The technology of preparing an analytical review as a means of presentation

research results

The essence of the analytical review

The composition of the stages and stages of the formalized compilation of an analytical review

Preparatory stage of the analytical review

The main stage of compiling an analytical review

The final stage of the analytical review

The essence of the analytical review

The most ancient and widespread way of finding new solutions is the unproductive trial and error method, based on enumerating various options without a specific systematic approach. An alternative to this is analytical methods associated with the identification of new objects, their aspects, new problems and ways to solve them on the basis of information analysis and synthesis. This is the essence of the professional activity of a computer scientist-analyst, designed to produce a comprehensive analysis of individual aspects, properties, constituent parts of the research object, to carry out analytical reasoning, while generating new information and offering non-traditional approaches, ways to solve the identified problems. At the same time, there should be a decrease in intellectual, labor, financial, material, etc. costs.

Analytical activity is a type of intellectual activity, which is characterized by the predominance of creative procedures that allow generating new information, identifying new problems or their aspects, suggesting non-traditional ways to solve them.

The result of analytical activities is the preparation of information and analytical products, which include analytical reports, analytical reports, analytical reviews, analytical reports, analytical forecasts, headings of promising areas, market statements, expert opinions, patent opinions, information models, description of subject area objects, etc. . NS.

The creation of information and analytical products is based on the use of such methods as information analysis, information synthesis, modeling (information, structural and linguistic, bibliometric, scientometric, imitation, epistemological, verbal, infometric, etc.), examination (patent, licensing, information , regulatory, environmental, etc.), forecasting, diagnostics, information and analytical monitoring.

In the practice of scientific research and design development the most important place occupy analytical reviews that provide a multifaceted, substantiated characteristic of the studied subject area (problem). An analytical review is the most important part of coursework, coursework and diploma projects carried out by students studying in the specialty "Applied Informatics (by area)".

Analytical overview Is the result of analytical and synthetic processing of a set of documents on a specific issue (problem, direction), containing systematized, generalized and critically evaluated information.

The purpose of the analytical review is the interpreted orientation of end users in the information flow in a specific direction (problem). Depending on the function performed, analytical reviews are divided into:

Substantiation reviews, which assess the state of the issue under study with a justification for the need to solve the identified problem, as well as a set and comparative assessment of the ways and methods of its solution;

Final reviews, which assess the issue under study with a description of the level achieved, as well as the currently unresolved problems in the area under study;

Predictive reviews, which assess the state and determine the promising ways of developing the studied subject area based on a reasoned assessment of the existing situation, as well as the trends and rates of its change.

Analytical review of scientific sources must fully and systematically, on the basis of modern scientific sources, reveal the state of the issue to which this work is devoted. The collected materials can be presented in chronological order or organized according to a logical principle.

The subject of analysis in the review should be the analysis of achievements in the field under study. An analytical review usually consists of presenting the concepts of various authors related to the research subject. An analytical review may include:

· A list of the main issues that were considered by researchers in the study of this problem;

· Information about who and when dealt with the problem;

· A description of the main concepts;

· general characteristics basic research methods of the problem;

· An overview of the main empirical research on this issue.

A common mistake is to simply enumerate different theories and concepts without their analysis and systematization.

The collected materials can be presented in chronological order or arranged according to a logical principle [Kulikov, 2002].

Chronological principle assumes a sequential presentation of material in the order in which theories and concepts arise. The chronological principle can be useful when it is important to conduct historical analysis of the problem, trace the features of its development in science. This is especially important in the case of historical and psychological research. In this case, you can rely on the following series of questions.

1. Who first turned to the study of this problem?

2. What problematic questions did the researchers ask themselves? How has the range of issues changed over time?

3. How has empirical research in this area developed? (To trace the line of research development based on the classics and leading psychological schools).

5. What contradictions existed in the views of the representatives different schools or from individual researchers and how were they resolved?

6. The state of the problem at the moment.

The chronological form of presentation of the material can also be convenient when the problem is poorly developed and there is a limited number of studies on the topic of interest to the author.

However, the chronological method is not recommended if the topic chosen for the work is represented by numerous studies that are concentrated in a limited time period, if there are many private views on the problem and conflicting approaches to its study. In this case, it is preferable logical method presentation of material that will allow you to systematize various and disparate information [Kulikov, 2002; Melnikov, 2009].

