Analytical articles about what they are about. Analytical texts: is it difficult or easy? Ready to create serious content
In this chapter we will learn: ?
Does analytical journalism require many of the skills of a professional journalist?
Post-Soviet analytics - what are its features?
Analytics requirements
in Western (English-language) journalism?
International analytical publications on the Internet
In order to analyze a certain situation, fact or phenomenon, you need to be able to think, compare facts and factors and see exactly how they shape this situation.
But in order to write good journalistic articles in the analytical genre, you also need to have a “sense” for news, to be able to distinguish important information from unimportant information, more relevant from less relevant. You also need to be able to write in the news genre, that is, describe the event clearly, clearly and in such a way that it is understandable to the reader.
However, there cannot be good analytics without interviews. After all, to write an article, you need to understand what those who are related to it think about the event or phenomenon being analyzed: politicians, economists, businessmen or experts. But this is not enough. In order for an article to be interesting, you need to be able to write reports, and sometimes portraits. That is, writing analytical articles requires mastery of many professional skills. It can be said that journalistic analytics is the top of the pyramid of journalistic excellence. And those who manage to write smart, balanced and, importantly, not boring analytical articles rightfully enjoy fame.
Articles in this genre are written, as a rule, in the wake of events that can affect the situation in a particular area or change it. Events of this kind may include, for example, the unexpected dismissal of a foreign minister, the privatization of a large enterprise, an announcement about the unification of opposition parties, protests in one of the regions of the country, or the purchase of weapons by the government.
However, analytical materials may precede an important event. In this case, the reader is explained exactly what the significance of the upcoming event is, as well as how it can change the situation, what consequences it can lead to. Such events could be high-level meetings, a statement by the leadership of an oil or gas supplier about a sharp increase in prices, or the expected launch of a new large enterprise.
As a rule, analytical articles are related to politics or economics. Less often they write analytics related to social and other areas. This genre is most often and productively used as PR. Indeed, it is quite easy to replace real, real and honest analysis with an article where the author teaches the reader how he, the reader, should evaluate the event.
Analytics in post-Soviet journalism
There was no full-fledged analytics as a genre of journalism in Soviet newspapers. It couldn’t have been in the Soviet press, since the answers to all the questions were known in advance: the Soviet system is the best in the world, the West is successfully rotting, socialism is marching victoriously across the planet, this year’s harvest turned out to be especially good (or bad, depending on the weather). conditions, and never because of stupid orders from the communist authorities), and the economy must be economical. All articles went through multi-stage censorship: first it was necessary to “push” the article through the department editor, then through the editor-in-chief, who was often the most serious censor, and at the very end it was the turn of the official censor from the ubiquitous Glavlit, who could “kill” any article.
This was compensated by the development of other genres. Thus, Soviet journalism knows examples of wonderful essays, excellent travel notes and reports, brilliant journalism, sometimes aimed at debunking “individual shortcomings that sometimes still occur in the country of victorious socialism,” or the capitalist world as such.
And when, in post-Soviet times, political analytics returned to the pages of newspapers, it absorbed the achievements of these genres. This means that the analytics of the nineties of the last century and the beginning of this century are largely individual (since the author’s “I” is present in all these genres), emotional and can be polemical. The authors prove their point of view, argue, saturating their speech with emotionally charged vocabulary, and try to convince the reader that they are right.
The purpose of analytical articles may be:
Finding out the causes and consequences of an event. In other words, why did it happen?
Showing the relationship between different events. Why and how they are interconnected.
Authors, as a rule, have their own version of what is happening and justify it. And in order to convince them of the correctness of their conclusions, they cite in their articles quotes from the statements of experts in the field, politicians, famous scientists or cultural figures. Because of this, one of the main questions of post-Soviet analytics is “Who benefits from this?”
Indicative in this sense is the point of view of Valery Panyushkin, a special correspondent of the Kommersant Publishing House, which he published on the Internet (http://iournalism.narod.ru/smi/0001.html).
Thus, Panyushkin believes that an article by a professional journalist (apparently, this means an analytical article) should answer fourteen questions:
1. Who? 2. What? 3.
Why? 8.
Who are the enemies? 9.
Who are the allies? 10.
Who benefits? eleven.
Why is it profitable? 12.
Who benefits? 13.
Why is it unprofitable? 14.
To the classic questions is added the clarification of enemies and allies, who benefits, who disadvantages and why. Answering these questions, the journalist expresses his point of view and gives his own argumentation. That is, wanting to answer these questions, the journalist goes into the realm of conclusions based on the facts he has. At the same time, the analysis does not leave the reader a choice, since he, the reader, does not know whether there are facts that the author does not possess. And the answer to the question “So what?”, posed in this form, inevitably leads the journalist into the realm of forecasts, which may turn out to be inaccurate, which can undermine confidence in him.
