research article and review article difference

"How Do I?" @JWULibrary

Sample Question

JWU-Providence Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

35 about the library
29 articles & journals
1 Borrowing
8 citing sources
17 company & industry
11 computers
1 copyright compliance
5 countries & travel
2 course registration
50 databases
3 education
2 Interlibrary loan
5 job search
6 libguides
9 market research
25 my library account
12 requests
26 research basics
21 research topics
2 study rooms
16 technology
7 textbooks
42 university
3 video tutorial
1 writing_help

Answered By: Sarah Naomi Campbell Last Updated: Sep 07, 2018 Views: 216790

Watch this short video to learn about types of scholarly articles, including research articles and literature reviews!

Not in the mood for a video? Read on!

What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

Research articles , sometimes referred to as empirical or primary sources , report on original research. They will typically include sections such as an introduction, methods, results, and discussion.

Here is a more detailed explanation of research articles .

Review articles , sometimes called literature reviews or secondary sources , synthesize or analyze research already conducted in primary sources. They generally summarize the current state of research on a given topic.

Here is a more detailed explanation of review articles .

The video above was created by the Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries .

The defintions, and the linked detailed explanations, are paraphrased from the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , 6th ed .

The linked explanations are provided by the Mohawk Valley Community College Libraries .

Links & Files

How do I find empirical articles in the library databases?
Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 63 No 19

Comments (0)

Review vs. Research Articles

How can you tell if you are looking at a research paper, review paper or a systematic review examples and article characteristics are provided below to help you figure it out., research papers.

A research article describes a study that was performed by the article’s author(s). It explains the methodology of the study, such as how data was collected and analyzed, and clarifies what the results mean. Each step of the study is reported in detail so that other researchers can repeat the experiment.

To determine if a paper is a research article, examine its wording. Research articles describe actions taken by the researcher(s) during the experimental process. Look for statements like “we tested,” “I measured,” or “we investigated.” Research articles also describe the outcomes of studies. Check for phrases like “the study found” or “the results indicate.” Next, look closely at the formatting of the article. Research papers are divided into sections that occur in a particular order: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references.

Let's take a closer look at this research paper by Bacon et al. published in the International Journal of Hypertension :

Review Papers

Review articles do not describe original research conducted by the author(s). Instead, they give an overview of a specific subject by examining previously published studies on the topic. The author searches for and selects studies on the subject and then tries to make sense of their findings. In particular, review articles look at whether the outcomes of the chosen studies are similar, and if they are not, attempt to explain the conflicting results. By interpreting the findings of previous studies, review articles are able to present the current knowledge and understanding of a specific topic.

Since review articles summarize the research on a particular topic, students should read them for background information before consulting detailed, technical research articles. Furthermore, review articles are a useful starting point for a research project because their reference lists can be used to find additional articles on the subject.

Let's take a closer look at this review paper by Bacon et al. published in Sports Medicine :

Systematic Review Papers

A systematic review is a type of review article that tries to limit the occurrence of bias. Traditional, non-systematic reviews can be biased because they do not include all of the available papers on the review’s topic; only certain studies are discussed by the author. No formal process is used to decide which articles to include in the review. Consequently, unpublished articles, older papers, works in foreign languages, manuscripts published in small journals, and studies that conflict with the author’s beliefs can be overlooked or excluded. Since traditional reviews do not have to explain the techniques used to select the studies, it can be difficult to determine if the author’s bias affected the review’s findings.

Systematic reviews were developed to address the problem of bias. Unlike traditional reviews, which cover a broad topic, systematic reviews focus on a single question, such as if a particular intervention successfully treats a medical condition. Systematic reviews then track down all of the available studies that address the question, choose some to include in the review, and critique them using predetermined criteria. The studies are found, selected, and evaluated using a formal, scientific methodology in order to minimize the effect of the author’s bias. The methodology is clearly explained in the systematic review so that readers can form opinions about the quality of the review.

Let's take a closer look this systematic review paper by Vigano et al. published in Lancet Oncology :

Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed

Many databases have special features that allow the searcher to restrict results to articles that match specific criteria. In other words, only articles of a certain type will be displayed in the search results. These “limiters” can be useful when searching for research or review articles. PubMed has a limiter for article type, which is located on the left sidebar of the search results page. This limiter can filter the search results to show only review articles.

Research Article vs. Review Article

What's the difference.

Research articles and review articles are both types of academic papers that are published in scholarly journals. However, they differ in terms of their purpose and content. A research article presents original research findings and is typically structured with sections such as introduction, methodology, results, and discussion. It aims to contribute new knowledge to a specific field by presenting empirical evidence and drawing conclusions. On the other hand, a review article provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of existing research on a particular topic. It synthesizes and evaluates multiple studies to provide a broader understanding of the subject matter. While research articles focus on generating new knowledge, review articles aim to provide a critical overview of the existing literature.

Attribute	Research Article	Review Article
Definition	A detailed study or investigation conducted to discover new knowledge or validate existing theories.	An article that summarizes, evaluates, and critiques existing research studies or literature on a specific topic.
Purpose	To present original research findings and contribute to the existing body of knowledge.	To provide an overview and analysis of existing research studies or literature on a specific topic.
Methodology	Employs various research methods such as experiments, surveys, interviews, observations, etc.	Does not involve primary data collection; relies on secondary sources like research papers, books, etc.
Structure	Typically includes sections like abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.	May have sections like abstract, introduction, literature review, analysis, and conclusion.
Authorship	Usually written by the researchers or scientists who conducted the study.	Can be written by experts in the field who have extensive knowledge and understanding of the topic.
Citation	Research articles are often cited by other researchers to support their own studies.	Review articles are often cited as a comprehensive source of information on a specific topic.
Length	Can vary widely in length depending on the complexity of the study and the journal's requirements.	Tends to be longer than research articles due to the inclusion of extensive literature review and analysis.
Publication Frequency	Research articles are published regularly as new studies are conducted.	Review articles are published less frequently as they require a significant amount of time and effort to compile.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Research articles and review articles are two common types of scholarly publications that play a crucial role in the dissemination of scientific knowledge. While both serve the purpose of sharing information, they differ in their attributes, methodologies, and objectives. In this article, we will explore the characteristics of research articles and review articles, highlighting their similarities and differences.

Research Articles

Research articles are primary sources of scientific information that present original research findings. They are typically written by researchers or scientists who have conducted experiments, collected data, and analyzed the results. Research articles follow a specific structure, including an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.

In the abstract section, the authors provide a concise summary of the research question, methods, key findings, and implications. The introduction section provides background information, outlines the research problem, and states the objectives of the study. The methodology section describes the research design, sample size, data collection methods, and statistical analyses used.

The results section presents the findings of the study, often using tables, graphs, or figures to illustrate the data. The discussion section interprets the results, compares them to previous research, and discusses their implications. Finally, the conclusion section summarizes the main findings, highlights the limitations of the study, and suggests future research directions.

Research articles are typically peer-reviewed, meaning they undergo a rigorous evaluation process by experts in the field before publication. This ensures the quality and validity of the research. Research articles are essential for advancing scientific knowledge, as they contribute new insights, theories, and empirical evidence to a specific field of study.

Review Articles

Review articles, on the other hand, provide a comprehensive analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. They aim to summarize, evaluate, and critique the body of knowledge in a specific field. Review articles are often written by experts in the field who have extensive knowledge and expertise in the subject matter.

Unlike research articles, review articles do not present original research findings. Instead, they gather and analyze existing research studies, books, and other relevant sources to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic. Review articles follow a similar structure to research articles, including an abstract, introduction, body sections, and conclusion.

In the abstract section, the authors summarize the main objectives, scope, and findings of the review. The introduction section provides background information on the topic, highlights its significance, and outlines the objectives of the review. The body sections of a review article are divided into subtopics or themes, where the authors discuss and analyze the existing research in a systematic manner.

Review articles often include tables, figures, or diagrams to summarize and present the key findings from the reviewed studies. The conclusion section of a review article summarizes the main findings, identifies gaps in the existing research, and suggests future research directions.

Review articles are also typically peer-reviewed, ensuring the credibility and accuracy of the information presented. They serve as valuable resources for researchers, students, and professionals who want to gain a comprehensive understanding of a specific topic without having to read numerous individual research articles.

Similarities

While research articles and review articles have distinct characteristics, they also share some similarities. Both types of articles are published in scholarly journals and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields. They both follow a structured format, including abstracts, introductions, and conclusions.

Additionally, both research articles and review articles undergo a peer-review process to ensure the quality and validity of the information presented. This process involves experts in the field critically evaluating the articles for their methodology, analysis, and contribution to the field.

Both research articles and review articles also require a thorough literature review to establish the context and background of the study or review. This ensures that the authors are building upon existing knowledge and addressing gaps in the field.

Differences

While there are similarities between research articles and review articles, there are also significant differences in their attributes and objectives. The most notable difference is that research articles present original research findings, while review articles analyze and synthesize existing research.

Research articles focus on addressing a specific research question or hypothesis through the collection and analysis of data. They aim to contribute new knowledge and insights to the field. In contrast, review articles aim to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of existing research on a specific topic. They aim to summarize the current state of knowledge, identify gaps, and suggest future research directions.

Another difference is the structure of the articles. Research articles follow a specific format, including sections such as methodology, results, and discussion. Review articles also have a structured format but may vary in the number and organization of their sections, depending on the topic and the preferences of the authors.

Furthermore, the audience for research articles and review articles may differ. Research articles are often targeted towards researchers, scientists, and professionals in a specific field who are interested in the details of a particular study. Review articles, on the other hand, are valuable resources for researchers, students, and professionals who want to gain a broad understanding of a topic or need a comprehensive literature review on a specific subject.

Lastly, the time required to produce research articles and review articles may differ. Research articles often require a significant amount of time to design and conduct experiments, collect and analyze data, and write up the findings. Review articles, while still time-consuming, primarily involve extensive literature review, analysis, and synthesis of existing research.

In conclusion, research articles and review articles are two distinct types of scholarly publications that serve different purposes in the scientific community. Research articles present original research findings, contributing new knowledge to a specific field, while review articles analyze and synthesize existing research on a particular topic. Both types of articles undergo a peer-review process and follow a structured format, but their content, objectives, and target audience differ. Understanding the attributes and differences between research articles and review articles is essential for researchers, students, and professionals to effectively navigate and contribute to the scientific literature.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

What Is The Difference Between A Scholarly Research Article And A Review Article?

If you are new in the academic world, you may find the types of academic articles dizziying. The more common ones include research articles, and also review articles. How are they similar and different from each other? Distinguishing between research and review articles is crucial.

In this post, let’s explore what research and review articles are, and how are they different.

Research Article vs. Review Article

Aspect	Research Article	Review Article
	Reports new research and findings.	Summarises existing research studies.
	Contains sections like introduction, methods, results, and discussion.	Includes a summary, topic introduction, and a discussion synthesising research.
	Filled with new data and findings.	Compiles and analyses existing data; no new research findings.
	Introduces fresh research and insights to academia.	Offers a comprehensive view of a topic based on existing research.
	Advances knowledge and prompts further research.	Clarifies and summarises research, guiding future studies.
	“Investigating Necrotic Enteritis in 15 Californian Broiler Chicken Farms.”	“Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens – What We Know So Far.”

What Is A Research Article?

A research article serves as the cornerstone of the academic and scientific community, standing as a detailed report on original findings.

Unlike review articles which synthesise existing literature to provide an overview, research articles present primary research with fresh data, exploring uncharted territories within a specific field.

The devil is in the details when it comes to these scholarly works. Original studies not only pose a research question but delve into methodologies that range from complex experimental designs to detailed observations.

Scholarly articles are often peer-reviewed, meaning that other experts in the field scrutinise the work before publication to ensure its validity and contribution to the field.

The empirical nature of research articles means that the raw data and analysis methods are laid bare for replication—a fundamental tenet of scientific inquiry. These papers typically include:

Introduction: Introduces the problem
Methodology: T he means by which the study was conducted
Results: F indings from the study
Discussion: Connects the findings to the bigger picture, highlighting implications and potential for future research.

While some journals accept such articles readily, the journey of a paper from research question to published research is fraught with meticulous data collection and rigorous peer evaluation.

For the keen observer, it’s the systematic reviews and meta-analyses that truly offer a glimpse into the current state of understanding, weaving through the tapestry of existing knowledge to pinpoint gaps and suggest paths forward.

It’s this level of detail—often hidden in plain sight in methods and results—that serves as a rich vein of information for those looking to conduct systematic reviews or embark on a similar empirical journey.

Whether it’s a clinical case study or a large-scale trial, the research article is an essential treasure in the scholarly literature, serving as a building block for academic writing and future exploration.

What Is A Review Article?

A review article stands out in the scholarly world as a synthesis of existing research, providing a critical and comprehensive analysis of a particular topic.

Unlike original research articles that report new empirical findings, review articles serve as a bridge connecting a myriad of studies, offering an overview that discerns patterns, strengths, and gaps within published work.

Peer-reviewed and systematically organised, these articles are essential for scholars who wish to familiarise themselves with the current state of knowledge on a given subject without having to delve into each individual research paper.

Insiders know that the crafting of a review article is an art in itself. Authors meticulously collect and analyse data from various sources, often employing methods like meta-analysis or systematic review searches to compare and combine findings.

They don’t just summarise existing literature; they synthesise it, providing new insights or revealing unexplored areas that could benefit from future research. It’s a rigorous process, often involving the intricate task of:

Comparing clinical trials,
Conducting extensive literature reviews, or even
Generating new frameworks for understanding complex academic concepts.

The value of a well-conducted review is immense. Journals publishing these articles often see them as keystones, providing a foundation upon which other researchers can build.

Such reviews can point to the need for new primary research, challenge existing paradigms, or even sometimes shift the direction of scholarly inquiry.

For the discerning academic, a review article is not just a summary—it’s a roadmap for what comes next in the quest for knowledge.

How Are Review And Research Articles Different?

In the scholarly cosmos, the distinction between a research article and a review article is fundamental, yet it’s a source of perplexity for budding academics. Diving into the anatomy of these articles reveals their distinct roles in academia.