Logical principle building an overview of sources is in grouping approaches, concepts, empirical research by various authors in accordance with the main questions characterizing the area under study. It is useful to highlight and write these basic questions already at the beginning of the first chapter in order to outline the line of theoretical analysis. As such questions can act.

1. Definition of basic concepts essential for understanding the phenomenon.

2. Phenomenology of the phenomenon (manifestations, external distinctive features).

3. The structure of the phenomenon (constituent elements and connections between them).

4. Functions of the phenomenon (purpose, what it serves for).

5. Dynamic aspects of the phenomenon (formation and development).

6. Types, forms of the phenomenon (existing classifications).

7. Place among other mental phenomena.

8. Applied aspect (practical technologies concerning the studied phenomenon) [Andreev, 2004; Kulikov, 2002].

The author of the work can dwell on those issues that interest him more, are the most relevant, are consistent with the purpose of the study. For each of the questions selected for analysis, approaches, concepts and, if necessary, empirical studies are presented, regardless of the time of their occurrence. The positions of different authors are compared, contrasted, general tendencies, points of disagreement, contradictions in views are noted.

In most cases, a logical overview is preferable.

Theoretical research

Theoretical research is one of the most difficult forms of research activity. For more complex works, especially master's theses, a simple analytical review of scientific literature is not enough. A well-executed master's thesis presupposes an independent author's theoretical research. The theoretical research is based on problem analysis, and the result is own approach to solving the problem and its rationale. In general, theoretical research should produce new knowledge obtained by logical
by.

A theoretical study can be:

Theoretical development of any concept from the studied area (for example, the concept of "emotional intelligence" and its relationship with other psychological phenomena);

Substantiation of a new view of the phenomenon under study or a new approach to its study (for example, the problem of the place of cognitive manifestations in the structure of integral individuality);

Creation of a theoretical model of the phenomenon (for example, reflecting the structure of the psychological space and time of an individual, the structure of communicative activity, etc.);

Creation of a new classification of phenomena;

Classification of research methods by topic;

Development and justification of the structural model underlying any diagnostic technique(for example, structures for diagnosing the psychological health of high school students);

Development and substantiation of the principles of correctional, developmental or training programs.

Theoretical research begins with a problem statement. Often such a study is preceded by a literary review, at the end of which the main problems are already indicated, then one of them is selected. What can serve as an indicator of the existence of a problem:

There are “blank spots” - unexplored or poorly studied issues;

There are conflicting concepts, inconsistencies in understanding the phenomenon, conflicting empirical data;

There are methodological difficulties in studying the phenomenon;

Necessary tools are missing;

Research has no practical output.

Theoretical research must claim to be new. Therefore, it is important that it is based on a "strong" idea. The signs of a “good idea are manifested in the fact that it is [Melnikova, 2009]:

1) deepens, expands theoretical knowledge;

2) provides a simpler explanation for a well-known phenomenon;

3) allows you to build a theoretical model of the phenomenon;

4) provides a key to resolving any contradiction;

5) allows you to create a "beautiful" practical technology;

6) opens up opportunities for further research.

The purpose of the empirical part that accompanies theoretical research can be a proof of one's own concept, testing a developed model, or collecting empirical information in accordance with a new approach.

The rationale for the chosen direction of work should show its advantages over other possible solutions to the problem. It is necessary to assess the accepted direction of research in terms of its effectiveness, both scientific and practical. The rationale for the purpose of the WRC and the working hypothesis should be based on the recommendations contained in the analytical review, taking into account the specific conditions of the research work.

The rationale for the chosen direction (goal) of the work should not be replaced by the rationale for its feasibility (necessity) of the work itself.

Writing scientific reviews is a separate branch of the writing skill, which requires the author not only to deeply penetrate a scientific problem, but also to be able to quickly search and analyze information, conduct a critical generalization of material from different sources, taking into account their importance and novelty, as well as present complex and voluminous topics relatively simple language... Successful reviews will be reborn in the form of books and textbooks, while weak or simply poorly written works will not be read or cited. Here are a few rules that will help your work find its reader.

