research articles vs review articles

• Study resources
• Calendar - Graduate
• Calendar - Undergraduate
• Class schedules
• Class cancellations
• Course registration
• Important academic dates
• More academic resources
• Campus services
• IT services
• Job opportunities
• Safety & prevention
• Mental health support
• Student Service Centre (Birks)
• All campus services
• Calendar of events
• Latest news
• Media Relations
• Faculties, Schools & Colleges
• Arts and Science
• Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science
• John Molson School of Business
• School of Graduate Studies
• All Schools, Colleges & Departments.
• Directories
• My Library account Renew books and more
• Book a study room or scanner Reserve a space for your group online
• Interlibrary loans (Colombo) Request books from external libraries
• Zotero (formerly RefWorks) Manage your citations and create bibliographies
• Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver Request a PDF of an article/chapter we have in our physical collection
• Contactless Book Pickup Request books, DVDs and more from our physical collection while the Library is closed
• WebPrint Upload documents to print on campus
• Course reserves Online course readings
• Spectrum Deposit a thesis or article
• Sofia Discovery tool
• Databases by subject
• Course Reserves
• E-journals via Browzine
• E-journals via Sofia
• Article/chapter scan
• Intercampus delivery of bound periodicals/microforms
• Interlibrary loans
• Spectrum Research Repository
• Special Collections & Archives
• Additional resources & services
• Subject & course guides
• Borrowing & renewing
• Open Educational Resources Guide
• Instructional Services
• General guides for users
• Ask a librarian
• Research Skills Tutorial
• Quick Things for Digital Knowledge
• Critical Toolkit for Navigating Information
• Bibliometrics & research impact guide
• Concordia University Press
• Copyright guide
• Copyright guide for thesis preparation
• Digital scholarship
• Digital preservation
• Open Access
• ORCiD at Concordia
• Research data management guide
• Scholarship of Teaching & Learning
• Systematic Reviews
• Borrow (laptops, tablets, equipment)
• Connect (netname, Wi-Fi, guest accounts)
• Desktop computers, software & availability maps
• Group study, presentation practice & classrooms
• Printers, copiers & scanners
• Technology Sandbox
• Visualization Studio
• Webster Library
• Vanier Library
• Grey Nuns Reading Room
• Study spaces
• Floor plans
• Book a group study room/scanner
• Room booking for academic events
• Exhibitions
• Librarians & staff
• Work with us
• Memberships & collaborations
• Indigenous Student Librarian program
• Wikipedian in residence
• Researcher in residence
• Feedback & improvement
• Annual reports & fast facts
• Strategic Plan 2016/21
• Library Services Fund
• Giving to the Library
• Policies & Code of Conduct
• My Library account
• Book a study room or scanner
• Interlibrary loans (Colombo)
• Zotero (formerly RefWorks)
• Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver
• Contactless Book Pickup
• Course reserves

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.

© Concordia University

"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: 215997

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)

Related topics.

• about the library
• articles & journals
• citing sources
• company & industry
• copyright compliance
• countries & travel
• course registration
• Interlibrary loan
• market research
• my library account
• research basics
• research topics
• study rooms
• video tutorial
• writing_help

Downcity Library:

111 Dorrance Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903

401-598-1121

Harborside Library:

321 Harborside Boulevard Providence, RI 02905

401-598-1466

• Location and Directions
• Off-Campus Access
• Staff Directory
• Student Employment
• Pay Bills and Fines
• Chat with a Librarian
• Course Reserves
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Study Rooms
• Research Appointment
• Culinary Museum

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

Privacy Policy

Website Accessibility

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

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

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

• 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.

• << Previous: Find Journal Articles
• Next: How to Read Journal Articles >>
• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 4:35 PM
• URL: https://ucsd.libguides.com/stem-research

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 .

Loyola University Chicago Libraries

School of environmental sustainability (ses).

• NEW Primary Resources!
• Other useful resources
• Research Articles vs. Review Articles

Research Article and Reviews defined

"A  research article  is a  primary source ...that reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors . The kind of study may vary (it could have been an experiment, survey, interview, etc.), but in all cases, raw data have been collected and analyzed by the authors, and conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.

A  review article  is a  secondary source ...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own.  Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among existing research studies.   For student researchers, review articles provide a great overview of the existing literature on a topic.    If you find a literature review that fits your topic, take a look at its references/works cited list for leads on other relevant articles and books!"