Original Research vs Synthesised Knowledge

A research article is an original study, presenting novel findings. It follows a stringent structure: an abstract to summarize the study, an introduction to set the stage, followed by methods, results, and a discussion that connects the findings to broader implications.

A review article instead synthesises the information from one or many of these original studies, into an article to allow easier reading. Some also offer additional insights for the readers.

Anatomy & Structure

An original research article is usually brimming with original data, charts, and perhaps phrases like “we investigated” or “the study found,” signifying fresh empirical insights. At the most basic, a research article usually contains sections such as:

Introduction
Methodology
Future research ideas

A review article usually begins with an abstract summarising the scope and findings of the review. The main body is divided into sections that often include:

An introduction to the topic
A discussion segment that synthesises and analyses the compiled research
Subtopics that further categorise the research by themes or methodologies.

Finally, it concludes with a summary or conclusion that reflects on the current state of research, identifies gaps, and may suggest directions for future studies, accompanied by a thorough list of references.

A research article is written to share new findings and original data on a particular research. This means the information are fresh, and new to the scientific community.

An example title of a research article may be “Investigating Necrotic Enteritis in 15 Californian Broiler Chicken Farms.”

A review article is more akin to an academic digest, offering a synthesis of existing research on a topic. It typically lacks the methodology and results sections found in research papers.

The main goal is to give a panoramic view of the existing literature, gaps, and sometimes, a meta-analysis combining findings from various studies to distill a more substantial conclusion.

An example of a review article about Necrotic Enteritis may be something like this: “Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens – What We Know So Far.”

Impact and Use in Academia

Research articles are the primary sources, documenting original work from scientists, as they conduct researches in their fields.

Original research articles are crucial in academia as they contribute new knowledge, support evidence-based advancements, and form the foundation for subsequent scholarly inquiry.

Research articles:

Provide detailed methodology and results for peer scrutiny
Foster academic dialogue,
Often the preferred source for cutting-edge information in a given field, and
Directly impacting teaching, policy-making, and further research.

Review articles are summaries that distill wisdom from multiple sources to shed light on the current state of knowledge, often guiding future research.

They are usually seen as secondary sources, containing insights that research articles might not individually convey.

Journals prize them for their ability to provide a systematic overview, and while they may not require the substantial funding necessary for conducting original research, their scholarly impact is substantial.

Wrapping Up

In the academic landscape, research articles and review articles form the backbone of knowledge dissemination and scholarly progress.

Research articles introduce novel insights, pushing the boundaries of understanding, while review articles offer a synthesis of existing findings, guiding future studies.

Both are essential: one for its fresh empirical contributions, the other for its comprehensive overviews and analytical prowess.

Together, they underpin the scientific method, spur academic debate, and serve as the keystones of educational advancement and informed decision-making in the quest for enlightenment and innovation.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is the Difference Between Research Papers and Review Papers?

Researchers often have to write different types of articles, from review papers to review papers and more, each with its own purpose and structure. This makes it critical for students and researchers to understand the nuances of good writing and develop the skills required to write various kinds of academic text. With so many different types of academic writing to pursue – scholarly articles, commentaries, book reviews, case reports, clinical study reports – it is common for students and early career researchers to get confused. So in this article, we will explain what is a review paper and what is a research paper, while summarizing the similarities and difference between review papers and research papers.

Table of Contents

What is a Review Paper ?

A review paper offers an overview of previously published work and does not contain any new research findings. It evaluates and summarizes information or knowledge that is already available in various published formats like journals, books, or other publications, all of which is referred to as secondary literature. Well-written review papers play a crucial role in helping students and researchers understand existing knowledge in a specific field or a research topic they are interested in. By providing a comprehensive overview of previous studies, methodologies, findings, and trends, they help researchers identify gaps in a specific field of study opening up new avenues for future research.

What is a Research Paper ?

A research paper is based on original research and primary sources of data. Unlike review papers, researchers writing research papers need to report new findings derived from empirical research or experimentation. It requires the author to draw inferences or make assumptions based on experiments, surveys, interviews, or questionnaires employed to collect and analyze data. Research papers also typically follow the recommended IMRAD format, which includes an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Through research papers, authors address a specific research question or hypothesis with the aim of contributing novel insights to the field.

Similarities between research papers and review papers

Research papers and review papers share several similarities, which makes it understandable that it is this pair of academic documents that are often most confused.

Research papers and review papers are written by scholars and intended for an academic audience; they’re written with the aim of contributing to the existing body of knowledge in a particular field and can be published in peer reviewed journals.
Both research papers and review papers require a comprehensive understanding of all the latest, relevant literature on a specific topic. This means authors must conduct a thorough review of existing studies, theories, and methodologies in their own subject and related areas to inform their own research or analysis.
Research papers and review papers both adhere to specific formatting and citation styles dictated by the target journal. This ensures consistency and allows readers to easily locate and reference the sources cited in the papers.

These similarities highlight the rigorous, scholarly nature of both research papers and review papers, which requires both research integrity and a commitment to further knowledge in a field. However, these two types of academic writing are more different than one would think.

Differences between research papers and review papers

Though often used interchangeably to refer to academic content, research papers and review papers are quite different. They have different purposes, specific structure and writing styles, and citation formats given that they aim to communicate different kinds of information. Here are four key differences between research papers and review papers:

Purpose: Review papers evaluate existing research, identify trends, and discuss the current state of knowledge on a specific topic; they are based on the study of previously published literature. On the other hand, research paperscontain original research work undertaken by the author, who is required to contribute new knowledge to the research field.
Structure: Research papers typically follow a structured format, including key sections like the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Meanwhile, review papers may have a more flexible structure, allowing authors to organize the content based on thematic or chronological approaches. However, they generally include an introduction, main body discussing various aspects of the topic, and a conclusion.
Methodology: Research papers involve the collection of data, experimentation, or analysis of existing data to answer specific research questions. However, review papers do not involve original data collection; instead, they extensively analyze and summarize existing studies, often using systematic literature review methods.
Citation style: Research papers rely on primary sources to support and justify their own findings, emphasizing recent and relevant research. Review papers incorporate a wide range of primary and secondary sources to present a comprehensive overview of the topic and support the evaluation and synthesis of existing literature.

In summary, it’s important to understand the key differences between research papers and review papers. By mastering the art of writing both research papers and review papers, students and researchers can make more meaningful contributions to their chosen disciplines. All the best!

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !

How to get a PhD in Computer Science?

How to get a PhD in Accounting?

Maxwell Library | Bridgewater State University

Today's Hours:

Maxwell Library
Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines
Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Where Do I Start?
How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles?
How Do I Compare Periodical Types?
Where Can I find More Information?

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Scholarly or research articles are written for experts in their fields. They are often peer-reviewed or reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication. They often have terminology or jargon that is field specific. They are generally lengthy articles. Social science and science scholarly articles have similar structures as do arts and humanities scholarly articles. Not all items in a scholarly journal are peer reviewed. For example, an editorial opinion items can be published in a scholarly journal but the article itself is not scholarly. Scholarly journals may include book reviews or other content that have not been peer reviewed.

Empirical Study: (Original or Primary) based on observation, experimentation, or study. Clinical trials, clinical case studies, and most meta-analyses are empirical studies.

Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include symptoms and diagnosis.

Clinical trials ( Health Research): Th ese articles are often based on large groups of people. They often include methods and control studies. They tend to be lengthy articles.

Opinion Piece: An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best.

Book review: Recent review of books in the field. They may be several pages but tend to be fairly short.

Social Science and Science Research Articles

The majority of social science and physical science articles include

Journal Title and Author
Abstract
Introduction with a hypothesis or thesis
Literature Review
Methods/Methodology
Results/Findings

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

In the Arts and Humanities, scholarly articles tend to be less formatted than in the social sciences and sciences. In the humanities, scholars are not conducting the same kinds of research experiments, but they are still using evidence to draw logical conclusions. Common sections of these articles include:

an Introduction
Discussion/Conclusion
works cited/References/Bibliography

Research versus Review Articles

6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers
INFOGRAPHIC: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
Michigan State University. Empirical vs Review Articles
UC Merced Library. Empirical & Review Articles
<< Previous: Where Do I Start?
Next: How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? >>
Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 10:48 AM
URL: https://library.bridgew.edu/scholarly

Phone: 508.531.1392 Text: 508.425.4096 Email: [email protected]

Feedback/Comments

Website Accessibility

How to Write a Review Article

Types of Review Articles
Before Writing a Review Article
Determining Where to Publish
Searching the Literature
Citation Management
Reading a Review Article

What is a Review Article?

The purpose of writing a review article is for knowledge updating concerning a topic.

A review article aims to highlight:

What has been done?
What has been found?
What issues have not been addressed?
What issues remain to be debated?
What new issues have been raised?
What will be the future direction of research?

Similarities and Differences to Original Research Articles

Differences Between Original Research Articles and Review Articles

Venn Diagram original research vs review article

An original research article aims to: Provides background information (Intro.) on prior research, Reasons for present study, Issues to be investigated by the present study, Written for experts. Authors describe: Research methods & materials, Data acquisition/analysis tools, Results, Discussion of results.
Both are Peer-reviewed for: Accuracy, Quality, Biases, Conflict of interest.
A review article aims to: Extensive survey of published research articles about a specific topic, Critical appraising of research findings, summarize up-to-date research findings, Identify critical issues to be addressed, Written for experts and general audiences, Be a source of original research.

Figure by Zhiyong Han, PhD

<< Previous: Home
Next: Types of Review Articles >>
The Interprofessional Health Sciences Library
123 Metro Boulevard
Nutley, NJ 07110
[email protected]
Student Services
Parents and Families
Career Center
Web Accessibility
Visiting Campus
Public Safety
Disability Support Services
Campus Security Report
Report a Problem
Login to LibApps

Biological Literature: Research vs Review Articles

The Scientific Method Explained
Parts of a Scientific Article
How to Read Scientific Articles
Research vs Review Articles
Quantitative vs Qualitative Research
How do I find a Quantitative article?
Find Books/eBooks
Linking Google Scholar to Gee Library Resources
Related Websites
Evaluating Resources
Documenting Sources (Citations)
Avoiding Plagiarism
Choosing Your Topic This link opens in a new window
Creating a Literature Review
Related Guides
Library Session Materials

Research Articles

A research article describes an original study that the author(s) conducted themselves.

It will include a brief literature review, but the main focus of the article is to describe the theoretical approach, methods, and results of the authors' own study.

Look at the abstract or full text of the journal article and look for the following:

Was data collected?
Were there surveys, questionnaires, interviews, interventions (as in a clinical trial)?
Is there a population?
Is there an outline of the methodology used?
Are there findings or results?
Are there conclusions and a discussion of the significance?

A research article has a hypothesis, a method for testing the hypothesis, a population on which the hypothesis was tested, results or findings, and a discussion or conclusion.

Review Articles

Review articles summarize the current state of research on a subject by organizing, synthesizing, and critically evaluating the relevant literature. They tell what is currently known about an area under study and place what is known in context. This allows the researcher to see how their particular study fits into a larger picture. Review articles are not original research articles. Instead, they are a summary of many other original research articles. When your instructor tells you to obtain an "original research article" or to use a primary source, do not use an article that says review. Review articles may include a bibliography that will lead you back to the primary research reported in the article.

Systematic Review Articles

A systematic review is an appraisal and synthesis of primary research papers using a rigorous and clearly documented methodology in both the search strategy and the selection of studies. This minimizes bias in the results. The clear documentation of the process and the decisions made allow the review to be reproduced and updated.

Characteristics of a Systematic Review

A clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
An explicit, reproducible methodology
A systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria
An assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies, for example through the assessment of risk of bias
A systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies.
<< Previous: How to Read Scientific Articles
Next: Quantitative vs Qualitative Research >>
Last Updated: Oct 3, 2022 2:30 PM
URL: https://libguides.mssu.edu/c.php?g=865170

This site is maintained by the librarians of George A. Spiva Library . If you have a question or comment about the Library's LibGuides, please contact the site administrator .

Biological Sciences

Research vs. Review Articles
Find Books & eBooks
Reference/Web Resources
RefWorks This link opens in a new window

Defining Article Types

Research articles.

"A research article reports the results of original research, assesses its contribution to the body of knowledge in a given area, and is published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal." - Pen & the Pad

The study design of research articles may vary, but in all cases some form of raw data have been collected and analyzed by the author(s).

Example of a research article Development of a nanoparticle-assisted PCR assay for detection of bovine respiratory syncytial virus

Review Articles

"A review article, also called a literature review, is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the theme and, unlike an original research article, won’t present new experimental results." - Taylor & Francis Author Services

Review articles provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic, and, as such, they are particularly useful for helping student researchers get an overview of the existing literature on a topic.

Example of a review article Mannheimia haemolytica growth and leukotoxin production for vaccine manufacturing — A bioprocess review

Differences between Research and Review Articles

Research Article	Review Article
Follows the scientific method.	Follows no set layout.
Provides background information on prior research.	Summarizes previously published research.
Conducts an experiment and reports what was found.	Discusses what is already known and identifies gaps.
Contains NEW original research data.	No original data are presented.
Written for advanced readers, and usually contains a lot of jargon.	Written for a general audience.

Anatomy of a Research Article

Title & abstract.

The title of an article is a brief descriptive overview of what was the focus of the study. The abstract is a mini-summary of the study.

Introduction

This section often included an overview of the existing literature on the topic and an explanation of why the author(s) conducted the study. It frequently contains references to previous work on the topic.

In this section, the authors explain what they did. For example, they may include how they collected or analyzed data. Descriptions of statistical analysis are also included in this section.

This is where the authors describe the outcomes of their analysis. They don't include interpretation in their area, but instead just use a straightforward explanation of the data. This is the section that usually makes use of charts and graphs.

Authors use the discussion section to explain how they interpret their results and situate them in relationship to existing and future research.

References/Works Cited

This is a list of sources the authors drew upon to plan their study, understand their topic, and/or support their discussion.