"Biomolecule" periodically publishes articles not on scientific topics, but something like a collection of tips for novice scientists. We have already discussed how to write scientific articles ("") and make oral reports ("How to make a good scientific report"); an attempt was also made to motivate readers to commit themselves to a scientific career (“9 Reasons to Become a Scientist” and “10 Simple Rules for Poor But Honest Scientists”). We now continue with advice on a more specialized topic - how to write a review of scientific literature.

Whatever branch of science you work in, sooner or later you will have to deal with writing a review of scientific literature. The need for this work is explained by the constantly growing number of new scientific developments and research. Given the speed and volume of new data, scientists simply physically cannot study each new article in their own and related fields. Therefore, the editors of scientific journals regularly invite leading scientists to "compile" the latest scientific achievements in their field in the form of a review. And while experimental publications usually bring recognition, literature reviews are a sign of prestige, and therefore most scientists take review writing very seriously.

In addition to knowledge and hard work, writing a review requires significant experience. The first two qualities are entirely on your conscience, and getting experience will take practice, and also 10 + 1 advice from this article, synthesized from the experience of leading scientists.

Rule # 1: Be clear about the topic of the review and its audience

How to choose a good topic for writing a review? After all, in any field there are an unthinkable number of interesting problems that you can tackle. Here are some tips for choosing a theme:

1. The topic should be of interest to you personally. Ideally, you should immediately recall a dozen recent publications, which would be appropriate to critically analyze.
2. The topic should be relevant, best of all - "hot". This will certainly provide you with a lot of material, and your review will receive the attention of a wide range of readers.
3. The review should address clearly identified issues. It makes no sense to analyze this or that area "in general" - neither paper nor energy will be enough for this.
4. Define your target audience. What experts in the field read the magazine where you are going to write a review? Will the topic be of interest not only to biologists, but also to chemists, mathematicians, teachers? Knowing the level of your reader, it will be easy for you to determine the level of detail in considering a particular issue.

Rule # 2: Literature Search

The probability that you write good overview, increases if you have already done this (even if on a different topic). In this case, you can use the previous publication as a base on which to string the new data. Here are some tips for finding information:

1. Do not limit yourself to one search engine of scientific literature: this will allow you not to miss a single truly worthy publication for review. About 99% of all scientific searches are carried out through these systems: DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science.
2. Store all articles in one folder. Organizing programs (Endnote, Mendeley) will help you quickly find the right source. Always duplicate information on multiple independent media.
3. Define criteria in advance for eligible articles (eg journal impact factors, keyword combinations, etc.). These criteria should allow you to quickly select only what can potentially be used for review.
4. Review not only all the experimental articles on this topic, but also previous reviews - this will allow you not to waste time describing what has already been described, and will also provide food for thought. It is advisable to refer to such reviews, focusing on the new data that have appeared.
5. Pay attention to who cited the latest reviews and where. See how their new data complements or refutes what was previously posted.

Rule # 3: Margin Marks

If you have just started writing a review and are reading the selected articles for the first time, then it is absolutely necessary to remember new information, impressions of what you read, new thoughts and associations. It is advisable to write all this down right away - it will then be easier to connect new thoughts with the existing results, your personal ideas, etc. You can write directly in the margins or stick sticknotes (if you are using printouts of articles), or take notes directly on your computer or tablet: almost all modern cataloging software electronic library allow you to leave notes. Write down the quotes verbatim that you plan to refer to in the review. When writing a draft, try to rephrase these quotes in your own words.

It is very important to be careful and write out links already at this stage in order to avoid subsequent throwing in an attempt to remember who owned this or that data. Thus, while you read the selected literature, a draft of the review will appear by itself. Of course, this draft will have to be rewritten more than once or twice, restructured and paraphrased in order to get a complete text with intelligible logic and polished arguments. Don't let that scare you. Just start taking notes, even without any system, - as you go along, you will gradually have an outline of the overview, and the further, the clearer and clearer it will be.