• << Previous: Help
• Last Updated: Aug 7, 2024 2:32 PM
• URL: https://libguides.luc.edu/environmentalscience

Loyola University Chicago Libraries Cudahy Library · 1032 W. Sheridan Rd., Chicago, IL 60660 · 773.508.2632 Lewis Library · 25 E. Pearson St., Chicago, IL 60611 · 312.915.6622 Comments & Suggestions Notice of Non-discriminatory Policy

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 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.

• SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an  Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just  Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists 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 manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.  

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

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 >>

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.

  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

• << 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

• Richard G. Trefry Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article (or research study) and a review article?

• Course-Specific
• Textbooks & Course Materials
• Tutoring & Classroom Help
• Writing & Citing
• 44 Articles & Journals
• 5 Artificial Intelligence
• 11 Capstone/Thesis/Dissertation Research
• 37 Databases
• 56 Information Literacy
• 9 Interlibrary Loan
• 9 Need help getting started?
• 22 Technical Help

Answered By: Priscilla Coulter Last Updated: Jul 26, 2024     Views: 233769

A research paper is a primary source ...that is, it reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors . The kind of study may vary (it could have been an experiment, survey, interview, etc.), but in all cases, raw data have been collected and analyzed by the authors , and conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.

Research papers 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.  This is important because it demonstrates that the authors are aware of existing studies, and are planning to contribute to this existing body of research in a meaningful way (that is, they're not just doing what others have already done).
• A methods section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data.  Statistical analyses are included.  This section is quite detailed, as it's important that other researchers be able to verify and/or replicate these methods.
• A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis.  Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included.
• In the discussion , authors will explain their interpretation of their results and theorize on their importance to existing and future research.
• References or works cited are always included.  These are the articles and books that the authors drew upon to plan their study and to support their discussion.

You can use the library's databases  to search for research articles:

• A research article will nearly always be published in a peer-reviewed journal; click here for instructions on limiting your searches to peer-reviewed articles .  
• If you have a particular type of study in mind, you can include keywords to describe it in your search .  For instance, if you would like to see studies that used surveys to collect data, you can add "survey" to your topic in the database's search box. See this example search in our EBSCO databases: " bullying and survey ".   
• Several of our databases have special limiting options that allow you to select specific methodologies.  See, for instance, the " Methodology " box in ProQuest's PsycARTICLES Advanced Search (scroll down a bit to see it).  It includes options like "Empirical Study" and "Qualitative Study", among many others.  

A review article is a secondary source ...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own.  Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among exising research studies.  For student researchers, review articles provide a great overview of the existing literature on a topic.    If you find a literature review that fits your topic, take a look at its references/works cited list for leads on other relevant articles and books!

You can use the library's article databases to find literature reviews as well!  Click here for tips.

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 7 No 1

Related Topics

• Articles & Journals
• Information Literacy

Need personalized help? Librarians are available 365 days/nights per year!  See our schedule.

Learn more about how librarians can help you succeed.    

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
• Citation Mapping
• 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: May 10, 2022 5:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/c.php?g=96527

PSYC 200 Lab in Experimental Methods (Atlanta)

• Find Research Articles

Empirical vs. Review Articles

How to recognize empirical journal articles, scholarly vs. non-scholarly sources.

• Cite Sources
• Find Tests & Measures
• Find Research Methods Materials
• Post-Library Lab Activity on Finding Tests and Measures
• Find Books, E-books, and Films

Psychology Librarian

Know the difference between empirical and review articles.

Empirical article An empirical (research) article reports methods and findings of an original research study conducted by the authors of the article.  

Literature Review article A review article or "literature review" discusses past research studies on a given topic.

Definition of an empirical study:  An empirical research article reports the results of a study that uses data derived from actual observation or experimentation. Empirical research articles are examples of primary research.

Parts of a standard empirical research article:  (articles will not necessary use the exact terms listed below.)

• Abstract  ... A paragraph length description of what the study includes.
• Introduction ...Includes a statement of the hypotheses for the research and a review of other research on the topic.
• Who are participants
• Design of the study
• What the participants did
• What measures were used
• Results ...Describes the outcomes of the measures of the study.
• Discussion ...Contains the interpretations and implications of the study.
• References ...Contains citation information on the material cited in the report. (also called bibliography or works cited)

Characteristics of an Empirical Article:

• Empirical articles will include charts, graphs, or statistical analysis.
• Empirical research articles are usually substantial, maybe from 8-30 pages long.
• There is always a bibliography found at the end of the article.