<< Previous: Find Articles
Next: Find Books & eBooks >>
Last Updated: Jan 31, 2024 11:56 AM
URL: https://clemson.libguides.com/biology

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
ScientificWorldJournal
v.2024; 2024
PMC10807936

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Ayodeji amobonye.

1 Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

2 Writing Centre, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334 KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

Japareng Lalung

3 School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Santhosh Pillai

Associated data.

The data and materials that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable as both students and researchers rely on these articles as the starting point for their research. Interestingly, many postgraduate students are expected to write review articles for journal publications as a way of demonstrating their ability to contribute to new knowledge in their respective fields. However, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide them on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. The dearth of ample guidance or explicit training results in students having to learn all by themselves, usually by trial and error, which often leads to high rejection rates from publishing houses. Therefore, this article seeks to identify these challenges from a beginner's perspective and strives to plug the identified gaps and discrepancies. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a systematic guide for emerging scientists and to summarise the most important information on how to write and structure a publishable review article.

1. Introduction

Early scientists, spanning from the Ancient Egyptian civilization to the Scientific Revolution of the 16 th /17 th century, based their research on intuitions, personal observations, and personal insights. Thus, less time was spent on background reading as there was not much literature to refer to. This is well illustrated in the case of Sir Isaac Newton's apple tree and the theory of gravity, as well as Gregor Mendel's pea plants and the theory of inheritance. However, with the astronomical expansion in scientific knowledge and the emergence of the information age in the last century, new ideas are now being built on previously published works, thus the periodic need to appraise the huge amount of already published literature [ 1 ]. According to Birkle et al. [ 2 ], the Web of Science—an authoritative database of research publications and citations—covered more than 80 million scholarly materials. Hence, a critical review of prior and relevant literature is indispensable for any research endeavour as it provides the necessary framework needed for synthesising new knowledge and for highlighting new insights and perspectives [ 3 ].

Review papers are generally considered secondary research publications that sum up already existing works on a particular research topic or question and relate them to the current status of the topic. This makes review articles distinctly different from scientific research papers. While the primary aim of the latter is to develop new arguments by reporting original research, the former is focused on summarising and synthesising previous ideas, studies, and arguments, without adding new experimental contributions. Review articles basically describe the content and quality of knowledge that are currently available, with a special focus on the significance of the previous works. To this end, a review article cannot simply reiterate a subject matter, but it must contribute to the field of knowledge by synthesising available materials and offering a scholarly critique of theory [ 4 ]. Typically, these articles critically analyse both quantitative and qualitative studies by scrutinising experimental results, the discussion of the experimental data, and in some instances, previous review articles to propose new working theories. Thus, a review article is more than a mere exhaustive compilation of all that has been published on a topic; it must be a balanced, informative, perspective, and unbiased compendium of previous studies which may also include contrasting findings, inconsistencies, and conventional and current views on the subject [ 5 ].

Hence, the essence of a review article is measured by what is achieved, what is discovered, and how information is communicated to the reader [ 6 ]. According to Steward [ 7 ], a good literature review should be analytical, critical, comprehensive, selective, relevant, synthetic, and fully referenced. On the other hand, a review article is considered to be inadequate if it is lacking in focus or outcome, overgeneralised, opinionated, unbalanced, and uncritical [ 7 ]. Most review papers fail to meet these standards and thus can be viewed as mere summaries of previous works in a particular field of study. In one of the few studies that assessed the quality of review articles, none of the 50 papers that were analysed met the predefined criteria for a good review [ 8 ]. However, beginners must also realise that there is no bad writing in the true sense; there is only writing in evolution and under refinement. Literally, every piece of writing can be improved upon, right from the first draft until the final published manuscript. Hence, a paper can only be referred to as bad and unfixable when the author is not open to corrections or when the writer gives up on it.

According to Peat et al. [ 9 ], “everything is easy when you know how,” a maxim which applies to scientific writing in general and review writing in particular. In this regard, the authors emphasized that the writer should be open to learning and should also follow established rules instead of following a blind trial-and-error approach. In contrast to the popular belief that review articles should only be written by experienced scientists and researchers, recent trends have shown that many early-career scientists, especially postgraduate students, are currently expected to write review articles during the course of their studies. However, these scholars have little or no access to formal training on how to analyse and synthesise the research literature in their respective fields [ 10 ]. Consequently, students seeking guidance on how to write or improve their literature reviews are less likely to find published works on the subject, particularly in the science fields. Although various publications have dealt with the challenges of searching for literature, or writing literature reviews for dissertation/thesis purposes, there is little or no information on how to write a comprehensive review article for publication. In addition to the paucity of published information to guide the potential author, the lack of understanding of what constitutes a review paper compounds their challenges. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a guide for writing review papers for journal publishing. This work draws on the experience of the authors to assist early-career scientists/researchers in the “hard skill” of authoring review articles. Even though there is no single path to writing scientifically, or to writing reviews in particular, this paper attempts to simplify the process by looking at this subject from a beginner's perspective. Hence, this paper highlights the differences between the types of review articles in the sciences while also explaining the needs and purpose of writing review articles. Furthermore, it presents details on how to search for the literature as well as how to structure the manuscript to produce logical and coherent outputs. It is hoped that this work will ease prospective scientific writers into the challenging but rewarding art of writing review articles.

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

Analysing literature gives an overview of the “WHs”: WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [ 11 ]. For new or aspiring researchers in a particular field, it can be quite challenging to get a comprehensive overview of their respective fields, especially the historical trends and what has been studied previously. As such, the importance of review articles to knowledge appraisal and contribution cannot be overemphasised, which is reflected in the constant demand for such articles in the research community. However, it is also important for the author, especially the first-time author, to recognise the importance of his/her investing time and effort into writing a quality review article.

Generally, literature reviews are undertaken for many reasons, mainly for publication and for dissertation purposes. The major purpose of literature reviews is to provide direction and information for the improvement of scientific knowledge. They also form a significant component in the research process and in academic assessment [ 12 ]. There may be, however, a thin line between a dissertation literature review and a published review article, given that with some modifications, a literature review can be transformed into a legitimate and publishable scholarly document. According to Gülpınar and Güçlü [ 6 ], the basic motivation for writing a review article is to make a comprehensive synthesis of the most appropriate literature on a specific research inquiry or topic. Thus, conducting a literature review assists in demonstrating the author's knowledge about a particular field of study, which may include but not be limited to its history, theories, key variables, vocabulary, phenomena, and methodologies [ 10 ]. Furthermore, publishing reviews is beneficial as it permits the researchers to examine different questions and, as a result, enhances the depth and diversity of their scientific reasoning [ 1 ]. In addition, writing review articles allows researchers to share insights with the scientific community while identifying knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research. The review writing process can also be a useful tool in training early-career scientists in leadership, coordination, project management, and other important soft skills necessary for success in the research world [ 13 ]. Another important reason for authoring reviews is that such publications have been observed to be remarkably influential, extending the reach of an author in multiple folds of what can be achieved by primary research papers [ 1 ]. The trend in science is for authors to receive more citations from their review articles than from their original research articles. According to Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero [ 14 ], review articles are, on average, three times more frequently cited than original research articles; they also asserted that a 20% increase in review authorship could result in a 40–80% increase in citations of the author. As a result, writing reviews can significantly impact a researcher's citation output and serve as a valuable channel to reach a wider scientific audience. In addition, the references cited in a review article also provide the reader with an opportunity to dig deeper into the topic of interest. Thus, review articles can serve as a valuable repository for consultation, increasing the visibility of the authors and resulting in more citations.

3. Types of Review Articles

The first step in writing a good literature review is to decide on the particular type of review to be written; hence, it is important to distinguish and understand the various types of review articles. Although scientific review articles have been classified according to various schemes, however, they are broadly categorised into narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses [ 15 ]. It was observed that more authors—as well as publishers—were leaning towards systematic reviews and meta-analysis while downplaying narrative reviews; however, the three serve different aims and should all be considered equally important in science [ 1 ]. Bibliometric reviews and patent reviews, which are closely related to meta-analysis, have also gained significant attention recently. However, from another angle, a review could also be of two types. In the first class, authors could deal with a widely studied topic where there is already an accumulated body of knowledge that requires analysis and synthesis [ 3 ]. At the other end of the spectrum, the authors may have to address an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations; hence, their contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model [ 3 ].

3.1. Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviewers are mainly focused on providing clarification and critical analysis on a particular topic or body of literature through interpretative synthesis, creativity, and expert judgement. According to Green et al. [ 16 ], a narrative review can be in the form of editorials, commentaries, and narrative overviews. However, editorials and commentaries are usually expert opinions; hence, a beginner is more likely to write a narrative overview, which is more general and is also referred to as an unsystematic narrative review. Similarly, the literature review section of most dissertations and empirical papers is typically narrative in nature. Typically, narrative reviews combine results from studies that may have different methodologies to address different questions or to formulate a broad theoretical formulation [ 1 ]. They are largely integrative as strong focus is placed on the assimilation and synthesis of various aspects in the review, which may involve comparing and contrasting research findings or deriving structured implications [ 17 ]. In addition, they are also qualitative studies because they do not follow strict selection processes; hence, choosing publications is relatively more subjective and unsystematic [ 18 ]. However, despite their popularity, there are concerns about their inherent subjectivity. In many instances, when the supporting data for narrative reviews are examined more closely, the evaluations provided by the author(s) become quite questionable [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, if the goal of the author is to formulate a new theory that connects diverse strands of research, a narrative method is most appropriate.

3.2. Systematic Reviews

In contrast to narrative reviews, which are generally descriptive, systematic reviews employ a systematic approach to summarise evidence on research questions. Hence, systematic reviews make use of precise and rigorous criteria to identify, evaluate, and subsequently synthesise all relevant literature on a particular topic [ 12 , 20 ]. As a result, systematic reviews are more likely to inspire research ideas by identifying knowledge gaps or inconsistencies, thus helping the researcher to clearly define the research hypotheses or questions [ 21 ]. Furthermore, systematic reviews may serve as independent research projects in their own right, as they follow a defined methodology to search and combine reliable results to synthesise a new database that can be used for a variety of purposes [ 22 ]. Typically, the peculiarities of the individual reviewer, different search engines, and information databases used all ensure that no two searches will yield the same systematic results even if the searches are conducted simultaneously and under identical criteria [ 11 ]. Hence, attempts are made at standardising the exercise via specific methods that would limit bias and chance effects, prevent duplications, and provide more accurate results upon which conclusions and decisions can be made.

The most established of these methods is the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines which objectively defined statements, guidelines, reporting checklists, and flowcharts for undertaking systematic reviews as well as meta-analysis [ 23 ]. Though mainly designed for research in medical sciences, the PRISMA approach has gained wide acceptance in other fields of science and is based on eight fundamental propositions. These include the explicit definition of the review question, an unambiguous outline of the study protocol, an objective and exhaustive systematic review of reputable literature, and an unambiguous identification of included literature based on defined selection criteria [ 24 ]. Other considerations include an unbiased appraisal of the quality of the selected studies (literature), organic synthesis of the evidence of the study, preparation of the manuscript based on the reporting guidelines, and periodic update of the review as new data emerge [ 24 ]. Other methods such as PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols), MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) have since been developed for systematic reviews (and meta-analysis), with most of them being derived from PRISMA.

Consequently, systematic reviews—unlike narrative reviews—must contain a methodology section which in addition to all that was highlighted above must fully describe the precise criteria used in formulating the research question and setting the inclusion or exclusion criteria used in selecting/accessing the literature. Similarly, the criteria for evaluating the quality of the literature included in the review as well as for analysing, synthesising, and disseminating the findings must be fully described in the methodology section.

3.3. Meta-Analysis

Meta-analyses are considered as more specialised forms of systematic reviews. Generally, they combine the results of many studies that use similar or closely related methods to address the same question or share a common quantitative evaluation method [ 25 ]. However, meta-analyses are also a step higher than other systematic reviews as they are focused on numerical data and involve the use of statistics in evaluating different studies and synthesising new knowledge. The major advantage of this type of review is the increased statistical power leading to more reliable results for inferring modest associations and a more comprehensive understanding of the true impact of a research study [ 26 ]. Unlike in traditional systematic reviews, research topics covered in meta-analyses must be mature enough to allow the inclusion of sufficient homogeneous empirical research in terms of subjects, interventions, and outcomes [ 27 , 28 ].

Being an advanced form of systematic review, meta-analyses must also have a distinct methodology section; hence, the standard procedures involved in the traditional systematic review (especially PRISMA) also apply in meta-analyses [ 23 ]. In addition to the common steps in formulating systematic reviews, meta-analyses are required to describe how nested and missing data are handled, the effect observed in each study, the confidence interval associated with each synthesised effect, and any potential for bias presented within the sample(s) [ 17 ]. According to Paul and Barari [ 28 ], a meta-analysis must also detail the final sample, the meta-analytic model, and the overall analysis, moderator analysis, and software employed. While the overall analysis involves the statistical characterization of the relationships between variables in the meta-analytic framework and their significance, the moderator analysis defines the different variables that may affect variations in the original studies [ 28 , 29 ]. It must also be noted that the accuracy and reliability of meta-analyses have both been significantly enhanced by the incorporation of statistical approaches such as Bayesian analysis [ 30 ], network analysis [ 31 ], and more recently, machine learning [ 32 ].