Rule # 4: Determine the type of review

If, while reading the literature, you took notes all the time, then at the end of this process you will already have an approximate amount of the future review. This is perhaps the best time to decide where to go. There are two types of overview genre - mini- and full-size review. Some journals now prefer to publish short reviews focused on publications. recent years, with a limited number of words and quotes. A mini-review does not mean inferiority; rather, on the contrary, it is a laconic and capacious article, a concentrate of modern ideas that attracts the attention of busy readers with its small volume. In order to write a competent mini-review, you must really master the pen. The disadvantage of mini-reviews is that sometimes some problems are presented in a simplified way due to the limitation of the volume.

A full-length review has undeniable advantages: you can provide more data and are free to dwell on those details that you think are important or interesting. However, over such “monumental” articles there is a threat of being put off on a distant shelf “for thoughtful study later,” which may never come.

Also, reviews can be classified as descriptive and conceptual. Descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, retrieval, and interpretation of each study — they are a conscientious synopsis of current data. The authors of the conceptual reviews put forward new ideas and concepts arising from the entire array of published materials. In order to write a good conceptual review, it is desirable to be a true aksakal in your field and to catch the most invisible ideas floating around in the atmosphere. Be self-critical - can you pick up on these trends correctly? And will you have enough time? Remember, descriptive reviews tend to take a lot less time and effort.

Rule # 5: View the Problem from Different Angles

Regardless of what kind of review you plan to write, focus on a specific problem. However, when analyzing, it is useful to use data from neighboring areas. For example, if you are writing a review on immunology, also include contributions from epidemiologists, cytologists, physicians, and biochemists. Examining the mechanisms of a particular problem at various levels - from molecules to populations - will allow you to more clearly and wider present the material. Such work will be of interest to a much larger number of readers.

Rule # 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Writing literature reviews is not stamp collecting. A good overview is not only a synthesis of the literature, but also a critical analysis of it, which helps to identify methodological problems and indicate gaps in research. After reading your review, the astute reader should get an idea of ​​the following:

1. What are the main achievements in the described area;
2. What are the main controversial issues in the area;
3. What are the main scientific issues and the prospects for their solution.

Of course, successfully answering all three questions in one review will be incredible success. Not always one author can have such a global mindset - therefore, the involvement of co-authors will significantly improve the quality of the article. Each scientist has its own strengths: one excellently describes the results of work, the other cleverly criticizes other people's work and identifies problem areas, the third well systematizes and summarizes the results of various studies. If you manage to assemble such a team of specialists, the review is doomed to success. If you yourself are "three in one" - then, probably, there is no point in reading this article. Sorry.

By the way, in addition to critical thinking, a review of literature needs good syllable and grammar. Be sure to ask colleagues to read the final version before posting.

Rule # 7: Think Structurally

A good overview is not to be confused with anything: it is timely, systematic, easy to read, structured and critical. The reviews rarely use the structure of experimental articles (introduction, methods, results, discussion). Instead, the author chooses his own narrative logic each time, which can be dictated by the very topic of the review. Although there is no single format, in general the work should be divided into several logical sections, which will be preceded by a short introduction and summarized at the end with a repetition of the main conclusions.

How to streamline the flow of body text in your review so that your reader does not get lost in it and understand the meaning of what was written? To do this, it is useful to provide conceptual diagrams or diagrams that allow you to keep the logic of the story in front of your eyes. Well-executed illustrations allow you to understand the main idea even without a detailed reading.

Rule # 8: Consider Reviewers' Feedback

Literature reviews are usually peer-reviewed as rigorously as research articles. Typically, incorporating the feedback and opinions of your reviewers will significantly improve the original review. By carefully reading the review, the reviewers will take a fresh look at those inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or undisclosed issues that were not noticed by you. By the way, carefully re-read the entire review immediately before sending it to the journal - the absence of typos and confusing sentences will allow reviewers to focus on the essence of the article, and not on complaints about the presentation style.

The advice of the reviewers is very important, so you should try to get reviews from experts in various fields of science. On the one hand, this can lead to conflicting opinions on the merits of the review and inconsistent advice on how to improve the text. On the other hand, this situation is better than no feedback at all. A variety of comments will help you determine where the opinions of the experts agree, and where the controversial points arise.