In addition, the answer to such a number of questions is possible in one article, if it is voluminous enough. However, we must remember that the optimal length for a newspaper analytical article is from 800 to 1200 words. Sometimes authors can, carried away by their reasoning, write long and boringly. And boredom is death to a newspaper article. People don’t read boring articles - this is one of the main commandments of journalism. And this means that you need to write interestingly. At the same time, there is absolutely no need to rush to extremes, believing that the only alternative to boring journalism is sensationalism and tabloid exaggeration. Even seemingly boring subjects can be written in an interesting and exciting way. You just need to know how to do it.
Sometimes you can meet journalists who believe that there is nothing wrong with the fact that their articles are written in a difficult and not very understandable language: “I write for the elite, for the few, for those who need it and who will understand it,” they say.
I am convinced that this point of view is fundamentally wrong. For experts, for “those who need it,” there are special publications. Newspapers are written and published “for everyone.” The average reader should understand what is written in the article. Moreover, she should be interesting to him.
Remember: don't read boring articles. Try to write interestingly.
When a journalist selects sources and quotes that are intended to support his point of view, there is a temptation to slightly correct the words of this or that politician so that they more closely correspond to the point of view of the author. And this is unethical and dishonest in relation to both the source and the reader. But there is an even more serious danger. The journalist may be carried away by the line of reasoning, and reality and the opinion of the author will become intertwined, as a result of which the reader may be misled.
Today, fact and opinion are intertwined: comments are present in the news, editorial materials are crammed with facts. The end product doesn't get any better, and never before has the profession of journalism carried so many dangers. Unintentional or deliberate errors, malicious manipulation or toxic distortions turn news into serious weapons. Citing “informed sources” and “government officials” who wish to remain anonymous, or observers who know everything but are unknown to anyone, covers up all violations, and they go unpunished.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
The best job in the world
Returning to the first chapters of this book, let us recall the definitions of “truth journalism” and “fact journalism.” Within this definition, post-Soviet analytics fits into the category of “truth journalism.”
Finally, when an analytical article or material purporting to analyze a situation appears in a newspaper, the first thing the reader often looks at is the name of the author. And if the author inspires confidence in him, then he will read the article. And this trust comes from many years of work.
Western analytics
Of course, there is not and cannot be completely objective journalism. And of course, a journalist can and should have his own point of view on current events, and he, like any person, has the right to express it. But articles presenting one point of view are not called analytical in the West. They are called comments. The logic is that, presenting only one - their own - point of view, the authors can only comment on events, and not analyze them. This means that the genre of analysis in post-Soviet and Western journalism refers to different types of articles.
When writing an analytical article, a Western journalist must present an event from different points of view. So, in an article on education reform, of course, it should be said that representatives of the parliamentary majority welcome the reform and are confident that the reform is being carried out correctly. And since this opinion exists, it is necessary to show what the opposition thinks about the reform, which, according to the logic of things, should be against it. But in such an article it is simply necessary to talk about how parents, teachers and even children, that is, those who will be directly affected by the reform, feel about the reform.
It is important for the standards of Western journalism that the article presents the points of view of both supporters and opponents of education reform, regardless of whether the journalist himself agrees with it. Presenting opposing points of view is one of the main requirements of the journalist's craft. And this distinguishes the Western approach from the post-Soviet one, where, as mentioned above, the article presents only one point of view - its author. With this approach, first-person narration is virtually eliminated.
Here, too, the material, if possible, is deprived of polemical and journalistic overtones, since Western analytical journalists do not prove their point of view, but present an event, fact, phenomenon or situation as a complex whole, the assessments of which can be different, sometimes even diametrically opposed. In this case, emotions can only interfere with the presentation of different points of view. Consequently, Western analytical journalism refers to “journalism of fact.”
Among the different types of analytics, the most common is the type of article that is commonly called “news analysis.” In general, from a structural point of view, these articles follow the rules that were set out in the chapter “Writing Techniques”. There are, however, some peculiarities.
So, since such articles are about showing and analyzing an event, phenomenon or fact, then first, naturally, you need to show the fact itself. Technically, this is done using a direct news lead (see the chapter “Writing the news”). More complex types of leads (of those shown in the chapter “Writing Techniques”), as a rule, are not suitable here, since the main task of the author at the beginning of the article is to show the event. The best way to do this is to use a summary lead.
Then, in several paragraphs, you need to show how this event arose or as a result of what specific phenomena or facts it became possible. After this, you need to show in what context it occurs. In the case of the example already given about education reform, the article may take the following form: 1.