3.4. Bibliometric Review

A bibliometric review, commonly referred to as bibliometric analysis, is a systematic evaluation of published works within a specific field or discipline [ 33 ]. This bibliometric methodology involves the use of quantitative methods to analyse bibliometric data such as the characteristics and numbers of publications, units of citations, authorship, co-authorship, and journal impact factors [ 34 ]. Academics use bibliometric analysis with different objectives in mind, which includes uncovering emerging trends in article and journal performance, elaborating collaboration patterns and research constituents, evaluating the impact and influence of particular authors, publications, or research groups, and highlighting the intellectual framework of a certain field [ 35 ]. It is also used to inform policy and decision-making. Similarly to meta-analysis, bibliometric reviews rely upon quantitative techniques, thus avoiding the interpretation bias that could arise from the qualitative techniques of other types of reviews [ 36 ]. However, while bibliometric analysis synthesises the bibliometric and intellectual structure of a field by examining the social and structural linkages between various research parts, meta-analysis focuses on summarising empirical evidence by probing the direction and strength of effects and relationships among variables, especially in open research questions [ 37 , 38 ]. However, similarly to systematic review and meta-analysis, a bibliometric review also requires a well-detailed methodology section. The amount of data to be analysed in bibliometric analysis is quite massive, running to hundreds and tens of thousands in some cases. Although the data are objective in nature (e.g., number of citations and publications and occurrences of keywords and topics), the interpretation is usually carried out through both objective (e.g., performance analysis) and subjective (e.g., thematic analysis) evaluations [ 35 ]. However, the invention and availability of bibliometric software such as BibExcel, Gephi, Leximancer, and VOSviewer and scientific databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus have made this type of analysis more feasible.

3.5. Patent Review

Patent reviews provide a comprehensive analysis and critique of a specific patent or a group of related patents, thus presenting a concise understanding of the technology or innovation that is covered by the patent [ 39 ]. This type of article is useful for researchers as it also enhances their understanding of the legal, technical, and commercial aspects of an intellectual property/innovation; in addition, it is also important for stakeholders outside the research community including IP (intellectual property) specialists, legal professionals, and technology-transfer officers [ 40 ]. Typically, patent reviews encompass the scope, background, claims, legal implications, technical specifications, and potential commercial applications of the patent(s). The article may also include a discussion of the patent's strengths and weaknesses, as well as its potential impact on the industry or field in which it operates. Most times, reviews are time specified, they may be regionalised, and the data are usually retrieved via patent searches on databases such as that of the European Patent Office ( https://www.epo.org/searching.html ), United States Patent and Trademark Office ( https://patft.uspto.gov/ ), the World Intellectual Property Organization's PATENTSCOPE ( https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf ), Google Patent ( https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts ), and China National Intellectual Property Administration ( https://pss-system.cponline.cnipa.gov.cn/conventionalSearch ). According to Cerimi et al. [ 41 ], the retrieved data and analysed may include the patent number, patent status, filing date, application date, grant dates, inventor, assignee, and pending applications. While data analysis is usually carried out by general data software such as Microsoft Excel, an intelligence software solely dedicated to patent research and analysis, Orbit Intelligence has been found to be more efficient [ 39 ]. It is also mandatory to include a methodology section in a patent review, and this should be explicit, thorough, and precise to allow a clear understanding of how the analysis was carried out and how the conclusions were arrived at.

4. Searching Literature

One of the most challenging tasks in writing a review article on a subject is the search for relevant literature to populate the manuscript as the author is required to garner information from an endless number of sources. This is even more challenging as research outputs have been increasing astronomically, especially in the last decade, with thousands of new articles published annually in various fields. It is therefore imperative that the author must not only be aware of the overall trajectory in a field of investigation but must also be cognizant of recent studies so as not to publish outdated research or review articles. Basically, the search for the literature involves a coherent conceptual structuring of the topic itself and a thorough collation of evidence under the common themes which might reflect the histories, conflicts, standoffs, revolutions, and/or evolutions in the field [ 7 ]. To start the search process, the author must carefully identify and select broad keywords relevant to the subject; subsequently, the keywords should be developed to refine the search into specific subheadings that would facilitate the structure of the review.

Two main tactics have been identified for searching the literature, namely, systematic and snowballing [ 42 ]. The systematic approach involves searching literature with specific keywords (for example, cancer, antioxidant, and nanoparticles), which leads to an almost unmanageable and overwhelming list of possible sources [ 43 ]. The snowballing approach, however, involves the identification of a particular publication, followed by the compilation of a bibliography of articles based on the reference list of the identified publication [ 44 ]. Many times, it might be necessary to combine both approaches, but irrespective, the author must keep an accurate track and record of papers cited in the search. A simple and efficient strategy for populating the bibliography of review articles is to go through the abstract (and sometimes the conclusion) of a paper; if the abstract is related to the topic of discourse, the author might go ahead and read the entire article; otherwise, he/she is advised to move on [ 45 ]. Winchester and Salji [ 5 ] noted that to learn the background of the subject/topic to be reviewed, starting literature searches with academic textbooks or published review articles is imperative, especially for beginners. Furthermore, it would also assist in compiling the list of keywords, identifying areas of further exploration, and providing a glimpse of the current state of the research. However, past reviews ideally are not to serve as the foundation of a new review as they are written from someone else's viewpoint, which might have been tainted with some bias. Fortunately, the accessibility and search for the literature have been made relatively easier than they were a few decades ago as the current information age has placed an enormous volume of knowledge right at our fingertips [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, when gathering the literature from the Internet, authors should exercise utmost caution as much of the information may not be verified or peer-reviewed and thus may be unregulated and unreliable. For instance, Wikipedia, despite being a large repository of information with more than 6.7 million articles in the English language alone, is considered unreliable for scientific literature reviews, due to its openness to public editing [ 47 ]. However, in addition to peer-reviewed journal publications—which are most ideal—reviews can also be drawn from a wide range of other sources such as technical documents, in-house reports, conference abstracts, and conference proceedings. Similarly, “Google Scholar”—as against “Google” and other general search engines—is more appropriate as its searches are restricted to only academic articles produced by scholarly societies or/and publishers [ 48 ]. Furthermore, the various electronic databases, such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, many of which focus on specific fields of research, are also ideal options [ 49 ]. Advancement in computer indexing has remarkably expanded the ease and ability to search large databases for every potentially relevant article. In addition to searching by topic, literature search can be modified by time; however, there must be a balance between old papers and recent ones. The general consensus in science is that publications less than five years old are considered recent.

It is important, especially in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, that the specific method of running the computer searches be properly documented as there is the need to include this in the method (methodology) section of such papers. Typically, the method details the keywords, databases explored, search terms used, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied in the selection of data and any other specific decision/criteria. All of these will ensure the reproducibility and thoroughness of the search and the selection procedure. However, Randolph [ 10 ] noted that Internet searches might not give the exhaustive list of articles needed for a review article; hence, it is advised that authors search through the reference lists of articles that were obtained initially from the Internet search. After determining the relevant articles from the list, the author should read through the references of these articles and repeat the cycle until saturation is reached [ 10 ]. After populating the articles needed for the literature review, the next step is to analyse them individually and in their whole entirety. A systematic approach to this is to identify the key information within the papers, examine them in depth, and synthesise original perspectives by integrating the information and making inferences based on the findings. In this regard, it is imperative to link one source to the other in a logical manner, for instance, taking note of studies with similar methodologies, papers that agree, or results that are contradictory [ 42 ].

5. Structuring the Review Article

The title and abstract are the main selling points of a review article, as most readers will only peruse these two elements and usually go on to read the full paper if they are drawn in by either or both of the two. Tullu [ 50 ] recommends that the title of a scientific paper “should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and not be misleading.” In addition to providing “just enough details” to entice the reader, words in the titles are also used by electronic databases, journal websites, and search engines to index and retrieve a particular paper during a search [ 51 ]. Titles are of different types and must be chosen according to the topic under review. They are generally classified as descriptive, declarative, or interrogative and can also be grouped into compound, nominal, or full-sentence titles [ 50 ]. The subject of these categorisations has been extensively discussed in many articles; however, the reader must also be aware of the compound titles, which usually contain a main title and a subtitle. Typically, subtitles provide additional context—to the main title—and they may specify the geographic scope of the research, research methodology, or sample size [ 52 ].

Just like primary research articles, there are many debates about the optimum length of a review article's title. However, the general consensus is to keep the title as brief as possible while not being too general. A title length between 10 and 15 words is recommended, since longer titles can be more challenging to comprehend. Paiva et al. [ 53 ] observed that articles which contain 95 characters or less get more views and citations. However, emphasis must be placed on conciseness as the audience will be more satisfied if they can understand what exactly the review has contributed to the field, rather than just a hint about the general topic area. Authors should also endeavour to stick to the journal's specific requirements, especially regarding the length of the title and what they should or should not contain [ 9 ]. Thus, avoidance of filler words such as “a review on/of,” “an observation of,” or “a study of” is a very simple way to limit title length. In addition, abbreviations or acronyms should be avoided in the title, except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as AIDS, DNA, HIV, and RNA. In summary, to write an effective title, the authors should consider the following points. What is the paper about? What was the methodology used? What were the highlights and major conclusions? Subsequently, the author should list all the keywords from these answers, construct a sentence from these keywords, and finally delete all redundant words from the sentence title. It is also possible to gain some ideas by scanning indices and article titles in major journals in the field. It is important to emphasise that a title is not chosen and set in stone, and the title is most likely to be continually revised and adjusted until the end of the writing process.

5.2. Abstract

The abstract, also referred to as the synopsis, is a summary of the full research paper; it is typically independent and can stand alone. For most readers, a publication does not exist beyond the abstract, partly because abstracts are often the only section of a paper that is made available to the readers at no cost, whereas the full paper may attract a payment or subscription [ 54 ]. Thus, the abstract is supposed to set the tone for the few readers who wish to read the rest of the paper. It has also been noted that the abstract gives the first impression of a research work to journal editors, conference scientific committees, or referees, who might outright reject the paper if the abstract is poorly written or inadequate [ 50 ]. Hence, it is imperative that the abstract succinctly represents the entire paper and projects it positively. Just like the title, abstracts have to be balanced, comprehensive, concise, functional, independent, precise, scholarly, and unbiased and not be misleading [ 55 ]. Basically, the abstract should be formulated using keywords from all the sections of the main manuscript. Thus, it is pertinent that the abstract conveys the focus, key message, rationale, and novelty of the paper without any compromise or exaggeration. Furthermore, the abstract must be consistent with the rest of the paper; as basic as this instruction might sound, it is not to be taken for granted. For example, a study by Vrijhoef and Steuten [ 56 ] revealed that 18–68% of 264 abstracts from some scientific journals contained information that was inconsistent with the main body of the publications.

Abstracts can either be structured or unstructured; in addition, they can further be classified as either descriptive or informative. Unstructured abstracts, which are used by many scientific journals, are free flowing with no predefined subheadings, while structured abstracts have specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed. Structured abstracts have been noted to be more informative and are usually divided into subsections which include the study background/introduction, objectives, methodology design, results, and conclusions [ 57 ]. No matter the style chosen, the author must carefully conform to the instructions provided by the potential journal of submission, which may include but are not limited to the format, font size/style, word limit, and subheadings [ 58 ]. The word limit for abstracts in most scientific journals is typically between 150 and 300 words. It is also a general rule that abstracts do not contain any references whatsoever.

Typically, an abstract should be written in the active voice, and there is no such thing as a perfect abstract as it could always be improved on. It is advised that the author first makes an initial draft which would contain all the essential parts of the paper, which could then be polished subsequently. The draft should begin with a brief background which would lead to the research questions. It might also include a general overview of the methodology used (if applicable) and importantly, the major results/observations/highlights of the review paper. The abstract should end with one or few sentences about any implications, perspectives, or future research that may be developed from the review exercise. Finally, the authors should eliminate redundant words and edit the abstract to the correct word count permitted by the journal [ 59 ]. It is always beneficial to read previous abstracts published in the intended journal, related topics/subjects from other journals, and other reputable sources. Furthermore, the author should endeavour to get feedback on the abstract especially from peers and co-authors. As the abstract is the face of the whole paper, it is best that it is the last section to be finalised, as by this time, the author would have developed a clearer understanding of the findings and conclusions of the entire paper.

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

Since the mid-2000s, an increasing number of journals now require authors to provide a graphical abstract (GA) in addition to the traditional written abstract, to increase the accessibility of scientific publications to readers [ 60 ]. A study showed that publications with GA performed better than those without it, when the abstract views, total citations, and downloads were compared [ 61 ]. However, the GA should provide “a single, concise pictorial, and visual summary of the main findings of an article” [ 62 ]. Although they are meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole paper, it has been noted that they are not so easily comprehensible without having read through the traditionally written abstract [ 63 ]. It is important to note that, like traditional abstracts, many reputable journals require GAs to adhere to certain specifications such as colour, dimension, quality, file size, and file format (usually JPEG/JPG, PDF, PNG, or TIFF). In addition, it is imperative to use engaging and accurate figures, all of which must be synthesised in order to accurately reflect the key message of the paper. Currently, there are various online or downloadable graphical tools that can be used for creating GAs, such as Microsoft Paint or PowerPoint, Mindthegraph, ChemDraw, CorelDraw, and BioRender.

5.4. Keywords

As a standard practice, journals require authors to select 4–8 keywords (or phrases), which are typically listed below the abstract. A good set of keywords will enable indexers and search engines to find relevant papers more easily and can be considered as a very concise abstract [ 64 ]. According to Dewan and Gupta [ 51 ], the selection of appropriate keywords will significantly enhance the retrieval, accession, and consequently, the citation of the review paper. Ideally, keywords can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, the abstract, and the main text, but they should ideally not be the exact words in the main title. Choosing the most appropriate keywords for a review article involves listing down the key terms and phrases in the article, including abbreviations. Subsequently, a quick review of the glossary/vocabulary/term list or indexing standard in the specific discipline will assist in selecting the best and most precise keywords that match those used in the databases from the list drawn. In addition, the keywords should not be broad or general terms (e.g., DNA, biology, and enzymes) but must be specific to the field or subfield of study as well as to the particular paper [ 65 ].

