How to write a review paper ieee format

The most commonly published format in the IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, these articles report quantitative, qualitative, critical, and mixed methods studies and their results. Examples include experiments, textual analyses, content analyses, surveys, design research, interview-based studies, usability tests, and ethnographies.

About Integrative Literature Reviews

A new type of research report actively sought for the IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, integrative literature reviews are an empirical research report that systematically collects, classifies, and analyzes a body of literature on a topic. As part of the research report, authors of integrative literature reviews describe the methodology used to search, choose and code studies, and focus on providing a critique or interpretation rather than just reporting data. Popular in other disciplines because they succinctly summarize and empirically assess all of the literature on a particular topic, these types of articles are actively recruited by the Transactions.

Guidelines:

Note: We recognize that, in our effort to focus on readers and be clear with authors, our guidelines are extensive and directive. We hope, however, this detailed guidance provides authors with the strongest possible guidance and ensures the most positive outcome possible from the peer-review process.

• File formats
• Formatting of text (margins, spacing, type face)
• Formatting of tables, charts, figures, and illustrations

Please use these titles as major section headings

Address these issues in the section

• What this case is about (100 words max)
• Why it’s relevant to readers of the Transactions on Professional Communication

Close this section by:

• Stating the research questions underlying the study
• Providing a preview of the main sections in the article, using terminology that closely matches the headings.

• Explain how you conducted the search for literature (such as keywords selected)
• State the criteria used to select individual articles from the results returned by the general search.

• End the discussions of each topic with the suggestion of a relationship that will be explored in the study.
• At the close of the literature review, state the hypotheses.

• Participants:
  • Describe the characteristics sought in participants.
  • Explain how participants were recruited.
  • Explicitly state that the study received approval from a Research Ethics committee or that it was exempt.
  • Do notprovide detailed, descriptive information about the actual participants. Save that information for the Results section.
  • Instruments or experiments:
    • For instruments, like surveys, provide a summary of the key sections of the instrument, the type of information collected in each, and the nature of the questions (Likert scale, etc.).
    • For experiments, explain the type of experiment, the nature of the treatment and control, and how it was administered and followed up.
    • For instruments and experiments, explain how the instrument or experiment was validated or piloted.
    • How data was collected: State, step-by-step, how data was collected from participants.
      • Note: Only explain how the data was collected—do not report any of the data that was collected. Hold that for the results section.
      • Data analysis: Explain how data was analyzed.
        • If data is analyzed quantitatively, explain (a) which statistical tests were chosen, (b) in plain language—and with a minimum of technical terminology and without acronyms—how this test analyzes the data, and (c) why they are appropriate in this situation.
        • If the data is analyzed qualitatively, explain the types of qualitative analysis.
        • Note: The use of software is not a data analysis procedure. It is merely a tool to assist with the process. However, the tool should be named in the data analysis section as the tool used.
        • Close the Data Analysis section by explaining how you ensured the validity and generalizability (quantitative studies) or trustworthiness and credibility (qualitative and critical studies) of the data.
        • Explain who participated in the study. Provide information about the numbers of participants, their demographics, and other relevant characteristics. When presenting other relevant characteristics, explain why these characteristics are relevant to report.
        • Present the results of the hypothesis testing. As one reviewer observed:

        Avoid providing readers with “statistics before [readers] get any narrative sense of outcomes or significance. Frontload narrative, background and support with the math. The ‘story’ of this study needs to be told in a way that makes the reading” easy.

        • To prevent any confusion, present each discussion as follows:
        1. Restate the hypothesis
        2. Explain which data was collected to provide insights about that hypothesis
        3. Explain how the data was analyzed to make an assessment
        4. Explicitly state whether the data supports the hypothesis and why you reach that conclusion
        • First, describe the phenomenon studied in full, so readers have a background from which to consider the analysis.
        • For example:
        • If you are presenting the case of the development of a communication product, first describe the final product developed, then explain the process followed to develop it.
        • Or, if you conducted a series of interviews with managers, describe the characteristics of the managers interviewed.
        • Next, present the data analysis. Because the nature of the analysis varies among qualitative studies, each study will vary. But focus on patterns in the data and generating a model that is supported by strong patterns in that data.
        1. Conclusions
        2. Limitations
        3. Suggestions for future research
        • Trying to explore phenomena in a workplace setting, but the research was conducted with students in the context of the classroom.
        • The inability to generalize the results of qualitative studies.
        • Identify the bodies of literature you consulted
        • Summarize the key points of the review
        • Identify your study as qualitative, quantitative, critical, or mixed
        • Identify your study as case study, experiment, survey or other
        • Describe how you chose participants and how many you used
        • Describe how you chose your location and its type
        • Identify your method of data collection
        • Name your analysis techniques
        • Summarize your answers to the research questions
        • Summarize the implications of your results (1 sentence)
        • Summarize the limitations of your study (1 sentence)
        • Summarize your suggested future research (1 sentence)

        
        Samples of Research Articles Published in the Transactions

        Of a quantitative study:
        F. Ganier & R. Querrec, “TIP-EXE: A software tool for studying the use and understanding of procedural documents,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 55, no. 2, 105-121, 2012.

        Of a qualitative study:
        P. Bosch-Sijtsema & A. Sivunen,“Professional virtual worlds supporting computer-mediated communication, collaboration, and learning in geographically distributed contexts,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 56, no. 2, 160-175, 2013.

        Of a critical study:
        B. Kanoksilapatham, “Structure of research article introductions in three engineering subdisciplines,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 55, no. 2, 294-309, 2012.
        
        Samples of Integrative Literature Reviews Published in the Transactions

        J. Ramey & P. G. Rao, “The systematic literature review as a research genre,” Proceedings of the 2011 International Professional Communication Conference, 2011.

        P. G. Rao & J. Ramey, “Use of mobile phones by non-literate and semi-literate people: A systematic literature review,” Proceedings of the 2011 International Professional Communication Conference, 2011.

        [Note that a subscription is required to view the articles. If you do not already have a subscription, your library might.]
        

        Reviewers’ Expectations

        To learn about the criteria that reviewers consider when providing feedback on a research article or integrative literature review, click here.

        • Home
        • Sitemap
        • Accessibility
        • Nondiscrimination Policy
        • Terms and Conditions
        • IEEE Privacy Policy

        © Copyright 2024 IEEE – All rights reserved. Use of this website signifies your agreement to the IEEE Terms and Conditions.
        A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world’s largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.