Lead: “The Ministry of Education yesterday introduced the public to the upcoming reform of the education system.” 2.
Analysis of publications in the newspapers “Izvestia” and “Chelyabinsky Rabochiy”
Analysis of the first group of texts: information materials
The event chosen for this study as a reference event is the adoption by the State Duma of the famous “Dima Yakovlev Law” (dated December 28, 2012). It received a wide public response and was covered by the vast majority of publications, including Izvestia and Chelyabinsk Workers.
Izvestia from the very beginning - as soon as the bill was submitted to the Duma - carefully monitored the course of events, promptly notifying readers of every new detail of the case. The articles published in this newspaper are distinguished by their large volume and comprehensive amount of information.
Chelyabinsk Worker, as a regional media outlet, mainly covers what is happening in the Southern Urals. Of all-Russian and global events - only the most significant and interesting for a wide range of readers. Therefore, the Chelyabinsk edition published much less material about the sensational law than the Moscow Izvestia. And, as a rule, they were more concise and laconic.
Nevertheless, it was possible to select a sufficient number of publications from both newspapers. As a result, it was decided to conduct a comparative analysis, firstly, of articles of an informational nature, and, secondly, of materials in the “journalistic commentary” genre.
The main criteria that guided the analysis/comparison are the following:
Sources cited by the journalist.
Now directly to the practical part of the work. So, first of all, we will consider and compare information materials from both publications related to the informational reason stated above.
From Izvestia - the article “Adoptive parents in the USA ask Putin to cancel the “Dima Yakovlev amendment.” Authors: Dmitry Runkevich, Alena Sivkova and Yulia Tsoi.
From the side of “Chelyabka” - “Did the boy ask?” Mikhail Galyan and “I still want to get to the USA” by Mikhail Fomin.
We are talking here not about the law itself, but about the consequences of its adoption for individual social groups/individuals. What all three publications have in common is that they are centered on those who have suffered from this bill. “Izvestia” has an American adoption organization, “ChR” has a Chelyabinsk orphan Maxim Kargapoltsev, who so wanted to live in an American family that he even wrote a letter to Putin.
The vocabulary of the article from Izvestia can be defined as standard socio-political. The clear presence of the following signs helps to reach this conclusion:
dry style of presentation;
direct word order;
relying solely on facts;
neutrality of intonation - a minimum of any evaluative constructions, epithets, rhetorical questions and exclamations.
In addition, you should pay attention to the presence in the text
statistical data: “...over the past 40 years, has contributed to the adoption of 10 thousand children”;
cliches typical of information journalism: “In addition, the parliamentarian reminded”; “a package of bills designed to protect interests”; “sent a letter to the authorities”; “initiator of the cancellation of the amendment”, etc.
But at the end of the publication, elements of the author’s subjectivity/evaluation still appear. The intonation in these places automatically develops from absolutely neutral to ironic - “Elizaveta Glinka, better known as Doctor Lisa” - or dramatically tense - “he stood up for the fate of disabled children...”. And already in the last sentence, Izvestia employees allow themselves a direct evaluative epithet - “heated discussions.”
However, the level of subjectivity in the article is extremely low. Despite the fact that individual inclusions with a hint of emotionality are still present, it is almost impossible to isolate the position of journalists on the issue they cover. In addition, the article was written collectively, so it is logical to assume that the authors’ views on the problem under consideration could differ significantly.
During the story, Izvestia journalists often refer to various sources. Basically, they provide comments from representatives of structures and organizations related to the event being described. In this case, characteristic introductory constructions are used, which can also be classified as newspaper cliches: “As the head of the Russian representative office of WACAP Svetlana Mironova told Izvestia...”, “...says the first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, Olga Batalina.”
The trend of abundant citation of sources clearly shows that media workers do not want to take on unnecessary responsibility and thus once again emphasize their neutrality. The material is structured in such a way that virtually the entire emotional and evaluative component is concentrated outside the author’s text itself. Such constructions as “But we hope that...”, “I am afraid that...”, “My opinion is that...”, “we have already determined our position”, “We should have sought a compromise earlier” are found only in the speech of respondents.
Two publications of “The Chelyabinsk Worker” are united by a common hero - the orphan Maxim Kargapoltsev already mentioned above. Despite the fact that the materials were written by different people, they are united by the authors’ openly expressed sympathy for Maxim. Words with a purely positive connotation are used in relation to him - “guy”, “child”, “boy”. Journalist Mikhail Galyan calls him “one of those who “missed the train.” With this metaphorical comparison, he seems to emphasize the tragedy and impasse of the situation in which the government, with its new law, has placed the hero of his article. All this contributes to the formation in the reader’s mind of a positive image, a feeling of pity, and solidarity.