5.5. Introduction

The introduction of an article is the first major section of the manuscript, and it presents basic information to the reader without compelling them to study past publications. In addition, the introduction directs the reader to the main arguments and points developed in the main body of the article while clarifying the current state of knowledge in that particular area of research [ 12 ]. The introduction part of a review article is usually sectionalised into background information, a description of the main topic and finally a statement of the main purpose of the review [ 66 ]. Authors may begin the introduction with brief general statements—which provide background knowledge on the subject matter—that lead to more specific ones [ 67 ]. It is at this point that the reader's attention must be caught as the background knowledge must highlight the importance and justification for the subject being discussed, while also identifying the major problem to be addressed [ 68 ]. In addition, the background should be broad enough to attract even nonspecialists in the field to maximise the impact and widen the reach of the article. All of these should be done in the light of current literature; however, old references may also be used for historical purposes. A very important aspect of the introduction is clearly stating and establishing the research problem(s) and how a review of the particular topic contributes to those problem(s). Thus, the research gap which the paper intends to fill, the limitations of previous works and past reviews, if available, and the new knowledge to be contributed must all be highlighted. Inadequate information and the inability to clarify the problem will keep readers (who have the desire to obtain new information) from reading beyond the introduction [ 69 ]. It is also pertinent that the author establishes the purpose of reviewing the literature and defines the scope as well as the major synthesised point of view. Furthermore, a brief insight into the criteria used to select, evaluate, and analyse the literature, as well as the outline or sequence of the review, should be provided in the introduction. Subsequently, the specific objectives of the review article must be presented. The last part of the “introduction” section should focus on the solution, the way forward, the recommendations, and the further areas of research as deduced from the whole review process. According to DeMaria [ 70 ], clearly expressed or recommended solutions to an explicitly revealed problem are very important for the wholesomeness of the “introduction” section. It is believed that following these steps will give readers the opportunity to track the problems and the corresponding solution from their own perspective in the light of current literature. As against some suggestions that the introduction should be written only in present tenses, it is also believed that it could be done with other tenses in addition to the present tense. In this regard, general facts should be written in the present tense, specific research/work should be in the past tense, while the concluding statement should be in the past perfect or simple past. Furthermore, many of the abbreviations to be used in the rest of the manuscript and their explanations should be defined in this section.

5.6. Methodology

Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [ 71 ], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary. Hence, the methodological section of a review paper (which can also be referred to as the review protocol) details how the relevant literature was selected and how it was analysed as well as summarised. The selection details may include, but are not limited to, the database consulted and the specific search terms used together with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. As earlier highlighted in Section 3 , a description of the methodology is required for all types of reviews except for narrative reviews. This is partly because unlike narrative reviews, all other review articles follow systematic approaches which must ensure significant reproducibility [ 72 ]. Therefore, where necessary, the methods of data extraction from the literature and data synthesis must also be highlighted as well. In some cases, it is important to show how data were combined by highlighting the statistical methods used, measures of effect, and tests performed, as well as demonstrating heterogeneity and publication bias [ 73 ].

The methodology should also detail the major databases consulted during the literature search, e.g., Dimensions, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. For meta-analysis, it is imperative to highlight the software and/or package used, which could include Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, OpenMEE, Review Manager (RevMan), Stata, SAS, and R Studio. It is also necessary to state the mathematical methods used for the analysis; examples of these include the Bayesian analysis, the Mantel–Haenszel method, and the inverse variance method. The methodology should also state the number of authors that carried out the initial review stage of the study, as it has been recommended that at least two reviews should be done blindly and in parallel, especially when it comes to the acquisition and synthesis of data [ 74 ]. Finally, the quality and validity assessment of the publication used in the review must be stated and well clarified [ 73 ].

5.7. Main Body of the Review

Ideally, the main body of a publishable review should answer these questions: What is new (contribution)? Why so (logic)? So what (impact)? How well it is done (thoroughness)? The flow of the main body of a review article must be well organised to adequately maintain the attention of the readers as well as guide them through the section. It is recommended that the author should consider drawing a conceptual scheme of the main body first, using methods such as mind-mapping. This will help create a logical flow of thought and presentation, while also linking the various sections of the manuscript together. According to Moreira [ 75 ], “reports do not simply yield their findings, rather reviewers make them yield,” and thus, it is the author's responsibility to transform “resistant” texts into “docile” texts. Hence, after the search for the literature, the essential themes and key concepts of the review paper must be identified and synthesised together. This synthesis primarily involves creating hypotheses about the relationships between the concepts with the aim of increasing the understanding of the topic being reviewed. The important information from the various sources should not only be summarised, but the significance of studies must be related back to the initial question(s) posed by the review article. Furthermore, MacLure [ 76 ] stated that data are not just to be plainly “extracted intact” and “used exactly as extracted,” but must be modified, reconfigured, transformed, transposed, converted, tabulated, graphed, or manipulated to enable synthesis, combination, and comparison. Therefore, different pieces of information must be extracted from the reports in which they were previously deposited and then refined into the body of the new article [ 75 ]. To this end, adequate comparison and combination might require that “qualitative data be quantified” or/and “quantitative data may be qualitized” [ 77 ]. In order to accomplish all of these goals, the author may have to transform, paraphrase, generalize, specify, and reorder the text [ 78 ]. For comprehensiveness, the body paragraphs should be arranged in a similar order as it was initially stated in the abstract or/and introduction. Thus, the main body could be divided into thematic areas, each of which could be independently comprehensive and treated as a mini review. Similarly, the sections can also be arranged chronologically depending on the focus of the review. Furthermore, the abstractions should proceed from a wider general view of the literature being reviewed and then be narrowed down to the specifics. In the process, deep insights should also be provided between the topic of the review and the wider subject area, e.g., fungal enzymes and enzymes in general. The abstractions must also be discussed in more detail by presenting more specific information from the identified sources (with proper citations of course!). For example, it is important to identify and highlight contrary findings and rival interpretations as well as to point out areas of agreement or debate among different bodies of literature. Often, there are previous reviews on the same topic/concept; however, this does not prevent a new author from writing one on the same topic, especially if the previous reviews were written many years ago. However, it is important that the body of the new manuscript be written from a new angle that was not adequately covered in the past reviews and should also incorporate new studies that have accumulated since the last review(s). In addition, the new review might also highlight the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of the past studies. But the authors must not be excessively critical of the past reviews as this is regarded by many authors as a sign of poor professionalism [ 3 , 79 ]. Daft [ 79 ] emphasized that it is more important for a reviewer to state how their research builds on previous work instead of outright claiming that previous works are incompetent and inadequate. However, if a series of related papers on one topic have a common error or research flaw that needs rectification, the reviewer must point this out with the aim of moving the field forward [ 3 ]. Like every other scientific paper, the main body of a review article also needs to be consistent in style, for example, in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense. It is also important to note that tables and figures can serve as a powerful tool for highlighting key points in the body of the review, and they are now considered core elements of reviews. For more guidance and insights into what should make up the contents of a good review article, readers are also advised to get familiarised with the Boote and Beile [ 80 ] literature review scoring rubric as well as the review article checklist of Short [ 81 ].

5.8. Tables and Figures

An ideal review article should be logically structured and efficiently utilise illustrations, in the form of tables and figures, to convey the key findings and relationships in the study. According to Tay [ 13 ], illustrations often take a secondary role in review papers when compared to primary research papers which are focused on illustrations. However, illustrations are very important in review articles as they can serve as succinct means of communicating major findings and insights. Franzblau and Chung [ 82 ] pointed out that illustrations serve three major purposes in a scientific article: they simplify complex data and relationships for better understanding, they minimise reading time by summarising and bringing to focus on the key findings (or trends), and last, they help to reduce the overall word count. Hence, inserting and constructing illustrations in a review article is as meticulous as it is important. However, important decisions should be made on whether the charts, figures, or tables to be potentially inserted in the manuscript are indeed needed and how best to design them [ 83 ]. Illustrations should enhance the text while providing necessary information; thus, the information described in illustrations should not contradict that in the main text and should also not be a repetition of texts [ 84 ]. Furthermore, illustrations must be autonomous, meaning they ought to be intelligible without having to read the text portion of the manuscript; thus, the reader does not have to flip back and forth between the illustration and the main text in order to understand it [ 85 ]. It should be noted that tables or figures that directly reiterate the main text or contain extraneous information will only make a mess of the manuscript and discourage readers [ 86 ].

Kotz and Cals [ 87 ] recommend that the layout of tables and figures should be carefully designed in a clear manner with suitable layouts, which will allow them to be referred to logically and chronologically in the text. In addition, illustrations should only contain simple text, as lengthy details would contradict their initial objective, which was to provide simple examples or an overview. Furthermore, the use of abbreviations in illustrations, especially tables, should be avoided if possible. If not, the abbreviations should be defined explicitly in the footnotes or legends of the illustration [ 88 ]. Similarly, numerical values in tables and graphs should also be correctly approximated [ 84 ]. It is recommended that the number of tables and figures in the manuscript should not exceed the target journal's specification. According to Saver [ 89 ], they ideally should not account for more than one-third of the manuscript. Finally, the author(s) must seek permission and give credits for using an already published illustration when necessary. However, none of these are needed if the graphic is originally created by the author, but if it is a reproduced or an adapted illustration, the author must obtain permission from the copyright owner and include the necessary credit. One of the very important tools for designing illustrations is Creative Commons, a platform that provides a wide range of creative works which are available to the public for use and modification.

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

It has been observed that many reviews end abruptly with a short conclusion; however, a lot more can be included in this section in addition to what has been said in the major sections of the paper. Basically, the conclusion section of a review article should provide a summary of key findings from the main body of the manuscript. In this section, the author needs to revisit the critical points of the paper as well as highlight the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the inferences drawn in the article review. A good conclusion should highlight the relationship between the major points and the author's hypothesis as well as the relationship between the hypothesis and the broader discussion to demonstrate the significance of the review article in a larger context. In addition to giving a concise summary of the important findings that describe current knowledge, the conclusion must also offer a rationale for conducting future research [ 12 ]. Knowledge gaps should be identified, and themes should be logically developed in order to construct conceptual frameworks as well as present a way forward for future research in the field of study [ 11 ].

Furthermore, the author may have to justify the propositions made earlier in the manuscript, demonstrate how the paper extends past research works, and also suggest ways that the expounded theories can be empirically examined [ 3 ]. Unlike experimental studies which can only draw either a positive conclusion or ambiguous failure to reject the null hypothesis, four possible conclusions can be drawn from review articles [ 1 ]. First, the theory/hypothesis propounded may be correct after being proven from current evidence; second, the hypothesis may not be explicitly proven but is most probably the best guess. The third conclusion is that the currently available evidence does not permit a confident conclusion or a best guess, while the last conclusion is that the theory or hypothesis is false [ 1 ]. It is important not to present new information in the conclusion section which has link whatsoever with the rest of the manuscript. According to Harris et al. [ 90 ], the conclusions should, in essence, answer the question: if a reader were to remember one thing about the review, what would it be?

5.10. References

As it has been noted in different parts of this paper, authors must give the required credit to any work or source(s) of information that was included in the review article. This must include the in-text citations in the main body of the paper and the corresponding entries in the reference list. Ideally, this full bibliographical list is the last part of the review article, and it should contain all the books, book chapters, journal articles, reports, and other media, which were utilised in the manuscript. It has been noted that most journals and publishers have their own specific referencing styles which are all derived from the more popular styles such as the American Psychological Association (APA), Chicago, Harvard, Modern Language Association (MLA), and Vancouver styles. However, all these styles may be categorised into either the parenthetical or numerical referencing style. Although a few journals do not have strict referencing rules, it is the responsibility of the author to reference according to the style and instructions of the journal. Omissions and errors must be avoided at all costs, and this can be easily achieved by going over the references many times for due diligence [ 11 ]. According to Cronin et al. [ 12 ], a separate file for references can be created, and any work used in the manuscript can be added to this list immediately after being cited in the text [ 12 ]. In recent times, the emergence of various referencing management software applications such as Endnote, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero has even made referencing easier. The majority of these software applications require little technical expertise, and many of them are free to use, while others may require a subscription. It is imperative, however, that even after using these software packages, the author must manually curate the references during the final draft, in order to avoid any errors, since these programs are not impervious to errors, particularly formatting errors.

6. Concluding Remarks

Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. Thus, the reviewer must develop the ability to think critically, spot patterns in a large volume of information, and must be invested in writing without tiring. The prospective author must also be inspired and dedicated to the successful completion of the article while also ensuring that the review article is not just a mere list or summary of previous research. It is also important that the review process must be focused on the literature and not on the authors; thus, overt criticism of existing research and personal aspersions must be avoided at all costs. All ideas, sentences, words, and illustrations should be constructed in a way to avoid plagiarism; basically, this can be achieved by paraphrasing, summarising, and giving the necessary acknowledgments. Currently, there are many tools to track and detect plagiarism in manuscripts, ensuring that they fall within a reasonable similarity index (which is typically 15% or lower for most journals). Although the more popular of these tools, such as Turnitin and iThenticate, are subscription-based, there are many freely available web-based options as well. An ideal review article is supposed to motivate the research topic and describe its key concepts while delineating the boundaries of research. In this regard, experience-based information on how to methodologically develop acceptable and impactful review articles has been detailed in this paper. Furthermore, for a beginner, this guide has detailed “the why” and “the how” of authoring a good scientific review article. However, the information in this paper may as a whole or in parts be also applicable to other fields of research and to other writing endeavours such as writing literature review in theses, dissertations, and primary research articles. Finally, the intending authors must put all the basic rules of scientific writing and writing in general into cognizance. A comprehensive study of the articles cited within this paper and other related articles focused on scientific writing will further enhance the ability of the motivated beginner to deliver a good review article.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa under grant number UID 138097. The authors would like to thank the Durban University of Technology for funding the postdoctoral fellowship of the first author, Dr. Ayodeji Amobonye.

Data Availability

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research & Collections
Borrow & Request
Computing & Technology

STEM - General Research Guide: Research Vs. Review Articles

VPN (Off-Campus Access) and Campus Wifi
Peer Review
Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources
Search Strategies
Research Vs. Review Articles
Review vs Research Articles
How to Read Journal Articles
STEM Ebook Collections
Encyclopedias by Subject
Find Technical Standards
Professional Development Resources This link opens in a new window
Zotero This link opens in a new window
EndNote 20 & 21 This link opens in a new window
Mendeley This link opens in a new window

Some databases like Web of Science allow you to filter results to only see review articles. There are also journals that only publish review articles, like Chemical Reviews, Chemical Society Reviews, and the Annual Reviews series. But review and research articles can also be published in the same journal, and even within the same issue.