Rule # 9: Include Your Own Research, But Be Modest Objective

As a rule, the authors of the reviews have achieved some success in the area described and have themselves published a number of experimental works on this topic. This can create a conflict of interest - it is difficult to objectively judge your own work. Scientists may overestimate what they have done themselves. And, nevertheless, do not be overly modest - if you were asked to write a review, it already means that your work is worth something. Try to objectively correlate your data with that of your colleagues. In reviews written by several authors, objectivity is achieved more easily, since each co-author edits the text and has the opportunity to look more realistically at the achievements of colleagues.

Rule # 10: Use Fresh Data, But Don't Forget the Classics

Given the proliferation of scientific papers, literature reviews in many areas of biology are rapidly becoming outdated and outdated. However, don't be intimidated by this - a really good analysis will be relevant for a long time. Each experimental article, no matter how new and beautiful it is, covers only a narrow area of ​​a broad front of science. To summarize, think over and show the general vector of development of one direction or another - this is the main task of the review. Even if in five years this analysis will be already incomplete or even outdated - all the same, such a review will not lose its value and will serve as a starting point for the next works. This work will play the role of a historical milestone in the development of one of the scientific topics.

Rule # 11: Practice

It is impossible to become an accomplished writer by reading tips on how to become a writer. It is impossible to become an artist by watching a drawing course on TV. You can't write a good review without practice. And while you are only a young scientist, and scientific journals do not spoil you with “orders” for reviews, write them yourself. Start with popular submissions - sites like "biomolecule" welcome articles from new authors. If you can write a literature review that, as it seems to you, reflects the latest trends in your industry at a decent scientific level, try it, send it to a scientific journal - Ukrainian, Russian or foreign, it doesn't matter. Often average journals can publish a review submitted by an unnamed author, if the level of presentation and the topics raised are truly original. In general, do not expect favors from the editors of magazines, start writing yourself!

Successful reviews written in the 1980s are rarely read today. However, they once served as the foundation for scientific work of the 90s, from which the experimental theories of the 2000s grew. And today's books readily cite some of the older articles as classics to look up to. Don't believe me? Look at the number of citations of "Origin of Species" ...

Literature

1. Marco Pautasso. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol. 9 , e1003149.

Every year in greenhouse enterprises, more and more attention is paid to high-quality maintenance of the microclimate. Correctly chosen technology for maintaining a microclimate is one of the most important components to increase yields. A efficient use energy resources - an additional opportunity to significantly reduce the cost of manufactured products. A modern automated microclimate control system must support not only the specified mode, but also use the capabilities of the executive systems as efficiently as possible.

Microclimate is a complex of indoor meteorological conditions. In greenhouses, it is determined by three main parameters: soil moisture, ambient temperature and the degree of interior lighting.

Soil moisture is the amount of moisture in the soil, expressed as a percentage of its weight or volume. The dynamics of changes in the weight of the soil determines water regime soil and has a huge impact on both the course biological processes in it, and to provide plants with water and, as a result, to create a crop. The dynamics of weight is characterized by the following properties: (the ability to hold a certain amount of moisture), water permeability (the ability to pass water through itself), water capacity (the ability to lift water along the hair spaces between soil particles), moisture evaporation and hygroscopicity soil. In practice, the soil is called dry if it is not dusty, but when squeezed by hand it seems dry (10-15%); fresh if, when squeezed, it leaves a trace of moisture (20-30%); wet, if at the same time it releases water in drops (31-50%); wet if the soil releases moisture without any pressure. The most favorable for the cultivation of plants V. p. (In practice it is identified with fresh soil) is created by correct soil cultivation, snow retention, and irrigation. Distinguish between absolute (in% of its mass) and relative (the ratio of absolute humidity to the field moisture capacity of the soil,%) moisture. The absolute soil moisture is determined after weighing its samples (in aluminum bixes) in a wet and dry (after drying at 105 - 110 ° to constant weight) state according to the formula.

