A review is a short text or written set that describes or evaluates a literary work.

The task of the reviewer is an objective assessment of the work, that is, all its advantages and disadvantages, which explains the high requirements for the author of the review.

Reviewing different writing subjects is also done by different people. A film critic reviews a film. The review of the article is carried out by the supervisor. Authors usually review books. These reviews have different writing rules.

Review plan example:

1. A small bibliographic description of the work and a brief retelling of the plot.
2. Reviewer's response to the work itself.
3. Criticism or analysis of the work.

What the reviewer analyzes:

• The meaning of the name.
• Analysis of form and content.
• The skill of the author and his way of presenting the main idea.
• Description of the individual style of the writer.
• Evaluation of the work and reflections of the author of the review on the work: the main idea of ​​the review.
• The relevance of the work.

How to write a good review

• In order to make a quality review, it is necessary to consider the quality of writing a work of art and highlight the originality of the plot in it.
• The entire review must be written in the same tone - it can be: fun, instructive or informative.
• In the review, it is imperative to highlight all the mistakes the author made in his work.
• In the review, it is desirable to express all the feelings that the reviewer experienced when reading or viewing the work.
• State all your thoughts in detail and as justified as possible.
• The review should not contain profanity or incitement to violence.

What not to do when writing a review

• The review is written in the form of a simple retelling of the work.
• Lack of argument.
• The vagueness of the reviewer's thought.
• Too much description of minor details.
• Illiterate use of literary terms.

book review

To write a quality book review, you need to read a lot to learn how to make comparisons.

You need to start writing a book review with the title, because the title is the face of any article. Next, proceed to a brief description of the main characters and events from the book. Try to single out each character by name so that the reader understands who they are talking about.

After describing the events and characters, proceed to reveal the main idea of ​​the work (What does the author want to say? What problems does he highlight? What does he want to teach?) and evaluate the work from your point of view.

Movie review

• Title.

First of all, it is the title that should interest the reader. Come up with an interesting title, if you don't have the imagination, you can paraphrase the most vivid quote from the movie or something like that. It will be very good if you put the whole essence of the film in a nutshell in the title.

• Introduction.

After an interesting title, an even more interesting text should follow so that the reader, after reading the first two sentences, does not take his eyes off your "masterpiece". 4-5 sentences will be quite enough for an introduction, in them you should put a few general phrases about the film, as you would do it, advising it to friends.

• Brief plot.

The plot should be described as briefly as possible, while not revealing to readers the main points and turns that occur in the film. Never write about the ending, as you will then be cursed by all your readers. But if the movie is bad, you can open the curtain a little so that the reader doesn't waste their time watching a movie that no one wants.

• Film analysis.

In this part, describe the professionalism of the team that shot the film. Mark acting skills, operators, directors. Highlight the strong and weak points in the film.

• Your viewing experience.

Your personal opinion about the film should match the above text. Be as objective and relevant as possible.

• Conclusion.

Finally, summarize what you have written. Rate the film and highlight the audience that will like it the most.

Scientific article review

Information that must be stated in the review of the article:

• Full information about the title of the article.
• Brief description of the main topic of the article.
• The relevance level of the article content.
• Reviewer's recommendations for making changes to the article.
• Information about the reviewer: Full name and the date of the review.

For many university students, graduate students and researchers, the issue of writing various papers is quite problematic. In particular, it can be difficult to take into account all the requirements and competently write a review of the publication. Today I decided to post information about how to write a review of a scientific article, an example of which can be seen below.

What is a review

Before publishing an article in a serious publication, a review is required. At the same time, peer review is considered one of the most important parts in the selection and approval of works. In addition, it improves the quality of published articles.

To publish an article in a journal from the VAK List, at least two reviews are required. A number of publications that are preparing to submit documents to be included in this list have the same requirements. However, such reviews are also required for other purposes in the framework of higher education and the submission of scientific publications. This applies to both humanitarian and technical specialties, and introduces difficulties for both students, for example, undergraduates, and researchers.

