed. That does not negate the utility of the review, but it should increase the reader's circumspection. Reviews should not be used as a substitute for reading the original research papers that are important to your own work. It is particularly bad practice to cite a paper based on the description of it in a review. By all means, take advantage of reviews; but do not consider them to be the final authority.

UPGRADING REVIEWS

  1. Top of page
  2. WHY WRITE A REVIEW?
  3. HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW
  4. WHO SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS?
  5. HOW SHOULD REVIEWS BE USED?
  6. UPGRADING REVIEWS
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
  9. Acknowledgment
  10. REFERENCES
  11. Supporting Information

Unlike original research, most review papers lack defined methods. I believe that they would benefit from clearer definitions and descriptions of the methods used to search the literature, identify relevant publications, extract information, and generate conclusions. This is done for reviews in support of regulatory activities such as the US Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Science Assessments (www.epa.gov/ncea/isa) and Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) documents (www.epa.gov/iris). Such definition of methods has been recommended in the medical literature [7] and in environmental management [8]. In medicine, it has been standardized to include common procedures, formats, and scoring systems [9-13]. It is easy to imagine conventional methods for reviews of the environmental chemistry or toxicity of chemicals. In any case, greater attention by review authors to their methods seems likely to improve the quality of results, and the reporting of methods could provide greater assurance of quality and lack of bias. Online supplementary materials provide a venue for that material.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. WHY WRITE A REVIEW?
  3. HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW
  4. WHO SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS?
  5. HOW SHOULD REVIEWS BE USED?
  6. UPGRADING REVIEWS
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
  9. Acknowledgment
  10. REFERENCES
  11. Supporting Information

I hope to have convinced you to be a generator as well as a user of review papers. In particular, I encourage risk or impact assessors to consider publishing reviews. You review models, data, and assumptions every time you begin an assessment of a new chemical, effluent, site, species, or other issue. Why not share the results with your colleagues and enhance your reputation at the same time?

Acknowledgment

  1. Top of page
  2. WHY WRITE A REVIEW?
  3. HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW
  4. WHO SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS?
  5. HOW SHOULD REVIEWS BE USED?
  6. UPGRADING REVIEWS
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
  9. Acknowledgment
  10. REFERENCES
  11. Supporting Information

This editorial benefitted from comments by J. Lipscomb and M. Kravitz. The document has been reviewed in accordance with US Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of policies of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. WHY WRITE A REVIEW?
  3. HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW
  4. WHO SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS?
  5. HOW SHOULD REVIEWS BE USED?
  6. UPGRADING REVIEWS
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
  9. Acknowledgment
  10. REFERENCES
  11. Supporting Information
  • 1
    Vanclay JK. 2012. Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics 92:211238.
  • 2
    Suter GW, Cormier S. 2013. Pragmatism: A practical philosophy for environmental scientists. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:181184.
  • 3
    Ratte HT. 1999. Bioaccumulation and toxicity of silver compounds: A review. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:89108.
  • 4
    Erickson R. 2013. The biotic ligand model approach to addressing effects of exposure water chemistry on aquatic toxicity of metals: Genesis and challenges. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:12121214.
  • 5
    Suter GW II. 1993. A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indices. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:15331539.
  • 6
    Ankley G, Mihaich E, Stahl R, Tillitt D, Colborn T, McMaster S, Miller R, Bantle J, Campbell P, Denslow N, Dickerson R, Folmar L, Fry M, Giesy J, Gray LE, Guiney P, Hutchinson T, Kennedy S, Kramer V, LeBlanc G, Mayes M, Nimrod A, Patino R, Peterson R, Purdy R, Ringer R, Thomas P, Touart L, Van der Kraak G, Zacharewski T. 1998. Overview of a workshop on screening methods for detecting potential (anti-) estrogenic/androgenic chemicals in wildlife. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:6887.
  • 7
    Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. 2003. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J Roy Soc Med 96:118121.
  • 8
    Pullin AS, Stewart GB. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 20:16471656.
  • 9
    West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McCoy N, Sutton SF, Lux L. 2002. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment 47. US Public Health Service, Washington, DC.
  • 10
    Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, Bowman M. 2004. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): A patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Physician 69:548556.
  • 11
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Leng G, Liberati A, Magrini N, Mason J, Middleton P, Mrukowicz J, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schünermann JH, Edejer T, Varonen H, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr, Zaza S. 2004. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Brit Med J 328:18.
  • 12
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. 1996. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:112.
  • 13
    Pope C, Mays N, Popay J. 2007. Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence: A Guide to Methods. Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. WHY WRITE A REVIEW?
  3. HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW
  4. WHO SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS?
  5. HOW SHOULD REVIEWS BE USED?
  6. UPGRADING REVIEWS
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
  9. Acknowledgment
  10. REFERENCES
  11. Supporting Information

All Supplemental Data may be found in the online version of this article. See Table S1 for the number of citations and rank of all the “Top 100” papers, which in this essay are references[3,5,6]. See Table S2 for those papers that are judged to be reviews.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
etc2316-sm-0001-SupTab-S1.pdf45KSupplemental Table S1
etc2316-sm-0002-SupTab-S2.doc48KSupplemental Table S2

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.