The process of photosynthesis is the most important factor in plant life. The growth rate and yield depend on it. The source of energy for photosynthesis is light, therefore, when starting to assemble a greenhouse for protected ground, you need to think over its optimal location, which allows you to use natural light as efficiently as possible. Distinguish between natural and artificial lighting. Natural is lighting during daylight hours with sunlight, and artificial is lighting with artificial light sources at night, or with insufficient sunlight. The intensity of light falling on a specific plane is measured in units of "lux". In summer, on a sunny afternoon, the light intensity in our latitudes reaches 100,000 lux. In the afternoon, the brightness of the light drops to 25,000 lux. The minimum amount of light that each plant needs to survive is approximately 500 lux. In weaker lighting, it will inevitably die. For normal life and growth, even unpretentious plants with little need for light need at least 800 lux.

The temperature in the greenhouse on average should be from +16 to 25 degrees, and at night it should drop by no more than 5-8 degrees. Below normal, the temperature will slow down the growth rate of plants, and even more heat unfavorable - after all, it stimulates the growth of green mass, from which the yield of plants and the quality of the fruits themselves in the greenhouse will immediately suffer. Literally 1-2 extra degrees of heat - more than half of the plants begin to wither. During the day, depending on the type of vegetables, the optimum temperature for the greenhouse is 16-25 ° C, while at night it is 4-8 ° C lower. In addition, the growth rate of plants is directly proportional to the temperature, and an increase in temperature by 10 degrees accordingly increases the growth rate itself. But it is important to remember that an excessive increase in temperature (for example, over 40 degrees) can cause depression and death of greenery. For the soil, the optimum temperature is 14-25 ° C, but lowering it to 10 ° C will lead to phosphorus starvation of plants. But an increase to 25-28 ° C can, in turn, cause difficulty in the absorption of moisture by the roots, because of which plants can wither from drought even on sufficiently moist soil.

All these points, very important for any plant and any gardener, are quite difficult to track yourself. In such cases, such devices come to the rescue, an example of which is my sensor.

Currently, active modernization of greenhouses is underway, associated with an increase in the number of executive systems: separation of circuits, modernization of window ventilation, installation of curtain systems, installation of fans. And the more executive systems a greenhouse has, the more important it is for it to choose a criterion that determines a strategy for maintaining a microclimate. For example, one of the most popular control criteria is heat savings. In this case, it is more advisable to actively use the lower heating circuits, because they give off less heat to the external environment. Another approach to the selection of the criterion involves maintaining the temperature at the growth point higher than at the plant roots and thus implies active use upper heating circuits. Another control criterion is based on the fact that the lower contour should maintain a constant temperature in the root zone, the so-called optimum, and only when the resources of other executive systems are exhausted should deviate from it.

Implementation experience automated systems control shows that at the stage of system design it is rather difficult to choose a single control criterion. Therefore, the control system should be able to promptly set the criterion during operation, and the methods for setting it should clearly reflect the agronomic, economic and heat engineering requirements for the system.

Thus, modern system control should allow setting not only one of the above control criteria or their combination, but also any other one arising in the production process, providing the agronomist-technologist with ample opportunities in choosing a method for maintaining the temperature and humidity regime in the greenhouse.

Active analytical work to accumulate great stuff on the methodologies for choosing a control criterion. On the basis of this material, the developers of the system carried out the modernization software, which allows you to set practically any strategy for maintaining the microclimate in a convenient tabular and graphical form. Based on this table, the computer makes a decision on the distribution of control actions among the executive systems.

How to write a literature review for a dissertation, scientific article or other report on research activities is explained even when working on a diploma in the course of obtaining higher education... However, due to the strictness of the requirements for postgraduate scientific work, scientists have many questions regarding the principles of writing and formatting the results achieved during the research.

Find answers to them help guidelines Universities and recommendations of the Higher Attestation Commission. Such documents are of a general nature, and therefore cannot always solve a specific problem of a scientist. Study several ready-made literature reviews in order not only to delve into the scheme of working with literature or learn how to correctly draw up references and citations, but also to choose the most convenient principle for presenting theoretical data. In a PhD thesis, Chapter 1 provides an overview of the topic of the thesis. Download defended dissertations in your specialty and study literature reviews.

How to do a structured literature review

There are two main concepts for writing a literature review. In a chronological approach, materials are presented in the context of historical development: turning points are described in the order in which they occurred, the most important hypotheses and their authors are indicated, conflicting trends are characterized, and the author's contribution to the overall picture is necessarily revealed. The logical principle implies the writing of subsections dedicated to the description of the object of research, the characteristic of its connection with related fields of science and practice, the significance for the national economy or society.