Some people think the term "peer review" is intricate, but it can be described quite simply: the article is checked for consistency and authenticity of the content, as well as for compliance with the design requirements. However, such a simple procedure is associated with the subjective discretion of the reviewers. Therefore, you need to know exactly how to properly draw up a document, and what it should contain.

A review is a special document that is compiled by a reviewer.. The latter may be a scholar with a degree who understands the content of the publication, and also works in the same field, specializes in the same discipline as the author.

The reviewer provides a brief analysis of the publication, evaluation. All this is done according to specific criteria. They also evaluate the volume, annotation, the choice of keywords in different languages. They also look at how well the references are written, how the bibliography is framed.

Varieties of reviews

Depending on the purpose of compilation, the document can be written by different reviewers. It comes in the following varieties:

1. Internal review compiled by the supervisor. The teacher's signature certifies the university or the institution where the author is studying or working.
2. External review– for this purpose, editors of journals or members of the editorial board are appointed as reviewers. One way or another, the document should be compiled by specialists with authority and a scientific degree. A number of organizations require the person who will write it to have published publications in specialized journals over the past few years (usually for three years).

Sample drafting plan

There are two options for a plan on how to write a review of an article. The first option can be called simplified, and the second one is already somewhat more complicated and more detailed. If you are interested in a simpler plan that allows you to understand how to write a review competently, then it includes the following points:

1. Introduction about the subject of research.
2. Personal impressions about reading, the main aspects that shape the course of publication.
3. Degree of importance the problem that is being highlighted.
4. conclusions.

This plan is better students and novice reviewers who do not have enough experience to write criticisms.

The expanded plan would look like this:

1. Intelligence about the article in question.
2. Degree of importance problems and their updating.
3. Indication of the main aspect under consideration in the publication (a brief analysis of the content is possible).
4. Custom Arguments and impressions from the study.
5. Constructive criticism and negative sides.
6. conclusions.

Volume

The question of volume is ambiguous, since this nuance will largely depend on the specific topic and scientific discipline. Usually a review takes up to three and a half thousand printed characters. This corresponds to approximately 1.5 pages of 12 point Word text.

To give your review a stylistic finish, be sure to use special phrases and thematic expressions that emphasize your professionalism and knowledge of the subject and discipline.

Concise Dictionary of Phrases

If you want to write a good review, use the following words and sentences, which can be inserted into the text:

1. In the article of the author or in the work ...
2. Scientific research is devoted to the following problem ...
3. An important aspect of the article, in which the author achieved a positive result ...
4. Summing up the results of the entire study or its separate part ...
5. You can point out the imperfection of the article in that ...

In the last paragraph, it is important to say not only about the shortcomings, but also about the positive aspects of the publication.

Add the following phrase: “However, it is impossible not to say about … ”

What should a reviewer be guided by?

If you want to do everything right, adhere to special rules for compiling a document. In this case, your review will be accepted in a specialized publication. When writing a review, pay attention to the following requirements:

1. Describing the importance of the topic in modern conditions and its relevance, do it as succinctly as possible.
2. Pointing to the main aspect, choose the thesis that you consider the main, without additional and secondary nuances.
3. When retelling the content, remember to point out the findings of the study and focus on successful thesis of the author.
4. Pointing out the negative sides, write exclusively on topic without citing additional sources.
5. In the closing phrases talk about the positives.
6. Mandatory tell about dates and exact facts, but without compromising the clarity and brevity of the document.

As additional requirements for which feedback should be made, you can use the following:

1. Point out the originality of the publication.
2. List the main shortcomings and your criticisms.
3. Tell about your personal impressions while reading a scientific work, but do it with arguments.
4. Be impartial and try to be objective.
5. It is also recommended to personally communicate with the author.

If you comply with the above requirements, your review will be accepted for publication in a magazine or for posting on a website, etc.

What is not allowed when writing a review

In addition to the mandatory items, there are also certain points that should never appear in the text, namely:

1. Never do not write swear words or radical appeals with a violent nature.
2. Do not simply retell the text research, as readers can do it, but never critics and people with special training.
3. Not allowed to turn on personal opinion without argument.
4. Do not write lengthy abstract reasoning.
5. Is always express thoughts clearly and do not pay too much attention to the nuances that can be counted secondary.
6. The unpreparedness of the reviewer, the presence spelling and factual errors.
7. Do not write exclusively in a negative spirit, point out the positives as well.
8. Don't write about personal tastes and preferences.

