Writing a systematic review

[Rana Obeid]

Hi everybody

I would like to learn how to write a systematic review in the physical chemistry field. To do so, I need to have a systematic review paper in whatever chemistry topic as an example that can help me to learn.

Thanks in advance

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Rana Obeid said:

Hi everybody

I would like to learn how to write a systematic review in the physical chemistry field. To do so, I need to have a systematic review paper in whatever chemistry topic as an example that can help me to learn.

Thanks in advance

Have a look at this wiki and check out the references lower down in it as well;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review

 

[Rana Obeid]

Thank you for your reply. I did check the link but still I don't see an example in the chemistry field.

Will you please help me?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Why don’t you look up a journal like Chemical Reviews and pick one from a recent issue you like?

[Rana Obeid]

Thank you for your reply. I don't have an access for this journal.

[hypervalent_iodine]

You are at least able to look through the abstracts. Find one you like and email the authors for a copy. Most are happy to oblige. 

Otherwise, was there a specific thing you wanted to know about? Are you curious about the format, or how one goes about finding and selecting literature to incorporate, or something else?

[Rana Obeid]

Thank you for your reply. Having a systematic review paper in chemistry will be as a guide for me to know any small detail about writing a systematic review in chemistry, like the format, the methodology (inclusion and exclusion process), the databases used, ...etc.

[hypervalent_iodine]

The format can depend on subject matter somewhat, but they generally start with an introduction that covers the history and importance / relevance of the subject to the modern chemist. This then segues into a more detailed coverage of the concepts behind what you are reviewing. These sections require a decent amount of research, and older reviews of similar topics are normally very good starting points. 

For example, if you were writing a review on a particular type of catalyst you would start with when it was discovered and who developed it, what it is used for and why it’s use is important. You would then want to cover the science of what makes a good catalyst, physicochemical properties and what they imply in terms of selectivity and reactivity, and synthesis.

Once the stage is set, you then go into a breakdown of the literature on the topic. This part is the hardest in terms of research, but it’s not too difficult to write. I personally like to use Google scholar and SciFinder. Use simple search terms, and get to reading. It takes a long time if you do it properly. I would advise collecting all of the references you come across into a program like EndNote. This way you can read them and start to sort them out into categories as you go, and annotate them so you can keep track of important points for later inclusion. What you include and what you don’t comes down to the story you’re trying to tell. Going back to my example before, I would want to gather any reference in which the type of catalyst I am focusing on makes an appearance. Subheadings would be broken down into the type of reactions they are used in. I would highlight cases / reactions where they are superior, but I would still mention other examples where they are not, and include some sort of commentary as to why where appropriate. Often there are few enough examples that you can include all of them, but in cases where there are a lot you would draw the most attention to the ones that best illustrate what you are trying to argue, and make smaller mention of the others. 

The hardest part to write for me is the conclusion. A good conclusion summarises the main features the topic briefly, and then makes a summary of the future of where the topic is headed. Returning to my example, I would mainly discuss new catalyst systems that had been developed off the back of the ones featured in the review. There is also typically a lot of big picture talk, which ties up your story nice and succinctly. 

Again, I strongly recommend looking up papers you like the look of and contacting the authors for a copy. Their contact details will be available on the journal website. 

[Rana Obeid]

45 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

The format can depend on subject matter somewhat, but they generally start with an introduction that covers the history and importance / relevance of the subject to the modern chemist. This then segues into a more detailed coverage of the concepts behind what you are reviewing. These sections require a decent amount of research, and older reviews of similar topics are normally very good starting points. 

For example, if you were writing a review on a particular type of catalyst you would start with when it was discovered and who developed it, what it is used for and why it’s use is important. You would then want to cover the science of what makes a good catalyst, physicochemical properties and what they imply in terms of selectivity and reactivity, and synthesis.

Once the stage is set, you then go into a breakdown of the literature on the topic. This part is the hardest in terms of research, but it’s not too difficult to write. I personally like to use Google scholar and SciFinder. Use simple search terms, and get to reading. It takes a long time if you do it properly. I would advise collecting all of the references you come across into a program like EndNote. This way you can read them and start to sort them out into categories as you go, and annotate them so you can keep track of important points for later inclusion. What you include and what you don’t comes down to the story you’re trying to tell. Going back to my example before, I would want to gather any reference in which the type of catalyst I am focusing on makes an appearance. Subheadings would be broken down into the type of reactions they are used in. I would highlight cases / reactions where they are superior, but I would still mention other examples where they are not, and include some sort of commentary as to why where appropriate. Often there are few enough examples that you can include all of them, but in cases where there are a lot you would draw the most attention to the ones that best illustrate what you are trying to argue, and make smaller mention of the others. 

The hardest part to write for me is the conclusion. A good conclusion summarises the main features the topic briefly, and then makes a summary of the future of where the topic is headed. Returning to my example, I would mainly discuss new catalyst systems that had been developed off the back of the ones featured in the review. There is also typically a lot of big picture talk, which ties up your story nice and succinctly. 

Again, I strongly recommend looking up papers you like the look of and contacting the authors for a copy. Their contact details will be available on the journal website. 

 

Thank you so much for your help. I will follow your advices