A good review of scientific literature is not abstract, but analytical. This means that the author, when preparing it, must link the information found in publications with the tasks of his own research. Moreover, the narrative should identify problem areas in the array of available scientific information on the topic of the work. These may be conflicting judgments or underdeveloped aspects. It is good to use the results of such an analytical assessment to justify the need to consider the selected topic.

How can a sample literature review help you understand the logic behind a dissertation?

Logically, a review of literary sources in scientific work creates the prerequisites for accurately identifying goals in research and setting goals for achieving it. With the classical approach to the design of the dissertation, these points are placed in the introduction block, which also includes a justification of the relevance, a brief outline of the current situation, and the provisions for defense are listed. In a good work, all the components of the introductory part are consistent with each other, and the formulation of goals and objectives is confirmed by the results of the analytical literature summary. This relationship is well traced in the below sample of a literature review on medicine (download the file Introduction and the literature review of the dissertation on surgery), which for greater clarity is given together with the introduction section.

A review can be considered correct if, as a result of reading it, a specialist can suggest what methods will be used, understand the reasons for choosing an object. If a scientific work falls into the hands of a non-specialist, then the results of the author's theoretical research should contribute to the reader's understanding of the essence of the research carried out. Simple enough for the perception of work in social disciplines, you can make sure of this if you read the example of a literature review on pedagogy (download the sample file on Pedagogy). It is more difficult to delve into a dissertation on natural science or technical disciplines, where the text is full of special terminology and abbreviations.

Writing a literary review

In postgraduate education for the preparation of reports on scientific activities in Russia they are very strict. Therefore, it is not enough just to prepare a capacious and high-quality literary review; it is extremely important to correctly arrange it according to the standards of bibliographic records. In accordance with the logic of the narrative, typed in 14 Times New Roman font with one and a half spacing, the text is divided into subchapters. Each of them should have a subheading and be numbered in accordance with the principles of a tiered list.

Subdivide subsections based on chronological or logical positions. A more preferable second approach, which is well shown on the example of a review of the literature on medicine (download the file ROLE OF THROMBOPHILIA IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF FETAL RETARDED GROWTH SYNDROME). In some dissertations, review scientific articles or other studies, it is more expedient to present theoretical data in a temporal context. Examples of such works are works on history or political science.

Serious attention should be paid to links and citations when preparing a literary review of any scientific work. Citation and formatting of links is governed by. Two variants of links to the mentioned authors are allowed: the first is a full indication of the year of work, the surname and initials of the author, the second is inline or non-text links of the numerical designation of the source, given in parentheses or square brackets. The second option helps to significantly reduce the amount of scientific work, therefore, if in dissertations you can still find references of both varieties, then in the review part of a scientific article, the letter form is very rare.

Features of writing literary reviews for different types of scientific work

The elaboration of the literary review of any scientific work shows the level of the author's competence in the issues raised in the research. High-quality writing of this section allows non-specialists to understand the practical research and calculations of the author of the work. With a similar structure, literary reviews in scientific articles, master's or doctoral dissertations differ greatly in the depth of the topic and, therefore, in volume.

Literary review for dissertations

Dissertation research for PhD and Doctoral degrees is usually devoted to the study of a narrow issue. Therefore, when preparing a chapter of the theoretical background of the study, data from the most specific sources for the study area are used. And from them only those theses are selected that are directly related to the goals and objectives of a particular dissertation.

Informational publications will help to select the most valuable data sources, which provide up-to-date information about the fact of the appearance and content of new publications in a particular branch of science and technology. The institutions VINITI, INION, VNTITs and some others are engaged in the assembly and processing of such documents.

The volume of a theoretical chapter for a candidate's work is 20-40 pages out of a total of 120-150. In a doctoral dissertation, the literary review is recommended to devote 70-80 pages out of the total 350-400. The Higher Attestation Commission does not set strict requirements, however, deviations from such norms can be perceived critically: too small a volume speaks of a dismissive attitude, too large - of the author's inclination to borrow other people's ideas. In this volume, the candidate must show his ability to work with specialized literature, competence in the specialized field, and prove the ability to critically assess the achievements of previous colleagues.