Pay attention to these points, and you will not be accused of illiteracy or bias.

Writing a review is easy: criteria for content

When writing to begin with, indicate the overall rating of the article. It will consist of several criteria, each of which can be assessed as “sufficient”, “weak”, “insufficient” and included in the text. The criteria will be as follows:

1. Problematic. The study should be devoted to a particular issue and indicate its essence, point to solutions.
2. Relevance. The article should correspond to modern scientific and social realities.
3. Scientific. The author must consider the subject of research from the point of view of a scientist, even if it is in itself applied and technical.
4. Novelty. The results and conclusions reached by the author must have scientific novelty. It may also consist in the application of new methods that have not previously been used when considering a particular topic.
5. Completeness. Research must be holistic. So, the author needs to start with setting goals and goals, and complete the text with their solution.
6. Validity. The result must be substantiated using certain tools - specific methods, experiments, mathematical modeling, etc.
7. Structuredness. The article should have a clear and understandable structure, which in publications corresponds to the presence of sections and subsections. They can be devoted to relevance, analysis of facts and theories, problem statement, discussion in scientific circles and literature, conclusion, etc.
8. Characteristics of the formulations. The provisions of the publication should be formulated as clear, concise phrases and strictly define the essence of the contribution of the research to science and the development of the discipline.
9. Clarity. Articles should be written in a language that will be understandable to average specialists in a particular field. The use of generally accepted terms is required.
10. Compactness. Scientific work should not be excessively voluminous. The size of the text is regulated by the content of clear, verified information in it.

After evaluating these criteria, substantive comments can also be included. For more tips, check out the following video:

Review example

Today, a ready-made sample document can be downloaded for free. Here is an example of a short review of a publication in the field of psychology. Recall that this is only an approximate example, and you can (and most likely even should!) Include additional sub-clauses depending on the specific topic. So the text could be:

1. Review of the article "Psychological Aspects of Education in School Institutions" by Natalya Vasilievna Lapushkina, post-graduate student of the Department of Psychology of the Pedagogical University.
2. The article discusses the main psychological aspects that are aimed at improving the performance and learning ability of children at school, conducts a behavioral analysis of specific groups of schoolchildren by age.
3. The relevance of the problem under study is beyond doubt, because the current level of schooling lags far behind the realities of the time, and to a large extent this depends on the illiterate approach of teachers to students.
4. The author did a deep work and provided recommendations regarding the normalization of the psychological climate in educational institutions. There is a conclusion that the psychological knowledge of teachers is insufficient, and teachers are unwilling to seek contact with children.
5. The scientific article fully complies with a number of requirements and can be recommended for publication.
6. Full name of the reviewer, other personal information, signature and seal.

Finally

Writing a review is a problematic procedure, since it can be difficult not only for undergraduate or graduate students, but also for serious scientists, to clearly articulate their opinion on a study and express it in a few pages. Such documents are compiled both for the approval of the publication of the article, and for internal use in the defense of diplomas, term papers, for the implementation of student projects, and also simply as training for university students.

The writing process can be made much easier if you follow a specific plan and write your own assessment, according to the criteria. The finished sample also helps to determine the wording.

The French writer Victor Hugo received the shortest review of his work: his request to the publisher with a text of one question mark received an equally concise answer - one exclamation point.

When you like everything in a book, no extra words are needed. When it contains controversial points, common truths or something new and frightening, you need something more than a “wand with a dot”. It's about reviews, ladies and gentlemen!

Definition

A book review is a critical analysis and evaluation of a work written in a scientific, artistic, journalistic style in order to form an opinion about it among the target audience.

You can parse a book to:

• it is better to learn what you read yourself;
• publish a review on the blog and attract additional traffic;
• show expertise → attract the attention of publishers → start reviewing on a commercial basis.