While the boarding school in which Maxim is brought up and its management are shown in a purely negative way: “In order to exchange just a few words with Maxim, I had to overcome the resistance of the administration of the boarding house.” Such qualities as callousness, unresponsiveness, and reluctance to help his pupil in difficult circumstances are emphasized: “Director Denis Matsko believes that “the child already has enough attention”; “The guy didn’t dare answer other questions. As he says, he was forbidden to do so.”
Both articles quite openly express the authors’ negative attitude towards the current situation and the Dima Yakovlev Law as a whole. The proposals are almost identical: “The new law actually deprived them (the orphans) of the families they had almost acquired” (Mikhail Galyan); “Dima, along with hundreds of other Russian orphans, actually lost the chance to find a family” (Mikhail Fomin).
Consequently, the level of author's subjectivity in the article is high. Without resorting to too straightforward expression of their opinion in the form of phrases “I think”, “I believe”, “it seems to me”, etc., the publication’s employees, however, place semantic emphasis in their materials in such a way that the reader understands their position.
To sources from the “center” - “...in the presidential administration”, “United Russia deputy Ekaterina Lakhova”, “Vladimir Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov”, “RIA Novosti news agency” - local ones are added: “Director of the house- boarding school No. 13 Denis Matsko”, “children’s ombudsman of the region Margarita Pavlova”, “Metropolitan of Chelyabinsk and Zlatoust Feofan”.
In this regard, the incident with the Chelyabinsk orphanage resident is curious because the prerequisite for its occurrence was an event of national scale - namely, the adoption of the Dima Yakovlev Law. Then the Chelyabinsk event received wide publicity and became known throughout the country. But it can, nevertheless, only be considered in the context of the “anti-Magnitsky act,” since it served as the immediate cause. Therefore, when covering this topic, journalists need to work with both local and national experts and organizations.
Popular social networks are also mentioned - VKontakte and Twitter. Because Today, almost all children and young people have their own accounts on social networks, virtual profiles as sources of valuable information for journalists - both in the capital and in the regions - are more than relevant.
Summarizing the analysis of the first group of publications, we note that
Izvestia, when covering this or that event, produces more detailed, balanced and impartial materials than Chelyabinsk Worker. It is important for them to give their reader comprehensive information about a particular event/phenomenon, to show him the most complete picture of this event;
Since operational information about events on a national scale is the prerogative of federal publications, Chelyabinsk Worker reflects only the main trends of what is happening. If there is such an opportunity, he somehow connects them with his regional theme - as in the case of Maxim Kargopoltsev. Journalists have much more opportunities for creative self-realization; they have the opportunity to correctly express their vision and assessment of a particular event or phenomenon.
Writing scientific reviews is a separate branch of writing that requires the author not only to deeply penetrate a scientific problem, but also the ability to quickly search and analyze information, conduct a critical synthesis of material from different sources, taking into account their importance and novelty, and also present complex and voluminous topics in relatively simple language. Successful reviews will be reborn in the form of books and textbooks, but weak or simply poorly written works will not be read or cited by anyone. 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 advice for novice scientists. We have already discussed how to write scientific articles (“”) and give oral presentations (“How to make a good scientific report”); an attempt was also made to motivate readers to devote themselves to a scientific career ("9 Reasons to Become a Scientist" and "10 Simple Rules for Poor But Honest Scientists"). Now we continue with tips on a more specialized topic - how to write a review of scientific literature.
No matter what 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 emerging, scientists simply physically cannot study every 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 although experimental publications usually bring recognition, literature reviews are a kind of badge of prestige, and therefore most scientists take writing reviews 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 to gain experience you will need practice, as well as 10+1 tips in this article, synthesized from the experience of leading scientists.
Rule #1: Clearly define the topic of the review and its audience
How to choose a good topic for writing a review? After all, in any field there is an incredible number of interesting problems that can be tackled. Here are some tips for choosing a topic:
- The topic should be of interest to you personally. Ideally, you should immediately remember a dozen recent publications that would be appropriate to critically analyze.
- The topic should be relevant, preferably “hot”. This will certainly provide you with a large amount of material, and your review will receive the attention of a wide range of readers.
- The review should address clearly defined issues. There is no point in analyzing this or that area “in general” - there is neither paper nor strength for this.
- Define your target audience. What field of specialists read the journal where you are going to write a review? Will the topic be of interest not only to biologists, but also to chemists, mathematicians, and 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
You're more likely to write a good review if you've done it before (even if it's on a different topic). In this case, you can use the previous publication as a basis on which to string new data. Here are some tips for finding information:
- Do not limit yourself to one scientific literature search engine: this will allow you not to miss a single truly worthwhile 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.