Type of publications that publish empirical studies:

• Empirical research articles are published in scholarly or academic journals
• These journals are also called “peer-reviewed,” or “refereed” publications.

Examples of such publications include:

• Computers in Human Behavior
• Journal of Educational Psychology

Examples of databases that contain empirical research:  (selected list only)

• Web of Science

This page is adapted from the Sociology Research Guide: Identify Empirical Articles page at Cal State Fullerton Pollak Library.

Know the difference between scholarly and non-scholarly articles.

"Scholarly" journal = "Peer-Reviewed" journal = "Refereed" journal

When researching your topic, you may come across many different types of sources and articles. When evaluating these sources, it is important to think about: 

• Who is the author? 
• Who is the audience or why was this written? 
• Where was this published? 
• Is this relevant to your research? 
• When was this written? Has it been updated? 
• Are there any citations? Who do they cite?  

Helpful Links and Guides

Here are helpful links and guides to check out for more information on scholarly sources: 

• This database contains data on different types of serials and can be used to determine whether a periodical is peer-reviewed or not:  Ulrich's Periodicals Directory  
• The UC Berkeley Library published this useful guide on evaluating resources, including the differences between scholarly and popular sources, as well as how to find primary sources:  UC Berkeley's Evaluating Resources LibGuide
• << Previous: Quick Poll
• Next: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 3:32 PM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.emory.edu/main/psyc200

Research Article vs. Review Article

An overview of types of scholarly articles.

Poojita Garg

ILLUMINATION

Welcome to A Hitchhikers Guide to Publishing Research Articles !💡.

This is the second in a series of articles to help you launch your research dream. In this one, we are going to discuss the different types of scholarly articles and how they differ from each other.

There are many different types of scholarly articles, but for this blog, we will focus on two of the most common ones i.e. a research paper and a review paper. Let’s begin with the first one i.e. Research Articles :)

Research Articles

A research article’s main motive is to paint a good picture of how particular research has been implemented by its author(s). It explains the methodology of the study, such as how data was collected and analyzed along with clarifying what the results mean. It contained a detailed reporting of each step of the study so that other researchers can repeat the experiment. The work presented in the article is necessarily an original work by the author(s). The kind of research may vary depending on your field or the topic (experiments, survey, interview, questionnaire, etc.), but authors need to conduct an original study. The best way to determine if the paper is a research article is to 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”.

Research papers are divided into sections that occur in a particular order: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. You can take a deeper look into these various sections and what they constitute below for one of my research articles .

Review Articles

Unlike a research article that describes an original study, a review article gives an overview of a specific subject by examining previously published studies on the topic. Review papers form valuable scientific literature as they summarize the findings and then try to make sense of the findings of existing literature. 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. 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 and if you did not come across any such recent review article in your field of interest, then why not go ahead and publish one yourself!

You can take a deeper look into the various sections and what they constitute below for one of my review articles .

That’s all folks for this blog. I hope you have a great experience preparing your first research article!

Happy Researching!😄

References:

• https://www.concordia.ca/library/guides/exercise-science/review-vs-research.html
• https://www.editage.com/insights/5-differences-between-a-research-paper-and-a-review-paper

Written by Poojita Garg

CS engineer, developer and researcher https://www.poojitagarg.com/

Text to speech

Journal Article References

This page contains reference examples for journal articles, including the following:

• Journal article
• Journal article with an article number
• Journal article with missing information
• Retracted journal article
• Retraction notice for a journal article
• Abstract of a journal article from an abstract indexing database
• Monograph as part of a journal issue
• Online-only supplemental material to a journal article

1. Journal article

Grady, J. S., Her, M., Moreno, G., Perez, C., & Yelinek, J. (2019). Emotions in storybooks: A comparison of storybooks that represent ethnic and racial groups in the United States. Psychology of Popular Media Culture , 8 (3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000185

• Parenthetical citation : (Grady et al., 2019)
• Narrative citation : Grady et al. (2019)
• If a journal article has a DOI, include the DOI in the reference.
• Always include the issue number for a journal article.
• If the journal article does not have a DOI and is from an academic research database, end the reference after the page range (for an explanation of why, see the database information page ). The reference in this case is the same as for a print journal article.
• Do not include database information in the reference unless the journal article comes from a database that publishes works of limited circulation or original, proprietary content, such as UpToDate .
• If the journal article does not have a DOI but does have a URL that will resolve for readers (e.g., it is from an online journal that is not part of a database), include the URL of the article at the end of the reference.