When we write a review, we form the final opinion about the book and create the initial impression in other people. Are we doing it right?

Criteria for a correct review

1. Complete information about the author of the book, title, topic, year of publication, key moments of the story.
2. Analysis of the book with a focus on a specific target audience.
3. Analytical approach: everything good and bad that is in the work is investigated and substantiated.
4. Enough information to form an opinion about the book.
5. The average volume of a review is from 1,000 to 3,000 characters. If more - this is already a critical article, if less - a reader's review.
6. Analysis of a recently published book: the reviewer does it from scratch, and not influenced by the opinions of other people.
7. Mention of previous works and regalia of the author, without subservience or bias.
8. Prevention of transitions to the person, insults, calls for various types of hatred.
9. No errors in the review.

Varieties

Reviews can be classified:

• by object - music, films, theatrical performances, in our case - non-fiction books;
• by subject, i.e. the author of the review - an expert, an ordinary reader or a person to whom the author paid for a positive response;
• on a quantitative basis, i.e., the number and volume of peer-reviewed works.

Book reviews can be divided into:

• detailed professional analysis;
• short reviews-articles written by readers;
• an essay with a dominant personal opinion about the book and attitude towards the author;
• autoreviews, when the author speaks about his work;
• book reviews.

I gave only one of the examples of classification - the most capacious, in my opinion.

We are done with the necessary theory. Now…

Getting ready for review

Now there will be truly "captain's" advice:

It seems to be obvious, but it's not! After a cursory examination of the content, reading the abbreviated version (summary), they manage to write “reviews”, where there is nothing but the binary “good-bad”.

You need to read the book several times - first from the position of an ordinary reader, and then in order to make a critical analysis.

In the process, you can arm yourself with a pen with a notepad, paper bookmarks or stickers.

So, are you ready to start reviewing? Wait a bit and check yourself:

1. Do not read other reviews about the book, so as not to write other people's words.
2. Yes, your opinion may be very different from the opinion of the majority. Write, do not be afraid of "holivars" - a competent review will only be a plus.
3. Remember the rule: the more negative opinion you have about the book, the more arguments you need to give in its favor. The review in this case will be more voluminous.
4. Use equal proportions of logic and emotion.
5. Do not experience mental (and sometimes animal physical) fear of the author - if you bought a book and did not download it from a torrent tracker, then you have the right to speak out with reason.

Rushing into battle? I'll stop you again, sorry!

Plan your review

Nobody bothers to make your own plan, but you can use the typical one:

1. Bibliographic description - title of the book, author, year of publication (if this is a reprint, indicate which one), publisher.
2. A short retelling of the content in one to three sentences.
3. Directly review (personal impressions).
4. Analytical part - analysis of the name, content, structure, practical examples, etc.
5. Highlighting all the advantages and disadvantages of the book.
6. The final assessment and personal conclusions of the reviewer about the relevance and "professional suitability" of the book, recommendations to readers.

Excellent! Now we start...

Review Process

There is a saying: "Don't judge a book by its cover." I disagree with her, because the physical data of the book directly affect the readability and the first impression. And in this regard, I conditionally divide the review process into two parts, the first of which ...

Form review

She is good because:

• does not require reading a book;
• rather quickly compiled;
• more objective than content review.

It's bad because:

• time must pass to give an assessment according to some criteria;
• still not devoid of subjectivity, because there is another saying about "taste and color ...".

When reviewing gadgets, they always insert images into texts. I have selected and photographed a few "experimental" books from my home library to show which parts of the form can be reviewed.

Book format

"Pocket book" - a pocket book - an excellent solution for travelers on long and short distances. At home it is better to read in a standard format:

The format of the book greatly affects the perception. Choose only the one that is convenient not for the price, but for ergonomics.

Book Orientation

Yes, in our tolerant world, it is different for books - book or landscape:

The width of 213 millimeters makes this book untransportable in most bags. "For home reading only", friends! It also sticks out a lot from the bookshelf in a standing position. It may need to be stored lying down.