- Keep all articles in one folder. Organizer programs (Endnote, Mendeley) will help you quickly find the right source. Always duplicate information on several independent media.
- Determine 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.
- 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 give you food for thought. It is advisable to refer to such reviews, emphasizing the new data that has emerged.
- Pay attention to who cited the latest reviews and where. See how their new data complements or contradicts previously published data.
Rule #3: Notes in the margins
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 immediately - this will make it easier to connect new thoughts with existing results, your personal ideas, etc. You can write directly in the margins or stick sticknotes (if you use printouts of articles), or make notes directly on a computer or tablet: almost all modern digital library cataloging programs allow you to leave notes. Write out verbatim the quotes you plan to refer to in your review. When writing your draft, try to paraphrase these quotes in your own words.
It is very important to be careful and write out references already at this stage in order to avoid subsequent confusion in an attempt to remember who owned certain data. Thus, while you read the selected literature, a draft review will appear by itself. Of course, this draft will have to be rewritten, restructured and rephrased more than once or twice in order to obtain a finished text with clear logic and sharpened arguments. Don't let this scare you. Just start taking notes, even without any system - as you progress, a review plan will gradually emerge, and the further you go, the clearer and sharper it will be.
Rule #4: Determine the type of review
If you took notes all the time while reading the literature, then at the end of this process you will already have an idea of the approximate volume of the future review. This may be the best time to decide where to go. There are two types of review genre - mini- and full-size review. Some journals now prefer to publish short reviews, focused on recent publications, with word and citation limits. A mini-review does not mean inferiority; rather, on the contrary, it is a laconic and succinct article, a concentrate of modern ideas that attracts the attention of busy readers with its small volume. To write a competent mini-review, you must truly master the pen. The disadvantage of mini-reviews is that sometimes some issues are presented in a simplified form due to space limitations.
A full-length review has undoubted advantages: you can provide more data and are free to dwell on those details that you consider important or interesting. However, such “monumental” articles are in danger of being shelved “for thoughtful study later,” which may never come.
Reviews can also be classified as descriptive or conceptual. Narrative reviews focus on the methodology, search, and interpretation of each study—a conscientious summary of the current evidence. The authors of conceptual reviews put forward new ideas and concepts arising from the entire array of published materials. To write a good conceptual review, it is advisable to be a true elder in your field and to capture the most invisible ideas floating in the atmosphere. Be self-critical - can you correctly grasp such trends? And do you have enough time? Remember: descriptive reviews tend to take much less time and effort.
Rule #5: Look at the problem from different angles
No matter what kind of review you plan to write, focus on a specific issue. 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. Considering the mechanisms of a particular problem at various levels - from molecules to populations - will allow you to present the material more clearly and broadly. 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 review is not only a summary of the literature, but also a critical analysis of it that helps identify methodological problems and point out research gaps. After reading your review, the astute reader should get an idea of the following:
- What are the main achievements in the described area;
- What are the main controversial issues in the area;
- What are the main scientific questions and prospects for their solution.
Of course, successfully answering all three questions in one review would be an unspeakable success. Not always one author can have such global thinking, so attracting co-authors will significantly improve the quality of the article. Each scientist has his own strengths: one excellently describes the results of his work, another deftly criticizes other people's work and identifies problem areas, the third is good at systematizing and summarizing the results of various studies. If you can 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 literature review requires good writing and grammar. Be sure to ask colleagues to read the final draft before publishing.
Rule #7: Think structurally
A good review cannot be confused with anything else: it is timely, systematic, easy to read, structured and critical. Reviews rarely use the structure of experimental articles (introduction, methods, results, discussion). Instead, the author each time chooses his own narrative logic, which may be dictated by the topic of the review itself. Although there is no single format, the overall 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 can you organize the flow of the main text in your review so that your reader does not get lost in it and understands 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 detailed reading.
Rule #8: Consider Reviewer Feedback
Literature reviews are usually reviewed as rigorously as research articles. As a rule, taking into account the feedback and opinions of your reviewers significantly improves the original version of the review. By reading the review carefully, reviewers will use fresh eyes to pick out any inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or undisclosed problems that you missed. 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.
Reviewers' advice is very important, so you should try to get reviews from experts in different fields of science. On the one hand, this can lead to conflicting opinions on the substance of the review and inconsistent advice for improving the text. On the other hand, this situation is better than no reviews at all. The variety of comments will help you determine where experts agree and where there are points of contention.
Rule #9: Include your own research, but be modestly objective.