2. Journal article with an article number

Jerrentrup, A., Mueller, T., Glowalla, U., Herder, M., Henrichs, N., Neubauer, A., & Schaefer, J. R. (2018). Teaching medicine with the help of “Dr. House.” PLoS ONE , 13 (3), Article e0193972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193972

• Parenthetical citation : (Jerrentrup et al., 2018)
• Narrative citation : Jerrentrup et al. (2018)
• If the journal article has an article number instead of a page range, include the word “Article” and then the article number instead of the page range.

3. Journal article with missing information

Missing volume number.

Lipscomb, A. Y. (2021, Winter). Addressing trauma in the college essay writing process. The Journal of College Admission , (249), 30–33. https://www.catholiccollegesonline.org/pdf/national_ccaa_in_the_news_-_nacac_journal_of_college_admission_winter_2021.pdf

Missing issue number

Sanchiz, M., Chevalier, A., & Amadieu, F. (2017). How do older and young adults start searching for information? Impact of age, domain knowledge and problem complexity on the different steps of information searching. Computers in Human Behavior , 72 , 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.038

Missing page or article number

Butler, J. (2017). Where access meets multimodality: The case of ASL music videos. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy , 21 (1). http://technorhetoric.net/21.1/topoi/butler/index.html

• Parenthetical citations : (Butler, 2017; Lipscomb, 2021; Sanchiz et al., 2017)
• Narrative citations : Butler (2017), Lipscomb (2021), and Sanchiz et al. (2017)
• If the journal does not use volume, issue, and/or article or page numbers, omit the missing element(s) from the reference.
• If the journal is published quarterly and the month or season (Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer) is noted, include that with the date element; see the Lipscomb example.
• If the volume, issue, and/or article or page numbers have simply not yet been assigned, use the format for an advance online publication (see Example 7 in the Publication Manual ) or an in-press article (see Example 8 in the Publication Manual ).

4. Retracted journal article

Joly, J. F., Stapel, D. A., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2008). Silence and table manners: When environments activate norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 (8), 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318401 (Retraction published 2012, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 [10], 1378)

• Parenthetical citation : (Joly et al., 2008)
• Narrative citation : Joly et al. (2008)
• Use this format to cite the retracted article itself, for example, to discuss the contents of the retracted article.
• First provide publication details of the original article. Then provide information about the retraction in parentheses, including its year, journal, volume, issue, and page number(s).

5. Retraction notice for a journal article

de la Fuente, R., Bernad, A., Garcia-Castro, J., Martin, M. C., & Cigudosa, J. C. (2010). Retraction: Spontaneous human adult stem cell transformation. Cancer Research , 70 (16), 6682. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2451

The Editors of the Lancet. (2010). Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet , 375 (9713), 445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4

• Parenthetical citations : (de la Fuente et al., 2010; The Editors of the Lancet, 2010)
• Narrative citations : de la Fuente et al. (2010) and The Editors of the Lancet (2010)
• Use this format to cite a retraction notice rather than a retracted article, for example, to provide information on why an article was retracted.
• The author of the retraction notice may be an editor, editorial board, or some or all authors of the article. Examine the retraction notice to determine who to credit as the author.
• Reproduce the title of the retraction notice as shown on the work. Note that the title may include the words “retraction,” “retraction notice,” or “retraction note” as well as the title of the original article.

6. Abstract of a journal article from an abstract indexing database

Hare, L. R., & O'Neill, K. (2000). Effectiveness and efficiency in small academic peer groups: A case study (Accession No. 200010185) [Abstract from Sociological Abstracts]. Small Group Research , 31 (1), 24–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100102

• Parenthetical citation : (Hare & O’Neill, 2000)
• Narrative citation : Hare and O’Neill (2000)
• Although it is preferable to cite the whole article, the abstract can be cited if that is your only available source.
• The foundation of the reference is the same as for a journal article.
• If the abstract has a database accession number, place it in parentheses after the title.
• Note that you retrieved only the abstract by putting the words “Abstract from” and then the name of the abstract indexing database in square brackets. Place this bracketed description after the title and any accession number.
• Accession numbers are sometimes referred to as unique identifiers or as publication numbers (e.g., as PubMed IDs); use the term provided by the database in your reference.