When preparing a dissertation, it is recommended to use at least 200 sources, and it is better if each position of the bibliographic list is mentioned in the text. Most of these links usually fall on the literary review, in which the information provided is formatted with quotations indicating the page, title and author of the cited publication. The volume of borrowings in the form of citations should not exceed 10% of the total text, and the design of links should comply with the requirements of GOST R 7.0.5-2008.

Compilation of a literary review in a scientific article

Articles for reflecting the intermediate results of dissertation research should also contain a theoretical review with correctly formulated citations and references to the literature used. On the one hand, this is a mandatory requirement of the peer-reviewed publications of the Higher Attestation Commission, and on the other hand, it proves a sufficient level of academic preparation of the author.

The number of pages of a scientific article depends on the requirements of the journal, but on average it is a text of 10 pages. What percentage is allocated for the assessment of literary data? The answer here depends on the type of post. 80-90% of review articles, which are positively perceived by the journals Web of Science and Scopus, consist only of assessing the developments existing in a particular industry. For publications describing specific achievements, the volume of theoretical substantiation of relevance takes no more than 10% of the entire text. In such articles, the literature review is localized in the introduction, and it is compiled on the basis of an analysis of at least five sources. The review is written according to the principles common to the dissertation, however, it has an even narrower connection to a certain side of the studied topic.

You can navigate how to convey the maximum of the necessary information in a concise form after studying an example of a literature review of an article on neurology (). The scope of the literature review depends on scientific direction... Comparatively new technical disciplines simply do not have a large array of developments. Research in such industries is relevant, but it is not always possible to compare the results with previous ones. The same happens with works at the intersection of sciences. Sample lithosphere article () on the possibilities of application information systems at water transport facilities is only a couple of paragraphs of text, totaling 6 printed sheets.

Literary Patent Review

If the work describes an invention, then its theoretical background includes not only data from scientific and statistical literature, but also an overview of existing patents. The purpose of such studies is to determine scientific picture in the industry and identifying trends in its development based on the collection and analysis of patent information.

Especially relevant is the search for patents and the study of descriptions for scientific papers of a technical orientation. When developing the design of new equipment, such work helps to design really useful units or to develop more profitable ways of using existing ones.

Sources of information for patent research are regularly published editions "Inventions and Utility Models", "Industrial Designs", "Inventions of the World", abstract journals of VINITI. It is recommended to search for data over the past 20 years and consider not only Russian, but also sources of developed countries: Japan, USA, Germany, France, Great Britain, Sweden.

The literary and patent review at the output should reflect the characteristics of the object and the list of considered technical solutions for a similar purpose, their comparison with each other, the conclusion based on the comparison results.

Analytical review of scientific articles

This type of review operates with up-to-date data taken from publications in scientific and professional periodicals in Russia and other countries of the world. Releasing fundamental academic information from consideration, the review of scientific articles is formulated as a justification for the need for further study of the topic, summing up or preparing a forecast for the development of the chosen industry. When writing a review of scientific articles, information is presented concisely, highlighting only the essence of the refereed sources. It is allowed to include informative tables and illustrations in the text, the use of which will reduce the volume.

For applicants for scientific degrees, these types of literature reviews are useful for clarifying the topic, goals and objectives of the dissertation. Analytical summaries prepared by the staff of the research institute are used in the implementation of large-scale projects. For the management of manufacturing enterprises, familiarization with the analytical review of articles in its own way helps in drawing up a business development strategy.

Review of the literature on the research topic

The theoretical research section is an obligatory component of the research report. In qualifying or scientific works it plays a supporting role, serving as a supporting platform for new research. Reviews on a given topic are in demand among representatives of the business environment. In this case, the research results form the basis for the development of new technological or structural solutions, the implementation of which contributes to the development of the enterprise, increases its profitability.

This kind of literature review on a research topic does not limit the author in the type of sources used. Information here can be taken not only from dissertations, fundamental publications and academic journals, but also from the minutes of thematic conferences, newspapers, fairly informative advertising publications, professional industry periodicals, company reports. The main requirement here is the conciseness of information, and it is highly desirable that the data be presented in an understandable form.