Critical review of a scientific publication: An insight

Abstract

The ever-increasing number of scientific publications has made the critical review/appraisal of articles necessary to weed out the irrelevant scientific publications as well as to remain up to date. The aim of this article is to present the concepts and principles of reviewing a scientific publication and it will be helpful to researchers, authors and reviewers in writing/evaluating a scientific publication. The article provides a detailed review of all the structural head of a manuscript {title, abstract and keywords, main text (introduction, methods, results, and discussion), conclusion, references, tables and figures}. Can be the decisive factor about the merit of the article. The title should be attractive, provoke curiosity, simple, concise and easily understandable without jargon while the abstract is a concise & accurate summary of the publication. Introduction: Is the brief description of the subject matter of the scientific publication, contains the present state of knowledge, and should progress from the general to the more specific. Rationale/ justification of the investigation should be clearly laid out in this part. Methodology: Describes what has been done, how it has been done and what does the authors looked for. It describes the various stages of planning, type of study sample, conduction of the study and the statistical part. Results: Show "what the authors have found?" and should reveal the points raised in the methodology, results for end points, reporting of statistical significance and other observations. Discussion: This section discusses and interprets the study findings and puts the findings in the proper perspective in the light of available literature on the study. This section compares the findings of the study with the status quo and odes the critical analysis of study limitations. Conclusions: Include the most important relevant logically derived interpretation of the study.