7. Monograph as part of a journal issue

Ganster, D. C., Schaubroeck, J., Sime, W. E., & Mayes, B. T. (1991). The nomological validity of the Type A personality among employed adults [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology , 76 (1), 143–168. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.1.143

• Parenthetical citation : (Ganster et al., 1991)
• Narrative citation : Ganster et al. (1991)
• For a monograph with an issue (or whole) number, include the issue number in parentheses followed by the serial number, for example, 58 (1, Serial No. 231).
• For a monograph bound separately as a supplement to a journal, give the issue number and supplement or part number in parentheses after the volume number, for example, 80 (3, Pt. 2).

8. Online-only supplemental material to a journal article

Freeberg, T. M. (2019). From simple rules of individual proximity, complex and coordinated collective movement [Supplemental material]. Journal of Comparative Psychology , 133 (2), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000181

• Parenthetical citation : (Freeberg, 2019)
• Narrative citation : Freeberg (2019)
• Include the description “[Supplemental material]” in square brackets after the article title.
• If you cite both the main article and the supplemental material, provide only a reference for the article.

Journal article references are covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Section 10.1 and the Concise Guide Section 10.1

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Americans agree that the 2024 election will be pivotal for democracy, but for different reasons

In a politically polarized nation, both Republican and Democratic voters worry over the state of U.S. democracy and how the outcome of the presidential contest will affect its future; they just disagree over who poses the threat. (Dec. 15) (AP Video/Serkan Gurbuz)

FILE - The White House is seen reflected in a puddle, Saturday, Sept. 3, 2022, in Washington. In a politically polarized nation, Americans seem to agree on one issue underlying the 2024 elections — a worry over the state of democracy and how the outcome of the presidential contest will affect its future. A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 62% of adults say democracy in the U.S. could be at risk depending on who wins. That view is held by 72% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans, but for different reasons. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a politically polarized nation, Americans seem to agree on one issue underlying the 2024 elections — a worry over the state of democracy and how the outcome of the presidential contest will affect its future.

They just disagree over who poses the threat.

A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 62% of adults say democracy in the U.S. could be at risk depending on who wins next fall. Majorities of Democrats (72%) and Republicans (55%) feel the same way, but for different reasons.

President Joe Biden has attempted to paint a dystopian future if GOP front-runner and former President Donald Trump returns to the White House after promising to seek retribution against opponents and declining to rule out that he would abuse the powers of the office . The former president has tried to flip the narrative lately, saying the election subversion and documents cases against him show Biden has weaponized the federal government to prosecute a political opponent. He has called Biden the “destroyer of American democracy.”

“I think from the side of the left, it’s pretty obvious that they’re concerned about electing a president who is avowedly authoritarian, someone who clearly wants to reduce checks and balances within the government to strengthen the presidency and to do so in ways that give the executive branch kind of an unprecedented reach across the population and sectors of the government,” said Michael Albertus, political science professor at the University of Chicago.

“From the right, the Republicans think about government overreach, big government, threats to freedom and mandates to act in a certain way or adopt certain policies,” he said.

Against that backdrop, the poll found that about half of U.S. adults, 51%, say democracy is working “not too well” or “not well at all.”

The poll asked about the importance of the coming presidential election for 12 issues and found that the percentage who said the outcome will be very or extremely important to the future of democracy in the U.S. (67%) ranked behind only the economy (75%). It was about equal to the percentage who said that about government spending (67%) and immigration (66%).

Tony Motes, a retired firefighter who lives in Monroe, Georgia, cited a number of reasons he believes “we’re not living in a complete democracy.” That includes what he sees as a deterioration of rights, including parental rights, thieves and other criminals not being held accountable, and a lack of secure borders.

The 59-year-old Republican also said the various criminal cases being brought against Trump undermine the country’s democratic traditions.

“They’re trying to keep him from running because they know he’s going to win,” he said.

The poll’s findings continue a trend of Americans’ lackluster views about how democracy is functioning. They also believe the country’s governing system is not working well to reflect their interests on issues ranging from immigration to abortion to the economy.