As a rule, the authors of 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 one's own work. Scientists may somewhat overestimate what they themselves have done. And, nevertheless, you should not be too modest - if you were asked to write a review, this already means that your work is worth something. Try to objectively compare your data with the data of your colleagues. In reviews written by several authors, objectivity is easier to achieve because each co-author edits the text and has the opportunity to take a more realistic look at the achievements of his colleagues.
Rule #10: Use the latest data, but don't forget the classics
Given the rapid growth in the number of scientific papers, literature reviews in many areas of biology are quickly becoming outdated and losing their relevance. However, don’t let this scare you - a truly good analysis will be relevant for quite a long time. Each experimental article, no matter how new and beautiful it is, covers only a narrow area of the broad front of science. To summarize, reflect and show the general vector of development of this or that direction is the main task of the review. Even if in five years this analysis will be incomplete or even outdated - all the same, such a review will not lose its value and will serve as a starting point for subsequent work. This work will serve as 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. It is impossible to write a good review without practice. And while you are only a young scientist, and scientific journals do not indulge 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 field 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 unknown author if the level of presentation and the topics raised are truly original. In general, don’t expect favors from magazine editors, start writing yourself!
Successful reviews written in the 80s are rarely read today. However, at one time they served as the foundation for scientific works of the 90s, from which the experimental theories of the 2000s grew. And today's books readily cite some old articles as classics worth emulating. Don't believe me? Look at the number of citations for Origin of Species...
Literature
- Marco Pautasso. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol. 9 , e1003149.
Regularly, year after year, it auctions off the most delicious pieces of state property, hoping in the coming decades to bring the cause of general privatization to a victorious end. However, in our case we are talking about a harmless activity. In post-Soviet newspeak, a panel is a platform for discussion, where, unlike round tables, experts most often act as speakers. The lot of the rest is to ask questions of the selected speakers. Despite such strict regulations, stories happen here that surprise the public. Suffice it to recall the emotional reaction of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to the assessment of the economic situation in Russia by foreign participants in the last Gaidar Forum, held in Moscow on January 15-18.
Who was Primakov aiming at?
The day before its opening, a meeting of the “Mercury Club” was held, at which the patriarch of Russian politics, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Evgeny Primakov, made a traditional New Year’s report. Already in the first minute of his speech, it became clear where he was calling our society in these difficult times for the Russian economy. “Everyone to fight the neoliberals!” - this is how Primakov’s words would sound if they could be translated into the language of slogans. But let’s limit ourselves to a neutral quote: “...without counteracting neoliberal policies, there is a threat of serious negative consequences for Russia.”
It soon became clear who the speaker was aiming at. Obviously in the Medvedev government, where rarely anyone openly expresses an opinion that does not coincide with the opinion of the neoliberals. Many, Primakov believes, prefer to acknowledge the deteriorating situation, but that’s all.
Speaking about the platform of Russian neoliberals, he especially emphasized that “its main component is the withdrawal of the state from the economy.” The rest follows from this: a course towards a new large-scale privatization of the most important state-owned enterprises for the country, the expansion of private ownership initiatives in breadth - to healthcare, educational institutions, and science.
Evgeniy Maksimovich dwelled in detail on the problem, the discussion of which is taboo in the corridors of power. “Another principle of neoliberalism,” he noted, “is that the free play of economic forces, and not state planning, ensures social justice. However, this conclusion did not stand up to reality in capitalist countries, where, in particular, the state introduced a progressive taxation scale that facilitates the redistribution of income in favor of the poor. As for Russia, without state indicative planning of economic growth (of course, not directive), it is generally impossible to overcome the gap in the living standards of the population from developed Western countries.”
There is also enormous income inequality. And how could it be otherwise in a state where 110 dollar billionaires control 30% of all assets. The RAS academician recalled the conclusion of foreign experts who studied the socio-economic situation in our country: “During the transition period, there were hopes that Russia would be transformed into a highly profitable economy with highly skilled workers and strong social protection programs inherited from Soviet times. In practice, it turned out to be almost a parody.”
Yes, Primakov’s position, outlined in his New Year’s report at the Mercury Club meeting, to some extent coincides with the position of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. But, while paying tribute to the highly experienced politician who, after the catastrophic default of 1998, headed a center-left government that managed to restore the collapsed economy in nine months and achieve a significant increase in industrial production, one still cannot fail to take into account something else. He remains a man of that post-Soviet socio-political system, which the communists are fighting to dismantle. Apparently, this is where the contradictions arise in his assessment of the power elites, the belief that Putin and his entourage will not allow the neoliberals to “triumph in the economy.” But a much more formidable force is acting against them - a powerful protest movement organized by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation for the resignation of the Medvedev government, which united hundreds of thousands of people.
