# Review Paper Style

The review should read like a survey article, not like a notebook or meeting memo.

## Common structure

Most academic reviews share these elements, but the exact section names and order vary by field, journal, and language:

- title
- abstract
- keywords
- introduction
- several main sections organized around a clear logic
- discussion, conclusion, or both
- future directions or open problems when useful
- references

Treat this as a style guide, not a rigid template.

## Section guidance

### Title

- Summarize the topic, scope, and object.
- Keep it concise and academic.

### Abstract

- Use when the output is intended to resemble a paper or formal report.
- Briefly cover background, purpose, scope, main findings, and outlook.

### Keywords

- Usually provide 3-6 keywords.
- Prefer field terms, method terms, and task terms.

### Introduction

Usually cover:
- research background and significance
- scope of the review
- time span and source selection if relevant
- organizing logic of the review

### Main body

Choose the organizing principle that best fits the corpus:
- chronological development
- research themes
- methods
- viewpoints or schools

The body should usually include:
- research status
- important results, theories, and methods
- common ground across studies
- disagreements and divergences
- weaknesses and gaps

### Discussion and conclusion

- Use one combined section or two separate sections depending on the length and formality of the review.
- Summarize the overall research status.
- Point out the main unresolved problems, contradictions, and blank spots.

### Future directions

- Include when the corpus supports forward-looking synthesis.
- Keep this grounded in the literature, not generic optimism.

### References

- Format references in GB/T 7714 style when metadata is sufficient.
- If fields are missing, keep the partial record and note the missing parts rather than inventing them.

## Style rules

- Prefer complete paragraphs over bullet dumps.
- Use transition sentences between sections.
- Use tables only to support the prose review, not replace it.
- Keep claims calibrated to the available evidence.