Dimensions and weight of the book

Look at these "baby books":

With dimensions of 236x163x36 mm, Porter's work weighs 916 g. Poundstone's book with dimensions of 240x161x31 mm weighs "only" 648 g. "Competitive Advantage" (715 pages) in paperback lies in the hand and feels noticeably heavier than "It's expensive or cheap ? hardcover (432 pages). Both will be difficult to read in public transport.

Cover design

Now there will be a contemplation of the beautiful:

Well, what can I say: the MIF publishing house is thoroughly working on the appearance of its books!

Cover color

Which book on the shelf did you notice first?

The color of the cover is also a marketing ploy to attract the attention of buyers in a bookstore. Or guests rapaciously studying your home library. By the way, I was the first to notice the “acid” covers of Dmitry Kot’s books “Selling Texts” and Timur Aslanov’s “Copywriting. Simple recipes for selling texts. Publishing house "Peter" did a good job!

dust jacket

Oh my favorite! Now there will be a case on the effect of good packaging.

Once I bought a book by Mikhail Akhmanov “Literary Talent. How to write a bestseller. Who does not know: Mikhail is a venerable science fiction writer, the author of the Big Diabetic Encyclopedia. After some time, I saw his own work “How to Write Books” on Ozone and also bought it. Let's look at the illustration:

I didn’t see anything surprising in the fact that the same author published two books on writing. For example, Jürgen Wolf has a "School of Literary Excellence" and a "Literary Master Class" ...

And then I took off the dust jacket:

Book with dust jacket removed ISBN 978-5-699-82148-8. The other has 978-5-699-70076-9. The volume is the same - 384 pages. Cool, yeah? To the question of packaging marketing and publisher's marketing policy for your future review.

Soft or hard cover

Both paperbacks were kept only at home at room temperature. On orange, I was even afraid to breathe. As you can see, the oilcloth layer began to move away from the paper one:

Now for the hardcover. It gives the book stability on the shelf and protects the pages from mechanical damage. But who would have saved the cover itself from damage and thermal effects! A slight tear in the spine, a change in humidity, and it splits into fifty shades of grey:

Font size

I was lucky - one hundred percent vision, I can read even from a matchbox. However, there are people who need capital letters in the text. Compare:

You can object to me - they say, the dimensions of the books are different. I will answer you: when you hold them in your hands, you understand how healthy the letters are in the “Way of Solution”, how they inflate the volume and amount of paper spent on printing and the final cost of the book.

Let's be objective - Alexander Ivin has "letters-babies", but also a small book. It is convenient to carry in transport, but in not the brightest lighting it is difficult to read.

Illustrations

Remember how we flipped through the pages in childhood hoping to see the pictures?.. And there is one continuous text! In non-fiction books, I also want to find a visual component. And when it is colored - generally a delight:

Paper quality

Previously, books were printed on gray newsprint - it is nondescript and fragile to the touch. Snow-white coated paper against its background wins:

On coated paper, fingerprints are clearly visible, like apples in the snow - pink on white. Or black.

book personalization

Know-how of MIF publishing house and its competitive advantage:

I confess that I do not like to write in books, even with a pencil. But if I let you read any of the "myth" books, I will quickly fill in the fields "This book belongs" and "Contacts of the owner."

Bookmark

She is a lyase. It greatly simplifies the life of the reader and eliminates the need to put calendars, candy wrappers and pieces of foil between the pages:

See how much you can say about a book without reading it! Naturally, here you need to study the paper version, not the electronic one.

Content review

To give a worthy critical analysis, the reviewer must own the material at least at the same level as the author, and preferably at a higher one.

After studying several options for peer review, I identified common points:

1. In the work, you can choose one of the following strategies: a look from the outside, analysis without giving positive or negative ratings, critical analysis or open polemics with the author.
2. It is mandatory to indicate the author and the title of the work, bibliographic data. Check if this is new or reissue.
3. Do not allow a banal retelling of the book. You can make out the title, content, the way the book is structured, the author's style and craftsmanship, but do it competently and intriguingly.
4. Express your impression of the book, while justifying all the negative and positive points.
5. To note the relevance of the work and the degree of its hitting the target audience.
6. Point out stylistic, factual, grammatical errors made by the author. Check for their presence.