Robert Lieberman, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, has studied the fall of democracies elsewhere and the common elements that feed their demise.

What to know about the 2024 Election

• Today’s news: Follow live updates from the campaign trail from the AP.
• Ground Game: Sign up for AP’s weekly politics newsletter to get it in your inbox every Monday.
• AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.

The factors include polarization, growing ethnic or racial antagonism, rising economic inequality and a concentration of power under a country’s executive officeholder.

“For a number of years now, the United States has had all four of these conditions, really for the first time in history,” he said. “So we’re in a period that’s ripe for challenges to democracy.”

Trump is not the cause of the pattern, Lieberman said, but “seems to have an unerring instinct to make things worse, and he certainly has authoritarian impulses and a lot of followers who seem to validate or applaud him.”

The AP-NORC poll found that 87% of Democrats and 54% of independents believe a second Trump term would negatively affect U.S. democracy. For Republicans, 82% believe democracy would be weakened by another Biden win, with 56% of independents agreeing.

About 2 in 10 U.S. adults (19%) say democracy in the U.S. is “already so seriously broken that it doesn’t matter who wins the 2024 presidential election.” Republicans (23%) are more likely than Democrats (10%) to say this, but relatively few in either party think U.S. democracy is resilient enough to withstand the outcome.

Social media platforms and news sites that reinforce biases accelerate the polarization that leads people from different political perspectives to believe the other side is the one representing the gravest threat to the nation’s democracy, said Lilliana Mason, an associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins.

“I don’t think that people are exaggerating. I think it’s that they actually are living in information environments in which it is true for them that democracy is under threat,” she said.

Mason said one side fears what Trump has said he will do if he wins, while the other is responding to the fear created in a media ecosystem that says the Democrats want to destroy America and turn it into a socialist or communist society.

For some, the danger is more than Trump’s statements and concern over how he might turn toward authoritarianism. It also is what’s happening in the states and courts, where political gerrymandering and threats to voting rights are continuing, as are measures that limit people’s ability to vote easily, such as reducing drop box locations for mail-in ballots and tightening voter identification requirements.

“Look at all the roadblocks that have been put up to keep people, especially people of color, from being able to vote,” said Pamela Williams, 75, of New York City, who identifies as a Democrat. “That isn’t democracy.”

Douglas Kucmerowski, 67, an independent who lives in the Finger Lakes region of New York, is concerned over those state-level actions and the continued use of the Electoral College, which can allow someone to be president even if they lose the popular vote.

He also questions the state of the nation’s democracy when a large proportion of the country supports a candidate facing multiple criminal charges who has spoken about pursuing retribution and using the military domestically, among other things.

Trump also has lied about the outcome of the 2020 election , which has been affirmed by multiple reviews in the battleground states where he disputed his loss , and called his supporters to a Washington rally before they stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 , in a violent attempt to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s win .

“That candidate, in any other age, probably would have been ruled out. But for some reason, in this society, he’s one of the best choices,” Kucmerowski said. “If this country is that confused that they can’t tell the difference between right and wrong and ex-presidents making statements that on day one he will be a dictator, doesn’t anybody care about day two or three or four when he’s still a dictator?”

The poll of 1,074 adults was conducted Nov. 30 through Dec. 4, 2023, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.0 percentage points.

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here . The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Prof. Eiden SPRING 2024 - Principles of Bio Sci with Lab (Asynchronous) : Research Article vs. Review Article

• New Books in the Library
• Reference Sources
• Helpful Research Guides
• What is "Critical Thinking"?
• What is the Scientific Method?
• Research Article vs. Review Article
• Database Searching
• Lichens - Journals and Articles

What is a Research Article?

A  research article  is a  primary source .

It reports the methods and results of an original study.  The authors collect and analyze raw data and draw conclusions from the results of that analysis.

Research papers follow a particular format. They include:

An introduction : This will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic, and explain the rationale of the authors’ study. It demonstrates that the authors are aware of existing studies, and are planning to contribute to this existing body of research.

A  methods  section: The authors describe how they collected and analyzed data. Statistical analyses are included. 

A  results  section: This describes the outcomes of the data analysis. Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included.

A discussion: The authors explain their results and theorize on their importance to existing and future research.

References:  This is a list of sources that the authors used to plan their study and support their discussion.

What is a Review Article?

A  review article  is a  secondary source .