The best way to determine if you have a research or review article is by reading the abstract.

report on original research from a study or experiment, with data, results, discussion, and where those results fit within the context of the research in this field. These sections should be clearly identified within the paper. Expect action words like , , and There is usually a smaller literature review to identify prior research, but it's not the focus of the article.

summarize and synthesize research in a given field of study by looking at the research articles. These articles do not contain original research, though may draw additional conclusions. These articles can serve as excellent summaries on a research topic, as well as point you to key research articles. Articles are divided by topic rather than the methods/results/discussion structure.

Zhou, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Z.; Liu, A.; Lv, Z.; Xie, M. Fluffy-Like Cation-Exchanged Prussian Blue Analogues for Sodium-Ion Battery Cathodes (28), 32149-32156.

Singh, A. N.; Islam, M.; Meena, A.; Faizan, M.; Han, D.; Bathula, C.; Hajibabaei, A.; Anand, R.; Nam, K.-W. Unleashing the Potential of Sodium-Ion Batteries: Current State and Future Directions for Sustainable Energy Storage. , (46), 2304617.

Prussian blue (PB) and its analogues are considered as promising cathode materials for sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) owing to their low cost and high capacity. However, it is still a huge challenge to avoid obvious capacity decay during cycling due to the structural collapse. Herein, to replace parts of Fe ion sites in PB with Ni ions to prepare fluffy-like nickel PB (PB-Ni) by cationic solution immersion, which improves cycling stability for sodium storage. The content of Ni in PB-Ni is explored by regulating the soaking time in the Ni-containing solution, which results in different effects on the electrochemical performance as cathodes of SIBs. Especially, PB-Ni-1d (soaking in NiCl solution for 1 day) exhibits an initial capacity of 114.2 mA h g at 50 mA g and a stable cycling performance of 800 cycles at 300 mA g . Furthermore, the reversible phase transformation and small volume variation for PB-Ni-1d are revealed by in situ X-ray diffraction characterization. The nickel hexacyanoferrate in outer layer maintains the cubic phase to stabilize the crystal structure. The cation-exchange strategy provides a facile idea to fabricate high-quality PB cathodes with superior stability for high-performance SIBs.

Rechargeable sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) are emerging as a viable alternative to lithium-ion battery (LIB) technology, as their raw materials are economical, geographically abundant (unlike lithium), and less toxic. The matured LIB technology contributes significantly to digital civilization, from mobile electronic devices to zero electric-vehicle emissions. However, with the increasing reliance on renewable energy sources and the anticipated integration of high-energy-density batteries into the grid, concerns have arisen regarding the sustainability of lithium due to its limited availability and consequent price escalations. In this context, SIBs have gained attention as a potential energy storage alternative, benefiting from the abundance of sodium and sharing electrochemical characteristics similar to LIBs. Furthermore, high-entropy chemistry has emerged as a new paradigm, promising to enhance energy density and accelerate advancements in battery technology to meet the growing energy demands. the fundamentals, current progress, and the views on the future of SIB technologies, with a discussion focused on the design of novel materials. The crucial factors, such as morphology, crystal defects, and doping, that can tune electrochemistry, which should inspire young researchers in battery technology to identify and work on challenging research problems, are also reviewed.

<< Previous: Find Journal Articles
Next: How to Read Journal Articles >>
Last Updated: Sep 12, 2024 10:56 PM
URL: https://ucsd.libguides.com/stem-research

Science Research: Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles

Additional Web Resources
Health & Science Databases
Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles
Citation Guides, Generators, and Tools

Original Research vs. Review Articles. How can I tell the Difference?

Research vs review articles.

It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a specific topic, field, or problem. They are not primary sources since they review previously published material. They can be of great value for identifying potentially good primary sources, but they aren't primary themselves. Primary research articles can be identified by a commonly used format. If an article contains the following elements, you can count on it being a primary research article. Look for sections titled:

Methods (sometimes with variations, such as Materials and Methods) Results (usually followed with charts and statistical tables) Discussion

You can also read the abstract to get a good sense of the kind of article that is being presented.

If it is a review article instead of a research article, the abstract should make that pretty clear. If there is no abstract at all, that in itself may be a sign that it is not a primary resource. Short research articles, such as those found in Science and similar scientific publications that mix news, editorials, and forums with research reports, however, may not include any of those elements. In those cases look at the words the authors use, phrases such as "we tested" and "in our study, we measured" will tell you that the article is reporting on original research."*

*Taken from Ithca College Libraries

Primary and Secondary Sources for Science

In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system.


	Original materials that have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation by a second party.	Sources that contain commentary on or a discussion about a primary source.
	Primary sources tend to come first in the publication cycle.	Secondary sources tend to come second in the publication cycle.
--depends on the kind of analysis being conducted.	Conference papers, dissertations, interviews, laboratory notebooks, patents, a study reported in a journal article, a survey reported in a journal article, and technical reports.	Review articles, magazine articles, and books
Example: Scientists studying Genetically Modified Foods.	Article in scholarly journal reporting research and methodology.	Articles analyzing and commenting on the results of original research; books doing the same

EXAMPLES OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES

Source: The Evolution of Scientific Information (from Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science , vol. 26).

Primary Vs. Secondary Vs. Tertiary Sources


Original research or materials that have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation by a secondary party. Reports of scientific discoveries, experiments, or clinical trials. These are factual and not interpretive.	Sources that contain commentary on or a discussion about a primary source. Analyzes and interprets research results or scientific discoveries.	Information which is distillation of primary AND secondary sources
Conference papers, dissertations, interviews, laboratory notebooks, patents, a study reported in a journal article, technical reports, and diaries	Review articles, magazine articles, books, laws and legislation, public opinion, and social policy.	Books
-Published results research studies, clinical studies, or scientific experiments -Proceedings of conferences or meetings	-Publications the significance of research or experiments. -Analysis of a clinical trial -Review of the results of experiments or trials	Almanacs, Bibliographies, Chronologies, Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, Fact Books, Guidebooks, Manuals, and Textbooks.
-Einstein’s diary -Article in a scholarly journal reporting research and methodology	-Books about Einstein’s life -Articles or books analyzing and commenting on the results of original research	-Dictionary on the Theory of Relativity -Bibliography of resources in a particular field

<< Previous: Books
Next: Citation Guides, Generators, and Tools >>
Last Updated: Nov 16, 2023 1:58 PM
URL: https://andersonuniversity.libguides.com/ScienceResearch

Thrift Library | (864) 231-2050 | [email protected] | Anderson University 316 Boulevard Anderson, SC 29621

Identifying and Locating Empirical Articles

Types of Scholarly Articles

Empirical Articles vs Review Articles

Locating Empirical Articles

Empirical articles are written to share the results of original research. Their authors will share their findings, including results, data, and ideas for future research. This will allow other researchers to learn more and conduct further studies.

Review articles are written to compare and discuss the results of multiple articles. They may be structured similarly to original research articles, but they are synthesizing what others have written about, rather than reporting on their own research.

Watch the video below (~1:30 min) for more information.

<< Previous: Types of Scholarly Articles
Next: Locating Empirical Articles >>
Last Updated: May 28, 2024 2:55 PM
URL: https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/identifying-locating-empirical-articles

SUNY Oswego, Penfield Library
Resource Guides

Biological Sciences Research Guide

Primary research vs review article.

Research Starters
Citing Sources
Open Educational Resources
Peer Review
How to Read a Scientific Article
Conducting a Literature Review
Interlibrary Loan

Quick Links

Penfield Library
Research Guides
A-Z List of Databases & Indexes

Characteristics of a Primary Research Article

Goal is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge
Sometimes referred to as an empirical research article
Typically organized into sections that include: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, and References.

Example of a Primary Research Article:

Flockhart, D.T.T., Fitz-gerald, B., Brower, L.P., Derbyshire, R., Altizer, S., Hobson, K.A., … Norris, D.R., (2017). Migration distance as a selective episode for wing morphology in a migratory insect. Movement Ecology , 5(1), 1-9. doi: doi.org/10.1186/s40462-017-0098-9

Characteristics of a Review Article

Goal is to summarize important research on a particular topic and to represent the current body of knowledge about that topic.
Not intended to provide original research but to help draw connections between research studies that have previously been published.
Help the reader understand how current understanding of a topic has developed over time and identify gaps or inconsistencies that need further exploration.

Example of a Review Article:

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.oswego.edu/science/article/pii/S0960982218302537

<< Previous: Plagiarism
Next: Peer Review >>

MSU Libraries

Need help? Ask Us

Research Methods Resources - Kinesiology: Empirical vs Review Articles

Finding Journal Articles
Searching Indexes and Databases
How to Locate the Full Text of an Article, once you have found the Citation
Not sure if your Journal Article is considered Academic/Scholarly or Peer-reviewed?
Obtaining Materials not Owned by MSU
Connecting to Library Resources from Off Campus
Empirical vs Review Articles
Grants & Fundraising
General Information
Literature Review
SAGE Research Methods

Empirical Journal Articles

Empirical Article - (Original Research) Based on experience and observation, rather than systematic logic. (according to MedicineNet.com)

The articles contain original research (such as scientific experiments, surveys and research studies) A list of references or sources is provided at the end of each article An editorial board, composed of experts in the field, reviews articles to decide whether they should be accepted; this is also known as "refereed," "peer-reviewed," "professional," "scholarly", or "academic". Uses a specialized vocabulary for that field.

Below are two websites that explain Empirical articles and research:

Empirical Research: How to Recognize and Locate (Penn State University) - Empirical Research PDF

Review Journal Articles

Review Article

An article that summarizes the progress or current state in some particular subject, area, or topic.

How to write a "Review Article?" (National Library of Medicine) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/

Subject Guide

<< Previous: Connecting to Library Resources from Off Campus
Next: Grants & Fundraising >>
Last Updated: Sep 16, 2024 1:15 PM
URL: https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/c.php?g=96527

Insights blog

Different types of research articles

A guide for early career researchers.

In scholarly literature, there are many different kinds of articles published every year. Original research articles are often the first thing you think of when you hear the words ‘journal article’. In reality, research work often results in a whole mixture of different outputs and it’s not just the final research article that can be published.

Finding a home to publish supporting work in different formats can help you start publishing sooner, allowing you to build your publication record and research profile.

But before you do, it’s very important that you check the instructions for authors and the aims and scope of the journal(s) you’d like to submit to. These will tell you whether they accept the type of article you’re thinking of writing and what requirements they have around it.

Understanding the different kind of articles

There’s a huge variety of different types of articles – some unique to individual journals – so it’s important to explore your options carefully. While it would be impossible to cover every single article type here, below you’ll find a guide to the most common research articles and outputs you could consider submitting for publication.

Book review

Many academic journals publish book reviews, which aim to provide insight and opinion on recently published scholarly books. Writing book reviews is often a good way to begin academic writing. It can help you get your name known in your field and give you valuable experience of publishing before you write a full-length article.

If you’re keen to write a book review, a good place to start is looking for journals that publish or advertise the books they have available for review. Then it’s just a matter of putting yourself forward for one of them.

You can check whether a journal publishes book reviews by browsing previous issues or by seeing if a book review editor is listed on the editorial board. In addition, some journals publish other types of reviews, such as film, product, or exhibition reviews, so it’s worth bearing those in mind as options as well.

Get familiar with instructions for authors

Be prepared, speed up your submission, and make sure nothing is forgotten by understanding a journal’s individual requirements.

Publishing tips, direct to your inbox

Expert tips and guidance on getting published and maximizing the impact of your research. Register now for weekly insights direct to your inbox.

Case report

A medical case report – also sometimes called a clinical case study – is an original short report that provides details of a single patient case.

Case reports include detailed information on the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. They remain one of the cornerstones of medical progress and provide many new ideas in medicine.

Depending on the journal, a case report doesn’t necessarily need to describe an especially novel or unusual case as there is benefit from collecting details of many standard cases.

Take a look at F1000Research’s guidance on case reports , to understand more about what’s required in them. And don’t forget that for all studies involving human participants, informed written consent to take part in the research must be obtained from the participants – find out more about consent to publish.

Clinical study

In medicine, a clinical study report is a type of article that provides in-depth detail on the methods and results of a clinical trial. They’re typically similar in length and format to original research articles.

Most journals now require that you register protocols for clinical trials you’re involved with in a publicly accessible registry. A list of eligible registries can be found on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) . Trials can also be registered at clinicaltrials.gov or the EU Clinical Trials Register . Once registered, your trial will be assigned a clinical trial number (CTN).

Before you submit a clinical study, you’ll need to include clinical trial numbers and registration dates in the manuscript, usually in the abstract and methods sections.

Commentaries and letters to editors

Letters to editors, as well as ‘replies’ and ‘discussions’, are usually brief comments on topical issues of public and political interest (related to the research field of the journal), anecdotal material, or readers’ reactions to material published in the journal.

Commentaries are similar, though they may be slightly more in-depth, responding to articles recently published in the journal. There may be a ‘target article’ which various commentators are invited to respond to.

You’ll need to look through previous issues of any journal you’re interested in writing for and review the instructions for authors to see which types of these articles (if any) they accept.

Conference materials

Many of our medical journals accept conference material supplements. These are open access peer-reviewed, permanent, and citable publications within the journal. Conference material supplements record research around a common thread, as presented at a workshop, congress, or conference, for the scientific record. They can include the following types of articles:

Poster extracts

Conference abstracts

Presentation extracts

Find out more about submitting conference materials.

Data notes are a short peer-reviewed article type that concisely describe research data stored in a repository. Publishing a data note can help you to maximize the impact of your data and gain appropriate credit for your research.

Data notes promote the potential reuse of research data and include details of why and how the data were created. They do not include any analysis but they can be linked to a research article incorporating analysis of the published dataset, as well as the results and conclusions.

F1000Research enables you to publish your data note rapidly and openly via an author-centric platform. There is also a growing range of options for publishing data notes in Taylor & Francis journals, including in All Life and Big Earth Data .