But all that has been said does not detract from the enormous social significance of Primakov’s report. For some it is a sign of hope, for others it is a stern warning.
The problem came out
As one would expect, at the Gaidar Forum, on the panels of which deputy prime ministers, ministers and other high-ranking officials worked together with Medvedev, they tried not to remember Primakov’s sensational report. During the plenary discussion “Outlines of the Post-Crisis World,” the Prime Minister, repeating after Professor Vladimir Mau that during periods of crisis new opportunities for economic growth are formed, decided to amaze the audience with the paradoxical nature of his judgments: “In this sense, we can agree that the world is going through another the stage of creative destruction, a phenomenon described by Joseph Schumpeter that creates the preconditions for subsequent development.” Rejoice, citizens, the crisis turns out to be good for you!
True, there was a problem with the “phenomenon”. The consultants who polished Medvedev's text, boasting of foreign master's degrees, should have handled the scientific heritage of the Austrian and American economist and sociologist Schumpeter more carefully. If they had looked into his book “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” or at least read something serious about it, they would have discovered the scientist’s forecast, which was unpleasant for their boss: the self-destruction of capitalism is an inevitable process that will ultimately culminate in the formation of a socialist society.
However, Medvedev likes to quote not only foreign authors, but also himself. He reminded his listeners: “Not so long ago, it was last year at our Sochi forum in September, I said that the time for simple solutions has passed. This is true. We all face a serious intellectual challenge...” How does Russia, tied hand and foot by neoliberals, respond to it?
Despite the threatening decline in industrial production in the country, the head of government sees no particular cause for alarm. They say that the economy is still somehow growing, the budget is balanced, public debt and unemployment are low, inflation is under control.
Russia has the “best crisis”
After speeches by Secretary General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Angel Gurria, ex-President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus, former Prime Minister of Italy Mario Monti and other well-known experts in the West, Dmitry Anatolyevich simply beamed. After all, none of them said anything bad about the current socio-economic situation in Russia. Moreover, some foreign guests rated it as quite stable against the backdrop of the global crisis.
But in praising our country, everyone was surpassed by the American “shock therapy” specialist Jeffrey Sachs, who from the fall of 1991 to January 1994 led a group of Yeltsin’s economic advisers. He considered that our situation, compared to many other states, “looks cloudless.”
Russia will achieve much greater success by developing industries that suffered, as the “shock therapist” put it, during the transition period, allegedly due to the fact that they “were not built into the global technological system.” Although the reason for the destruction of our knowledge-intensive industries was, according to domestic experts, completely different: Western companies did not want to have unnecessary competitors in the post-Soviet space. They were cleaned up by someone else's hands. During more than two years of being under Yeltsin’s wing, Sachs trained enough destroyers ready to fulfill any foreign order. Some of them still hold ranks and positions today.
Now it’s hard to imagine what to expect from the inspired Cabinet. What if he decides to repeat Yegor Gaidar’s experiments and offer the people a spicy “shock” dish?
An analytical article is a text that contains an analysis of facts and conclusions regarding a specific topic. You could even say that this is a small study. If an informational article gives a general understanding of some event or thing, then an analytical article reveals those facts that were not previously known and makes a more in-depth analysis.
Main characteristics
An article in the journalistic genre will be considered high-quality if it meets the following characteristics.
- The topic described is relevant at a certain moment.
- The thesis is well formulated and the question addressed in the article is clearly posed.
- The material necessary to cover the topic has been selected very thoroughly.
- The analysis of the material is deep, logically ideal, and competent.
- The presentation of the material is consistent, subheadings are highlighted.
- No unnecessary repetitions.
- Availability of logical conclusions.
- Absence of stylistic, grammatical and logical errors.
- Achieving the goal - the article gives the answer to the question posed.
- The presence of a fresh way of thinking in the analysis.
- The presentation form is chosen correctly, it is readable for the target audience.
The first stage of work: studying the topic
In order to obtain interesting and useful analytical material, it must be carried out very carefully. The most important thing is that you understand the topic yourself and can convey it to the target audience. We need to find as many sources of information as possible and approach the issue from different angles. This approach will give the material more depth and arouse interest.
If you have taken on the task of writing a serious text in the journalistic genre, then this stage may take you several days. If you feel that you are interested in the material and non-standard ideas on the issue are filling your head, then you can move on to the next stage.
The second stage of work: systematization of the received material
So, you have a huge amount of information in front of you, but it’s still very early to start writing your work. Everything that is now needs to be clearly structured. Re-read all the information received again, sort everything into categories according to importance. Each piece of material has its own value and place in the overall structure.
