Review articles
Review articles synthesize published information.
Review articles are more retrospective than Perspective articles, yet should meet the same criteria concerning scope and style.
Integrative
connects multiple organizational levels
integrates across sub-disciplines
Forward looking
identifies existing challenges
Strong conceptual foundation
lays bare the underlying framework
makes complex issues transparent
finds new connections among established ideas
provides clear definitions
bundles diverse topics into a few clear themes
introduces a new perspective
Effective introduction to topic
good historical overview
can be understood by newcomers to the field
providing examples from a range of study systems helps many readers connect with their prior knowledge
effective use of analogies
Clear communication
uses well-chosen examples from multiple sub-disciplines
well written
demonstrates ideas using concrete examples and/or actual data
contains strong visuals, such as visual abstracts and concept maps (Making Figures)
Bhullar, B. A. S., Hanson, M., Fabbri, M., Pritchard, A., Bever, G. S., & Hoffman, E. (2016). How to make a bird skull: major transitions in the evolution of the avian cranium, paedomorphosis, and the beak as a surrogate hand. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 56(3), 389-403. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icw069
French, S. S., Webb, A. C., Hudson, S. B., & Virgin, E. E. (2018). Town and country reptiles: a review of reptilian responses to urbanization. Integrative and comparative biology, 58(5), 948-966. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icy052
Rico-Guevara, A., Hurme, K. J., Elting, R., & Russell, A. L. (2021). Bene “fit” assessment in pollination coevolution: mechanistic perspectives on hummingbird bill–flower matching. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 61(2), 681-695. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icab111
Vaughn, D., & Allen, J. D. (2010). The peril of the plankton. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 50(4), 552-570. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icq037
Structure
Reviews are best served by structuring them around their main arguments instead of attempting to follow the IMRaD model used for articles reporting original research or meta analyses.
Rationale
The first question that thee editor will ask is "Do we need a review paper on this topic and why?" So make sure that you address this question early in your text to provide a strong rationale for your review.