Read our guide to data notes to find out more.

Letters or short reports

Letters or short reports (sometimes known as brief communications or rapid communications) are brief reports of data from original research.

Editors publish these reports where they believe the data will be interesting to many researchers and could stimulate further research in the field. There are even entire journals dedicated to publishing letters.

As they’re relatively short, the format is useful for researchers with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full original research article.

Brief reports (previously called Research Notes) are a type of short report published by F1000Research – part of the Taylor & Francis Group. To find out more about the requirements for a brief report, take a look at F1000Research’s guidance .

Vector illustration of a large open laptop, with four puzzle pieces that are blue and pink on the screen, and three characters stood around the laptop pointing at the puzzle pieces.

Method article

A method article is a medium length peer-reviewed, research-focused article type that aims to answer a specific question. It also describes an advancement or development of current methodological approaches and research procedures (akin to a research article), following the standard layout for research articles. This includes new study methods, substantive modifications to existing methods, or innovative applications of existing methods to new models or scientific questions. These should include adequate and appropriate validation to be considered, and any datasets associated with the paper must publish all experimental controls and make full datasets available.  

Posters and slides

With F1000Research, you can publish scholarly posters and slides covering basic scientific, translational, and clinical research within the life sciences and medicine. You can find out more about how to publish posters and slides on the F1000Research website .

Registered report

A Registered Report consists of two different kinds of articles: a study protocol and an original research article.

This is because the review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers assess study protocols before data is collected. In Stage 2, reviewers consider the full published study as an original research article, including results and interpretation.

Taking this approach, you can get an in-principle acceptance of your research article before you start collecting data. We’ve got further guidance on Registered Reports here , and you can also read F1000Research’s guidance on preparing a Registered Report .

Research article

Original research articles are the most common type of journal article. They’re detailed studies reporting new work and are classified as primary literature.

You may find them referred to as original articles, research articles, research, or even just articles, depending on the journal.

Typically, especially in STEM subjects, these articles will include Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections. However, you should always check the instructions for authors of your chosen journal to see whether it specifies how your article should be structured. If you’re planning to write an original research article, take a look at our guidance on writing a journal article .

Review article

Review articles provide critical and constructive analysis of existing published literature in a field. They’re usually structured to provide a summary of existing literature, analysis, and comparison. Often, they identify specific gaps or problems and provide recommendations for future research.

Unlike original research articles, review articles are considered as secondary literature. This means that they generally don’t present new data from the author’s experimental work, but instead provide analysis or interpretation of a body of primary research on a specific topic. Secondary literature is an important part of the academic ecosystem because it can help explain new or different positions and ideas about primary research, identify gaps in research around a topic, or spot important trends that one individual research article may not.

There are 3 main types of review article

Literature review

Presents the current knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic.

Systematic review

Identifies, appraises and synthesizes all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making.

Meta-analysis

A quantitative, formal, epidemiological study design used to systematically assess the results of previous research to derive conclusions about that body of research. Typically, but not necessarily, a meta-analysis study is based on randomized, controlled clinical trials.

Take a look at our guide to writing a review article for more guidance on what’s required.

Software tool articles

A software tool article – published by F1000Research – describes the rationale for the development of a new software tool and details of the code used for its construction.

The article should provide examples of suitable input data sets and include an example of the output that can be expected from the tool and how this output should be interpreted. Software tool articles submitted to F1000Research should be written in open access programming languages. Take a look at their guidance for more details on what’s required of a software tool article.

Further resources

Ready to write your article, but not sure where to start?

For more guidance on how to prepare and write an article for a journal you can download the Writing your paper eBook .

Research Methods: A Student's Comprehensive Guide: Literature Reviews

Research Approaches
Types of Sources
Accessing Resources
Evaluating Sources
Question Crafting
Search Strategies
Annotated Bibliography
Literature Reviews
Citations This link opens in a new window

Literature Review

What is a Literature Review? A literature review is a critical analysis of existing research related to a specific topic or research question. Rather than simply summarizing the sources, a literature review evaluates, compares, and synthesizes the literature to highlight trends, gaps, and insights that inform your research.

Purpose and Importance: Literature reviews serve multiple key functions:

Contextualization: They provide background on your research topic, helping to situate your work within the broader field.
Identification of Gaps: A thorough review highlights areas where further research is needed, guiding your own contributions.
Critical Evaluation: By comparing and contrasting sources, you develop a deeper understanding of the subject and establish the credibility of your research.
Foundation for Research: A literature review demonstrates your knowledge of the field, forming a strong basis for your methodology and research approach.

Difference Between a Literature Review and an Annotated Bibliography: While both a literature review and an annotated bibliography involve analyzing sources, they serve different purposes. An annotated bibliography focuses on summarizing and evaluating individual sources in isolation. In contrast, a literature review synthesizes multiple sources to form a cohesive narrative, identifying patterns, themes, and debates within the literature. The literature review also typically organizes the information thematically or methodologically rather than listing sources one by one.

Q: What is the main difference between a literature review and a systematic review? A: A literature review provides a broad overview of existing research on a topic, while a systematic review follows a structured methodology to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific question.

Q: How do I choose the best type of literature review for my research? A: Consider your research question and objectives. A narrative review is suitable for broad overviews, while a systematic review is best for comprehensive analyses. A scoping review helps map out the existing literature, and a meta-analysis combines quantitative results from multiple studies.

Q: How many sources should I include in my literature review? A: The number of sources depends on your topic and the scope of your review. Generally, aim to include a comprehensive selection that represents the current state of research. Ensure sources are relevant and contribute to answering your research question.

Q: Can I include unpublished sources in my literature review? A: Yes, including unpublished sources such as dissertations, theses, or reports can provide valuable insights and fill gaps in the published literature. Ensure these sources are credible and relevant.

Q: How do I ensure my literature review is critical and not just descriptive? A: Focus on evaluating and synthesizing the sources rather than just summarizing them. Analyze the strengths, weaknesses, and contributions of each study. Highlight trends, debates, and gaps in the literature.

Scribbr: How to Write a Literature Review

Gain valuable insights on how to write an impactful literature review with this comprehensive guide!

Scribbr: Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Explore practical tips and strategies for structuring a literature review in this detailed tutorial.

Common Mistakes

Types of Literature Reviews

Overview: Provides a comprehensive summary of the research on a specific topic. It offers a broad overview of the field, summarizing the key findings and trends without a strict methodological approach.
Purpose: Useful for providing a general understanding of a topic, identifying major themes, and outlining the historical development of research.
Overview: Follows a structured and transparent methodology to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It aims to minimize bias and provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence.
Purpose: Ideal for answering specific research questions by systematically collecting and analyzing data from multiple studies. It often includes a meta-analysis component to quantitatively summarize the results.
Overview: Maps the existing literature on a broad topic, identifying key concepts, gaps, and areas for further research. It is less focused on synthesizing results and more on exploring the extent and nature of the research.
Purpose: Useful for understanding the breadth of research on a topic, especially when the area is complex or emerging. It helps to clarify the scope of existing evidence and inform future research directions.
Overview: Uses statistical techniques to combine and analyze the results of multiple studies, providing a quantitative summary of the evidence. It aims to identify patterns and determine the overall effect size.
Purpose: Ideal for drawing general conclusions from a body of research, especially when individual studies have varying results. It provides a higher level of statistical power and precision.

Crafting a Literature Review

Clarify Your Research Question: Start by articulating the specific research question or objective that your literature review will address. This will help guide your search and ensure that the review remains focused.
Set Boundaries: Determine the scope of your review by defining parameters such as time frame, geographical area, or specific subtopics. This helps in managing the breadth of your review and maintaining relevance.
Utilize Academic Databases: Access scholarly articles, books, and other research materials using databases like JSTOR, PubMed, or Google Scholar.
Expand Your Search: Explore references in key studies, look for gray literature, and consult library catalogs to ensure a comprehensive search.
Categorize Sources: Group your sources by themes, methodologies, or chronological order. This organization helps in synthesizing information and presenting a coherent review.
Use Reference Management Tools: Tools such as Zotero or EndNote can assist in managing and sorting your sources effectively.
Identify Patterns and Themes: Look for recurring themes, trends, and debates within the literature. Analyze how different studies relate to one another.
Compare and Contrast: Evaluate the methodologies, findings, and perspectives of different sources. Highlight agreements and disagreements to provide a balanced view.
Choose an Organizational Method: Decide on a structure that best fits your review’s purpose:
Chronological: Organize by the timeline of research developments.
Thematic: Group by themes or topics.
Methodological: Arrange based on research methods used.
Create an Outline: Develop a clear outline based on your chosen structure to guide your writing and ensure logical flow.
Analyze, Don’t Just Summarize: Go beyond summarizing each source. Critically analyze how each piece of literature contributes to your understanding of the topic.
Provide Context: Explain how the literature connects to your research question or hypothesis. Show how your work builds on or challenges existing knowledge.
Seek Feedback: Share your draft with peers or mentors to obtain constructive feedback.
Edit for Clarity: Review your work for clarity, coherence, and completeness. Ensure that your review is logically organized and free of errors.

Example of a Literature Review

To illustrate how a literature review is structured and written, here's a simplified example based on a hypothetical research topic: The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Mental Health.

Introduction: The introduction provides an overview of the research topic and its significance.

Social media has become an integral part of adolescents' lives, raising concerns about its impact on mental health. This literature review examines existing research on how social media use affects adolescent well-being, focusing on both positive and negative outcomes.

Body: The body of the review is organized thematically or methodologically.

Positive Impacts of Social Media:

Social Connectivity: Studies highlight that social media platforms enable adolescents to maintain and strengthen social connections, providing emotional support and reducing feelings of isolation (Smith, 2021; Lee & Johnson, 2022).
Educational Benefits: Research indicates that social media can facilitate educational opportunities and learning through online communities and resources (Adams, 2020).

Negative Impacts of Social Media:

Mental Health Issues: Several studies link excessive social media use with increased levels of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem among adolescents (Brown et al., 2019; Thompson & Miller, 2021).
Cyberbullying: Evidence shows that social media platforms can be a breeding ground for cyberbullying, leading to significant psychological distress (Green & Taylor, 2022).

Mixed Findings:

Variability in Effects: Some research finds that the impact of social media on mental health varies depending on individual factors such as frequency of use, type of content consumed, and pre-existing mental health conditions (Davis, 2021; Wilson, 2022).

Discussion: The discussion synthesizes the findings, identifies trends, and highlights gaps:

The reviewed literature reveals a complex relationship between social media and adolescent mental health. While social media can offer support and educational benefits, its negative impacts—particularly related to mental health issues and cyberbullying—are significant. Further research is needed to understand how different variables affect these outcomes and to develop strategies for mitigating negative effects.

Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the key findings and suggests areas for future research:

In summary, social media has both positive and negative effects on adolescent mental health. Addressing these impacts requires a nuanced understanding of the various factors involved and targeted interventions to support healthy social media use. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to better assess the long-term effects of social media on mental health.

References: Ensure to include a list of all sources cited in the example. In a real review, this would be formatted according to the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).
Formatting: Use headings and subheadings to clearly organize each section of the review.

This example provides a framework for how a literature review should be structured and the type of content that should be included. It demonstrates the synthesis of various sources to present a cohesive narrative on the research topic.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Tip: Ensure every source and discussion point directly relates to your research question or objective. Maintain a clear focus throughout the review.
Tip: Prioritize primary sources and original studies to provide a robust foundation. Use secondary sources sparingly for context or background.
Tip: Critically assess each study’s methodology, findings, and impact on the field. Highlight strengths and weaknesses for a balanced view.
Tip: Use clear headings and subheadings. Choose a logical structure (e.g., thematic, chronological) and ensure smooth transitions between sections.
Tip: Discuss gaps in the literature to strengthen your review and position your research within the broader field.
Tip: Follow the appropriate citation style meticulously. Ensure all sources are cited correctly and consistently.
Tip: Base conclusions on a comprehensive review of the literature. Avoid generalizations unless supported by substantial evidence from multiple sources.
Tip: Stay updated with recent publications and incorporate the most current research to ensure relevance and accuracy.

Literature Review Matrix

A Literature Review Matrix is a powerful tool that helps you organize and evaluate the sources you've gathered for your literature review. Think of it as a structured table that allows you to visually track key details from each source, helping you compare and contrast research findings, methods, and relevance to your work.

The primary goal of a Literature Review Matrix is to provide a clear and organized way to view your sources side-by-side. This makes it easier to spot patterns, identify gaps in the literature, and see how different studies connect or diverge. By using this matrix, you can:

Summarize key information from each source.
See the progression of research on a topic.
Track how each source contributes to your own research goals.

When crafting your literature review, the matrix becomes a valuable reference. It offers a concise summary of each source, facilitating the synthesis of information and revealing connections between works. This organized approach helps ensure you cover all important themes and insights.

Key Components

A typical Literature Review Matrix includes:

Author(s) & Date: For tracking contributions and publication dates.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework: Outlines the theories or concepts guiding the study.
Research Question(s)/Hypotheses: Identifies the focus and aims of the research.
Methodology: Describes the study design and methods used.
Analysis & Results: Summarizes the data analysis and key findings.
Conclusions: Highlights the main conclusions drawn from the research.
Implications for Future Research: Suggests areas for further investigation.
Implications for Practice: Discusses practical applications of the findings.

A Literature Review Matrix establishes a solid foundation for a well-organized literature review, ensuring you capture all critical insights and connections between sources.

How to Use the Matrix

To make the most of your Literature Review Matrix, follow these steps to complete each category:

Author(s) & Date : Record the author(s) of the study and the publication date. This helps track contributions and the relevance of the research over time.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework : Note the theories or concepts guiding the study. This provides insight into the foundation of the research and its theoretical background.

Research Question(s)/Hypotheses : Summarize the main research questions or hypotheses the study addresses. This clarifies the focus and objectives of the research.

Methodology : Describe the research design and methods used. This includes the type of study, data collection methods, and analysis techniques.

Analysis & Results : Outline the main findings and how the data was analyzed. This section highlights the key discoveries of the research.