A secondary source is one step removed from the original source (the research article). It reviews primary sources and does not present original research of its own. The review article reexamines, interprets and forms conclusions based on the information that is conveyed in the primary source. Review articles can suggest areas for new research, or identify patterns among existing research.  

• << Previous: What is the Scientific Method?
• Next: Database Searching >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 1:21 PM
• URL: https://library.sunywcc.edu/c.php?g=1384060

Celebrating 75 Years of Excellence!

Westchester Community College provides accessible, high quality and affordable education to meet the needs of our diverse community. We are committed to student success, academic excellence, workforce development, economic development and lifelong learning.

• Admissions and Enrollment
• Workforce & Community
• Student Life
• Employment Opportunities
• DEI/Title IX
• Federal EEOC Compliance Statements
• Policies & Procedures

75 Grasslands Road Valhalla, NY 10595 Tel: (914) 606-6600

Fact-Checking Biden’s Speech and More: Day 1 of the Democratic National Convention

We followed the developments and fact-checked the speakers, providing context and explanation.

• Share full article

President Biden praised his administration’s accomplishments and declared his vice president a worthy successor on the first night of the Democratic National Convention on Monday.

Mr. Biden’s speech capped a night in which Democratic lawmakers and party stalwarts praised Vice President Kamala Harris, warned repeatedly that former President Donald J. Trump was unfit for office and celebrated Mr. Biden’s legacy.

Here’s a look at some of their claims.

“While schools closed and dead bodies filled morgues, Donald Trump downplayed the virus. He told us to inject bleach into our bodies. He peddled conspiracy theories across the country. We lost hundreds of thousands of Americans, and our economy collapsed.”

— Representative Robert Garcia of California

This is exaggerated.

Mr. Trump’s comments, in April 2020, about the efficacy of disinfectants and light as treatments for the coronavirus elicited uproar and confusion . He did not literally instruct people to inject bleach, but raised the suggestion as an “interesting” concept to test out.

At the April 2020 news conference , a member of Mr. Trump’s coronavirus task force said that the virus dies under direct sunlight and that applying bleach in indoor spaces kills the virus in five minutes and isopropyl alcohol does so in 30 seconds.

Mr. Trump responded: “Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too.”

He added: “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”

Jeanna Smialek

“Trump talks big about bringing back manufacturing jobs, but you know who actually did it? President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.”

— Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York

This needs context .

It is true that manufacturing employment is up sharply under the Biden administration, but much of the gains are simply a recovery from job losses early in the coronavirus pandemic. Manufacturing employment is just slightly above its 2019 level. And factory employment also climbed somewhat from when Donald J. Trump took office in early 2017 and the onset of the pandemic in 2020.

Advertisement

“Thanks to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, we reopened our schools.”

— Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina

This needs context.

President Donald J. Trump and President Biden took different approaches to school reopenings during the coronavirus pandemic, with Mr. Trump encouraging schools to stay open and Mr. Biden emphasizing the need to contain the virus before reopening classroom doors. While they could signal policy preferences, developments in how the virus spread and how states and school districts reacted were sometimes out of their control.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned schools to prepare for disruption in February 2020, and a high school in Washington State became the first to close its doors that month . More schools across the country followed in adopting online instruction, but by the fall of 2020, some schools — often in states with Republican governors — returned to in-person instruction.

One audit found that by the fall of 2020 more schools had reverted to a traditional or hybrid model than remained virtual. A C.D.C. study found that school closures peaked in 2021, under the Biden administration, when the Omicron variant spread. By the fall of 2021, though, 98 percent of public schools were offering in-person instruction full time, according to the Education Department .

“Donald Trump wants to put our 1787 constitution through his Project 2025 paper shredder.”

— Representative Jasmine Crockett, Democrat of Texas

Project 2025, a set of conservative policy proposals assembled by a Washington think tank for a Republican presidential administration, does not directly come from Mr. Trump or his campaign.

Still, CNN documented instances where 140 people who worked for the Trump administration had a role in Project 2025. Some were top advisers to Mr. Trump in his first term and a re all but certain to step into prominent posts should he win a second term.

Mr. Trump has also supported some of the proposals, with even some overlap between Project 2025 and his own campaign plans. Among the similarities: undercutting the independence of the Justice Department and pressing to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs. And he enacted other initiatives mentioned in Project 2025 in his first term, such as levying tariffs on China and making it easier to fire federal workers.