It seems that no book is immune from errors. Even in the wonderful (except for jokes) book by Maxim Ilyakhov and Lyudmila Sarycheva "Write, cut" annoying typos crept in:

To the question that there are no perfect services, editors and editing. And reviewers, of course.

1. Follow your own style: do not use jargon, colloquial statements and clericalism.
2. Make sentences more concise and easier depending on the length of the review. Do not allow ambiguous assessments.
3. Try to share your experience of studying other books on the topic and the real usefulness of the peer-reviewed one.
4. End the review with an appeal to future readers.

The last point can be said in more detail.

Ethics of peer review

1. Check all dates, facts, numbers, titles and names.
2. Maintain a businesslike and friendly tone of the message.
3. Do not impose your vision on the author.
4. Don't let your attitude towards the author influence your opinion of the book.
5. Before publishing a review, warn the creator of the work so that he prepares a reasoned answer.

Remember - you are not an inquisitor. Peremptory statements, expressed unwillingness to dialogue with the author are not reviews.

So, you have made a critical analysis of the work. Do not rush to publish, first check yourself on ...

Review errors

1. Lack of sufficient knowledge on the topic of the work.

A person's perception of any film or literary work is quite subjective. Each of us has our own opinion about the movie we watched or the book we read, but this does not mean at all that we are not interested in someone else's point of view.

On the contrary, the reasoned and objective opinion of other people is always in demand and readable. This explains the emergence of such a concept as "criticism", and one of its varieties - reviews. What is a review? What are its features and how is it spelled?

What does the word "review" mean?

Term "review" has Latin roots. The concept comes from the word recension(consideration) and has been actively used since the time when literary criticism appeared in the world.

In Russia, reviews began to be written in the middle of the 18th century. Their first author was Nikolai Karamzin, who preferred to write so-called monographic reviews. Among other famous reviewers we can mention Pushkin, Chukovsky, Belinsky, Dobrolyubov.

What is a review?

A review is a genre of literary criticism and is a brief written analysis of a work, which contains an analysis of the criticized work and its assessment by a competent person.


The main task of the reviewer is to identify the merits and demerits of the criticized work and present an objective opinion to the readers. This does not mean that the critic is deprived of the opportunity to express his own position. He may well express his point of view, but it must be impartial and fair.

What are the reviews?

If earlier reviews were written only on, now there is a broad classification of them according to the object, subject (author), volume and number of works in one text.

Depending on the criticized object, reviews are compiled for films, books, performances and various types of products. The author can be an expert in a particular field, a direct consumer of the product, or a journalist who writes reviews on behalf of the creator.

By volume, grand and mini-reviews are distinguished. The first ones are a detailed text, which allows the most complete coverage of the topic under study. Such reviews are usually written by well-known critics with great authority in the eyes of the public. Mini-reviews are a short essay that allows the author to convey his impressions of what he saw or read.


If we talk about the number of criticized works, then the works can be divided into monoreviews, which mention one material, and polyreviews, in which several works are analyzed in the form of their comparison with each other.

How is a review different from a review?

One of the main features of the review is a reflection of the existing reality, that is, an already written work is analyzed in the text. The review pursues approximately the same goals, but has some differences. If a review is an official analysis of a work with its objective peer review, then a review is a simple opinion that conveys a person’s personal feelings.

The key concept here is analysis. The review gives only a general description of the work and often contains emotional judgments, supplemented by advice on correcting any shortcomings. The review, on the other hand, includes analytics, while the author must, to the maximum extent possible, distance himself from his attitude towards the criticized work.

How to write a review correctly?

To write a review correctly, first you need to draw up its plan, which includes a bibliographic description, a direct critical analysis of the work and a subsequent assessment.


In the review, it is necessary to consider the quality of the work done - the interestingness of the plot, the correspondence of the style (speech) of the author to the declared genre. The tone of the analysis throughout the criticism should be uniform. In the review, you can point out the author's grammatical errors, if any, and mention his previous achievements.

The reviewer's text cannot contain elements of slang, profanity, or be overloaded with secondary details.