An informational and analytical article should cover the topic well, the text should flow smoothly from one subheading to another. Otherwise, it will just turn out to be a mess that will be very difficult for the target audience to master.
The third stage of work: we determine the structure
When all the available information is systematized, you can begin to determine the structure of the future article. It depends on many factors. Including the amount of evidence for the thesis, the topic itself, and much more. To make it clear what an analytical article should look like, an example of the “skeleton” of its structure is presented below.
Approximate text structure:
- An introductory part in which you should explain why your topic is relevant today. Additionally, this is where it is important to frame the question being addressed in your article.
- Main part. This chapter should contain all the analytical material. Several points of view on the topic should be considered, and your personal opinion expressed.
- The final part should be both informative and concise. This is not so easy to achieve. But, the most important thing is to convey all the conclusions drawn on the topic in this chapter. It is also necessary to evaluate the result of your research and tell what was achieved, whether it was possible to reveal the topic.
Once the structure has been drawn up, you can begin to write the text itself. Follow the plan strictly - then the work will be easily perceived by the target audience. It is possible that during the writing process you may come up with some more interesting ideas. It's okay - you can supplement your work with them.
Types of analytical article
This type of journalistic genre can be divided into several main categories.
- General research article;
This group includes all publications in the text of which an analysis of broad, generally significant issues is carried out. For example, here you can talk about morality and economics, about church and state, about international relations. Analytical articles about politics also fall into this category. This type of publication is distinguished by the global thinking of the author. The main goal of the work is not just to reveal the topic, but to study patterns, prospects and trends in the development of society.
- Practical and analytical article;
This includes exposing the issue of industry problems. It could be anything: culture, science, agriculture, business and finance. Such articles pay attention to the analysis of a specific event, situation in a certain field of activity. The main task of the author when writing a text of this type is to identify the reasons why the problem arose and evaluate effective solutions using the example of practical problems.
- Polemical article;
Published when a dispute arises in society over a particular issue. The reason for writing could be, for example, a speech by political opponents. double The author expresses his own opinion on the issue under consideration and proposes the most effective solutions in his opinion. The facts presented in the work can only relate to the point of view of the author himself. He cannot afford to give an example that would contradict the stated thesis.
Text writing style
Analytical articles are quite simple to make if you decide on the writing style. For example, if you have to write a work that will later be published in a popular science magazine, then a light syllable will do. The most important thing is to rely on your target audience.
Newspapers and magazines simply shout that they need bright, interesting headlines. Using highly specialized terms is possible, but be sure to then decipher what you meant. Otherwise, the reader will simply put your work aside and find another article that is more understandable to him.
If analytical articles are written for a scientific journal, then this is more serious work. Such texts are read only by experts in their field. If you don’t understand the topic, then don’t even take on such work. The text must be composed correctly, contain terms related to specialization and useful information. As for the title for this one, you shouldn’t make it “screaming”. A person who picks up a scientific journal wants facts. Therefore, the title should clearly reflect the essence of the article, and the text should reveal the problem.
Text volume
Another important question is how long the analytical article should be. There are no special recommendations on this matter. First write the work and don't count the words and letters. Make a detailed, interesting text.
Then the author needs to step into the reader’s shoes. Ask yourself a question: would you read your article to the end? The text can be long, but exciting. If you notice some fragments in your work that are making you less interested, then you need to replace them or remove them altogether.
The volume of written text is, in fact, not as important as the information it carries. Organize your work with subheadings and lists to make the information easier for the reader to understand.
And don’t forget about your own opinion - the journalistic genre involves arguments and reflections on the topic of the issue.
- If you decide to take on writing a journalistic article, then take only the topic in which you understand and on which you have something to say. The author's personal opinion is a mandatory part of the text.
- Make the text structured and enjoyable to read. The work should attract attention visually. Subheadings and lists are used for this.
- Depending on where the article will be published, work with the title. For the target audience of a scientific journal - only facts, for newspapers - intrigue.
- It is advisable that articles be accompanied by thematic illustrations. This will make it much more pleasant for a person to read it.
- Before you publish your work, review it yourself several times and determine whether it is interesting to you. Redo unsuccessful fragments, if any.
- Use as many facts as possible from different sources on your chosen topic in your work. The more information you take into account when writing, the more interesting the article will be.
Let's sum it up
An analytical article will be easy for you to write if you choose a topic that is close to you. And do not forget about the main rule - the chosen topic must be relevant, only then will it arouse interest among the target audience.
- What is a focus group Focus group how many people should there be
- Social status of a person
- Math I Like Limit Theorem
- The theory of archetypes by C. G. Jung and its significance for understanding the mechanisms of perception of the objective world. Basic archetypes in Jungian analysis Jung's archetypes in brief