But Mr. Trump has criticized some elements as “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal” though he has not specified which proposals he opposes. When the director of the project departed the think tank, Mr. Trump’s campaign released a statement that stated: “Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you.”

“JD Vance says women should stay in violent marriages and pregnancies resulting from rape are simply inconvenient.”

— Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky

Mr. Beshear was referring to comments Mr. Vance made during his 2022 campaign for Senate. Mr. Vance has rejected such interpretations.

In remarks to a Christian high school in California in September 2021, Mr. Vance spoke of his grandparents’ marriage, which he described in his memoir as violent.

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that like, ‘Well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term,” he said .

Asked by Vice News about his remarks in 2022, Mr. Vance said, “Any fair person would recognize I was criticizing the progressive frame on this issue, not embracing it.”

He also told Fox News that Democrats had “twisted my words here” and that “it’s not what I believe, it’s not what I said.”

And regarding pregnancies resulting from rape, Mr. Vance told Fox News that he was criticizing the view that such pregnancies are “inconvenient.”

In a 2021 interview , Mr. Vance was asked whether abortion bans should have exceptions for rape or incest. He responded, “At the end of the day, we’re talking about an unborn baby. What kind of society do we want to have? A society that looks at unborn babies as inconveniences to be discarded?”

“Instead of paying $400 a month for insulin, seniors with diabetes will pay $35 a month.”

— President Biden

Mr. Biden signed a law that places a cap of $35 a month on insulin for all Medicare Part D beneficiaries. But he is overstating the average cost before the law.

Patients’ out-of-pocket spending on insulin was $434 on average for all of 2019 — not per month — and $449 per year for Medicare enrollees, according to the Health and Human Services Department .

“The smallest racial wealth gap in 20 years.”

As a percentage of wealth held by white families, Black and Latino families did grow to the largest amounts in 2022 in two decades. But the disparity in absolute dollar value actually increased.

“He called them ‘suckers and losers.’”

The claim that, as president, Donald J. Trump called veterans “suckers” and “losers” stems from a 2020 article in The Atlantic about his relationship to the military.

The article relied on anonymous sources, but many of the accounts have been corroborated by other outlets, including The New York Times, and by John F. Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general who served as Mr. Trump’s White House chief of staff. Mr. Trump has emphatically denied making the remarks since the article was published. Here’s a breakdown .

“Trump wants to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

This is misleading..

Mr. Trump has said repeatedly during his 2024 presidential campaign that he would not cut Social Security or Medicare, though he had previously shown brief and vague support for such proposals.

Asked about his position on the programs in relation to the national debt, Mr. Trump told CNBC in March, “There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements.”

But Mr. Trump and his campaign clarified that he would not seek to cut the programs. Mr. Trump told the website Breitbart , “I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare.” And during a July rally in Minnesota, he again vowed, “I will not cut one penny from Social Security or Medicare, and I will not raise the retirement age by one day, not by one day.”

Still, Mr. Trump has not outlined a clear plan for keeping the programs solvent. During his time in office, Mr. Trump did propose some cuts to Medicare — though experts said the cost reductions would not have significantly affected benefits — and to Social Security’s programs for people with disabilities. They were not enacted by Congress.

“He created the largest debt any president had in four years with his two trillion dollars tax cut for the wealthy.”

Looking at a single presidential term, Donald J. Trump’s administration did rack up more debt than any other in raw dollars — about $7.9 trillion . But the debt rose more under President Barack Obama’s eight years than under Mr. Trump’s four years. Also, when viewed as a percentage increase, the national debt rose more under President George H.W. Bush’s single term than under Mr. Trump’s.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that Mr. Trump’s tax cuts — which passed in December 2017 with no Democrats in support — roughly added another $1 trillion to the federal deficit from 2018 to 2021, even after factoring in economic growth spurred by the tax cuts. But other drivers of the deficit include several sweeping measures that had bipartisan approval. The first coronavirus stimulus package , which received near unanimous support in Congress, added $2 trillion to the deficit over the next two fiscal years. Three additional spending measures contending with the coronavirus pandemic and its economic ramifications added another $1.4 trillion.

It is also important to note that presidents do not hold unilateral responsibility for the debt increase under their time in office. Policies from previous administrations — and programs such as Social Security and Medicare — continue to drive up debt, as do unexpected circumstances.