Conclusions : Record the study’s conclusions and implications. This provides a summary of the research outcomes and their significance.

Implications for Future Research : Identify suggestions for further research proposed by the study. This helps in understanding how the research contributes to ongoing scholarly conversation.

Implications for Practice : Note any practical applications or recommendations made. This connects the research findings to real-world applications.

Accurately filling in each category of the Literature Review Matrix ensures a comprehensive and organized overview of your sources, making it easier to synthesize and integrate information into your literature review.

Why Use a Literature Review Matrix?

A Literature Review Matrix is not just a tool but a strategic aid in organizing and synthesizing your research. Here’s why it’s invaluable:

Enhanced Clarity : By laying out your sources in a matrix format, you gain a clear, visual representation of the key components of each study. This clarity helps in quickly identifying patterns, contradictions, and gaps in the literature.

Streamlined Synthesis : The matrix allows you to compare and contrast findings across multiple sources efficiently. This makes synthesizing information from different studies simpler, leading to a more cohesive and comprehensive literature review.

Efficient Writing : With all essential information organized in one place, writing your literature review becomes more straightforward. The matrix provides a structured reference that helps in drafting sections and ensuring that all relevant points are addressed.

Identification of Trends and Gaps : The matrix helps in spotting trends in research and identifying areas where further investigation is needed. This insight is crucial for framing your research questions and shaping your own study.

Improved Organization : It facilitates a systematic approach to managing your sources, reducing the risk of overlooking important details and ensuring that your review is well-organized and thorough.

Using a Literature Review Matrix enhances the efficiency and quality of your literature review process. It’s a powerful tool that supports clarity, synthesis, and effective writing, ultimately contributing to a more insightful and organized review.

<< Previous: Annotated Bibliography
Next: Structure >>
Last Updated: Sep 20, 2024 3:27 PM
URL: https://tsu.libguides.com/researchmethods

Book a free consultation

+91-9360923317

[email protected]

phd.patnresearchgmail.com

Sep 14, 2021

What's the difference between a research article and a review article-The hidden secrets?

Are you getting more confused on what is review article and research article and what are their major differences? Here we have provided a clear idea to make you feel understand in a better way. Let’s see each one of the them more in detail.

What is a research article?

The research articles, occasionally termed to as primary sources or empirical paper which rely on original research report. They consist of the sections namely abstract, introduction, literature review, research methodology, results & discussion and conclusion. Primary or Empirical research studies report original research, highlighting the diverse steps involved in the research process.

The structure of an empirical paper is explained in detail as under:

Abstract : The abstract is the first and foremost section of the empirical paper and the content should be well written in a precise manner. The following key points are important for abstract formulation

It delivers a description of the research problem being examined

includes the contributors and relevant characteristics of those contributors

defines the research methodology of the study

précises the basic findings of the research study

contains the implications or applications and conclusions of the research study's findings.

Introduction: Traces the way the research problem that is being studied has developed and provides the determination for the examination.

Research Methodology : Specifies how the examination was conducted; what measures were used.

Results : intelligences the findings and analyses of the research study

Discussion : summarizes, infers and discusses the implications of the examination results

Conclusion : Concludes the research study and its outcomes in a precise manner.

What is a review article ?

The review article is also sometimes called as survey article or literature reviews or secondary sources , synthesize or analyze research previously conducted in primary sources. The review articles usually summarize the current state of research on a given research topic.

The review articles critically evaluate the previously published research articles. The organization, combination of the previously published material, and evaluation of this material provide an understanding of the progress of research in clarifying a research problem. The Literature reviews provides the following key points:

gives a clear definition and explanation of the research problem

provides a summary of earlier research to inform the reader of what the research status is

identifies relationships, contradictions, problem gaps and discrepancies in the material

makes suggestions in the upcoming step to solve the problem.

The structure of a review paper is detailed as under:

Abstract: Notifies about the main objectives and result of each review article taken for development

Introduction: Provides information about the background, specifies the motivation for the review, describes the focus, the research question and describes the text structure.

Detailed literature survey and frame a Comparative table: In this section, we need to summarize each referred article in terms of author(s) name, year of publication, findings of the particular research article, advantages and limitations of the study

Future scope of the work (if applicable)

Below table gives you a clear understanding of the major difference between a review and a research article.

Hope this article is useful for the research aspirants and the scholars who are planning to publish their articles in journal

Chemical Communications

Spot the difference in reactivity: a comprehensive review of site-selective multicomponent conjugation exploiting multi-azide compounds.

* Corresponding authors

a Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, 2630 Sugitani, Toyama 930-0194, Japan E-mail: [email protected]

Going beyond the conventional approach of pairwise conjugation between two molecules, the integration of multiple components onto a central scaffold molecule is essential for the development of high-performance molecular materials with multifunctionality. This approach also facilitates the creation of functionalized molecular probes applicable in diverse fields ranging from pharmaceuticals to polymeric materials. Among the various click functional groups, the azido group stands out as a representative click functional group due to its steric compactness, high reactivity, handling stability, and easy accessibility in the context of multi-azide scaffolds. However, the azido groups in multi-azide scaffolds have not been well exploited for site-specific use in molecular conjugation. In fact, multi-azide compounds have been well used to conjugate to the same multiple fragments. To circumvent problems of promiscuous and random coupling of multiple different fragments to multiple azido positions, it is imperative to distinguish specific azido positions and use them orthogonally for molecular conjugation. This review outlines methods and strategies to exploit specific azide positions for molecular conjugation in the presence of multiple azido groups. Illustrative examples covering di-, tri- and tetraazide click scaffolds are included.

Graphical abstract: Spot the difference in reactivity: a comprehensive review of site-selective multicomponent conjugation exploiting multi-azide compounds

This article is part of the themed collection: Chemical Communications HOT Articles 2024

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

H. Tanimoto and T. Tomohiro, Chem. Commun. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D4CC03359K

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.

To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication , please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

IMAGES

Review Article vs Research Article: An in-depth exploration of the differences in 2 papers!
Review Article vs Research Article
Difference between Research and review article and how to search for them on the web
Research Article vs Review Article
Research Paper vs. Review: 5 Main Differences
What Is The Difference Between A Scholarly Research Article And A

VIDEO

Difference between Research paper and a review. Which one is more important?
How to write thesis record
Writing a Review Paper
The research paper can be downloaded for free from Science Hub Mutual Aid
Eberhard Klempt: 50 Years of QCD
LIS3124-EP3

COMMENTS

What's the difference between a research article and a review article
Review articles, sometimes called literature reviews or secondary sources, synthesize or analyze research already conducted in primary sources. They generally summarize the current state of research on a given topic. Here is a more detailed explanation of review articles. The video above was created by the Virginia Commonwealth University ...
5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
Infographic: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper. There are different types of scholarly literature. Some of these require researchers to conduct an original study, whereas others can be based on previously published research. Understanding each of these types and also how they differ from one another can be rather ...
Review vs. research articles
A research article describes a study that was performed by the article's author (s). It explains the methodology of the study, such as how data was collected and analyzed, and clarifies what the results mean. Each step of the study is reported in detail so that other researchers can repeat the experiment. To determine if a paper is a research ...
Research Article vs. Review Article
What's the Difference? Research articles and review articles are both types of academic papers that are published in scholarly journals. However, they differ in terms of their purpose and content. A research article presents original research findings and is typically structured with sections such as introduction, methodology, results, and ...
Review Article vs Research Article
Here are some key differences between review articles and research articles: In summary, research articles and review articles serve different purposes in the academic literature. Research articles present original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis, while review articles summarize and analyze existing ...
What Is The Difference Between A Scholarly Research Article And A
In the academic landscape, research articles and review articles form the backbone of knowledge dissemination and scholarly progress. Research articles introduce novel insights, pushing the boundaries of understanding, while review articles offer a synthesis of existing findings, guiding future studies. Both are essential: one for its fresh ...
What is the Difference Between Research Papers and Review Papers?
Here are four key differences between research papers and review papers: Purpose: Review papers evaluate existing research, identify trends, and discuss the current state of knowledge on a specific topic; they are based on the study of previously published literature. On the other hand, research paperscontain original research work undertaken ...
Research Articles vs Review Articles
Research articles follow a particular format. Look for: A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study.; A methods section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data.Statistical analysis are included. A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis.
Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles
Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include ...
What is a Review Article?
Differences Between Original Research Articles and Review Articles. An original research article aims to: Provides background information (Intro.) on prior research, Reasons for present study, Issues to be investigated by the present study, Written for experts.Authors describe: Research methods & materials, Data acquisition/analysis tools, Results, Discussion of results.
What is the difference between a research paper and a review paper
The research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of this data. A review article or review paper is based on other published articles. It does not report original research. Review articles generally summarize the existing literature on a topic in an attempt to explain the current state of understanding on the topic.
What is a review article?
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
Research vs Review Articles
A research article describes an original study that the author(s) conducted themselves. It will include a brief literature review, but the main focus of the article is to describe the theoretical approach, methods, and results of the authors' own study. Look at the abstract or full text of the journal article and look for the following:
Research vs. Review Articles
Research Articles "A research article reports the results of original research, assesses its contribution to the body of knowledge in a given area, and is published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal." - Pen & the Pad. The study design of research articles may vary, but in all cases some form of raw data have been collected and analyzed by ...
Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for
Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary.
STEM
But review and research articles can also be published in the same journal, and even within the same issue. The best way to determine if you have a research or review article is by reading the abstract. RESEARCH ARTICLES report on original research from a study or experiment, with data, results, discussion, and where those results fit within ...
Difference between a Research Paper and a Review Paper
The kind of research may vary depending on your field or the topic (experiments, survey, interview, questionnaire, etc.), but authors need to collect and analyze raw data and conduct an original study. The research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of this data. A review article or review paper is based on other published ...
Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles
Research vs Review Articles. It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a ...
Empirical Articles vs Review Articles
Review articles are written to compare and discuss the results of multiple articles. They may be structured similarly to original research articles, but they are synthesizing what others have written about, rather than reporting on their own research. Watch the video below (~1:30 min) for more information.
Primary Research vs Review Article
Characteristics of a Review Article. Goal is to summarize important research on a particular topic and to represent the current body of knowledge about that topic. Not intended to provide original research but to help draw connections between research studies that have previously been published.
Empirical vs Review Articles
The articles contain original research (such as scientific experiments, surveys and research studies) A list of references or sources is provided at the end of each article An editorial board, composed of experts in the field, reviews articles to decide whether they should be accepted; this is also known as "refereed," "peer-reviewed ...
Types of research article
Letters or short reports. Method article. Posters and slides. Registered report. Research article. Review article. Software tool articles. In scholarly literature, there are many different kinds of articles published every year. Original research articles are often the first thing you think of when you hear the words 'journal article'.
TSU Research Guides: Research Methods: A Student's Comprehensive Guide
Foundation for Research: A literature review demonstrates your knowledge of the field, forming a strong basis for your methodology and research approach. Difference Between a Literature Review and an Annotated Bibliography: While both a literature review and an annotated bibliography involve analyzing sources, they serve different purposes. An ...
What's the difference between a research article and a review article
Survey paper. Research article. A research article is a primary source. That is, it reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors. However, review article is a secondary source and it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own.
Gender differences in the patterns and consequences of changing
Abstract. Changes of research directions in scientific careers are related to the so-called "essential tension" between exploration of new knowledge and exploitation of established knowledge in research and innovation. Changes of research directions are thereby assumed to influence the evolution of science in general. Research has shown that such changes may also affect the success of ...
A proposed framework to establish in vitro-in vivo relationships using
In vitro digestion methods have been utilized in food research to reduce in vivo studies. Although previous studies have related in vitro and in vivo data, there is no consensus on how to establish an in vitro-in vivo relationship (IVIVR) for food digestion. A framework that serves as a tool to evaluate the utility Food &; Function Review Articles 2024
Spot the difference in reactivity: a comprehensive review of site
Going beyond the conventional approach of pairwise conjugation between two molecules, the integration of multiple components onto a central scaffold molecule is essential for the development of high-performance molecular materials with multifunctionality. This approach also facilitates the creation of functionalize Chemical Communications HOT Articles 2024

"How Do I?" @JWULibrary

Sample Question

Q. What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

Answered By: Sarah Naomi Campbell Last Updated: Sep 07, 2018 Views: 216790

Links & Files

Comments (0)

Review vs. Research Articles

Review Papers

Systematic Review Papers

Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed

Research Article vs. Review Article

Further Detail

Research Articles

Review Articles

Similarities

Differences

What Is The Difference Between A Scholarly Research Article And A Review Article?

Research Article vs. Review Article

What Is A Research Article?

What Is A Review Article?

How Are Review And Research Articles Different?

Original Research vs Synthesised Knowledge

Anatomy & Structure

Impact and Use in Academia

Wrapping Up

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

What is the Difference Between Research Papers and Review Papers?

What is a Review Paper ?

What is a Research Paper ?

Similarities between research papers and review papers

Differences between research papers and review papers

Related Posts

How to get a PhD in Computer Science?

How to get a PhD in Accounting?

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Social Science and Science Research Articles

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

Research versus Review Articles

How to Write a Review Article

What is a Review Article?

Similarities and Differences to Original Research Articles

Biological Literature: Research vs Review Articles

Research Articles

Review Articles

Systematic Review Articles

Biological Sciences

Defining Article Types

Review Articles

Differences between Research and Review Articles

Anatomy of a Research Article

Introduction

References/Works Cited

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Japareng Lalung

Santhosh Pillai

1. Introduction

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

3. Types of Review Articles

3.1. Narrative Reviews

3.2. Systematic Reviews

3.3. Meta-Analysis

3.4. Bibliometric Review

3.5. Patent Review

4. Searching Literature

5. Structuring the Review Article

5.2. Abstract

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

5.4. Keywords

5.5. Introduction

5.6. Methodology

5.7. Main Body of the Review

5.8. Tables and Figures

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

5.10. References

6. Concluding Remarks

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

STEM - General Research Guide: Research Vs. Review Articles

Science Research: Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles