7 Comments

Go to the profile of Vadim Volkov
Vadim Volkov almost 2 years ago

Too many reviews, probably, which I have to mention and which made a great impact on my scientific development.

My feeling of the module is that Nature Reviews are often quite different from reviews for the other journals and are intended for a wider public. At a first glance it seems like a bit downshifting the scientific quality being aimed at wider audience. Some journals have reviews of over 15,000 words with extensive literature lists (e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quarterly-reviews-of-biophysics from Cambridge). My other feeling that Nature Reviews may lose from avoiding technical details and explaining everything in simple words. It's like going to mass production of chinese toys. Some good reviews are not clear immediately, the reader understands the basics and slowly with time and his/her growing experience understands more and more. The idea to make everything clear immediately in a simple way is not a good one, though may look attractive. It drops quality and frames the scientific research often, which can not be framed.

Go to the profile of Ingrid Van Balkom
Ingrid Van Balkom almost 2 years ago

I liked it because of the clearly written story and clear figures.
It ordered the evaluations in paragraphs in the Discussion much like a 'lesson' for the reader.

Go to the profile of Lei Pan
Lei Pan over 1 year ago

Combining theory and experiment in electrocatalysis: Insights into materials design 

This review is quite friendly for a tyro as me.  And the plots inside contains the key information or knowledge that make sense in future work.  However, I still hope the author of this paper could add more details. 

Go to the profile of Linda Amaral Zettler
Linda Amaral Zettler 11 months ago

I recently read a review on a topic that is receiving a lot of attention in environmental science right now. One aspect I really liked about the review was that it used a diagram to visualize the different sections covered in the review.  This was the only figure included in the review but did a great job at framing the content and also highlighting new research that is needed on the topic.  

Go to the profile of Manish Kumar
Manish Kumar 7 months ago

One of the review article I like the most is "Transgression segregation, adaption and speciation" written by Risenberg (1992). Interestingly, I have not found more recent review articles on this topic, this review article is above par as the author has done exceptionally well in explaining the concept and its fundamentals. Though I realized that the review has more technical details but in most of the criteria it follows what has been suggested in this module. 

Go to the profile of Euan Neil Paterson
Euan Neil Paterson 6 months ago

I remeber finding the Global Kidney Disease series of  reviews published in The Lancet in 2013 very useful.  In particular Global Kidney Disease 5 , "Chronic Kidney disease and cardiovascular risk: epidemiology, mechanisms, and prevention", stood out to me. The article provided me with an insightful summary of reliable evidence for key area of interest in a field I had just entered.

Go to the profile of Natalia V Rivera
Natalia V Rivera 6 months ago

When I read a review, i focus on aspects that i want to advanced my understanding on the topic. I usually tend to remember review papers that have tables and figures comparing different studies and summarizing what we know today. A good review paper also contains many important citations that have make big advancements on the field, so this are very useful.