using journal articles for research

• Monash Online

Student Academic Success

• 1:1 Consultation 1:1 Consultation
• Study better Study better
• Build digital capabilities Build digital capabilities
• Understand assessments Understand assessments
• Excel at writing Excel at writing
• Enhance your thinking Enhance your thinking
• Present confidently Present confidently
• Collaborate with others Collaborate with others
• Improve your academic English Improve your academic English
• Maintain academic integrity Maintain academic integrity
• Advance your graduate studies Advance your graduate studies
• O-week workshops O-week workshops
• Let's Talk Assessments Let's Talk Assessments
• Set up for academic success Set up for academic success
• Writing classes Writing classes
• End of semester End of semester
• PhD writing workshops and courses PhD writing workshops and courses
• First Year Undergraduate Success First Year Undergraduate Success
• Graduate coursework success Graduate coursework success
• Academic Language Skills Analysis Academic Language Skills Analysis
• Mathematics skills analysis Mathematics skills analysis
• Orientation Orientation
• SAS cafe SAS cafe
• SAS pop up SAS pop up
• Written Feedback Written Feedback
• About us About us
• Skip to content
• Skip to navigation

Using academic journal articles for research and study

What is a journal article.

Across your university studies, you will spend a lot of time reading journal articles. They may be set as weekly readings by your units, or used as part of your research for an essay or research project.

Journals are published on a regular basis, either weekly, monthly or sometimes annually. As they are published periodically, journals are sometimes referred to as periodicals. Journals are often specific to an academic field or research area and are published in a similar style to magazines - articles are compiled into issues, which are then grouped into volumes. This helps to keep track of the articles, as the rate of publication is high.

While magazines are written for general readers, journals are written for academic readers. Journal articles allow researchers to communicate their discoveries, theories, and insights to the academic community and contribute to the advancement of knowledge within their respective fields. Because of their academic approach, including rigorous research and peer-review , they are  considered scholarly sources when used and cited in research.

Top tips for using journal articles View

Identifying journal articles

It’s not always easy to tell if what you’ve found is a journal article or another type of resource. Journal articles have some unique features that are different from books, news, reports and websites, which can help you to identify them.

Journal articles are typically focused on presenting original research findings on a specific topic. Books, on the other hand, tend to offer comprehensive coverage of a topic and can include a broader range of perspectives. Journal articles are written by experts for experts, unlike news, websites and magazines which are often written for a more general audience. These resources may also be identified by advertisements which journal articles won’t have.

Journal articles tend to be more concise and focused, providing a detailed account of a specific research study. They are often around twenty or more pages long and usually have headings as part of a clear structure. They include a list of references and an abstract. Unlike a website, the author(s) and the date of publication are always provided. Books however, tend to be much longer and often contain chapters. You can learn more about the structure of a journal article in the next section.

Journal articles are often the most current and up-to-date sources of research information, since they are published regularly in scholarly journals. Reports and books, on the other hand, may have a longer publication cycle and may not capture the latest research developments.

Journal articles are published in a journal (usually online), often with a volume and issue number provided. Carefully check the first page to see if this information is listed. Reports are more likely to be published by an organisation or government body, and websites are usually stand-alone.

Common article structures

Journal articles tend to follow similar structures. Three common structures are:

• The ‘Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion’ structure, often called the ‘IMRAD’ structure
• The review structure
• The thematic structure.

Click on the buttons below to learn more about the different sections of a journal article for each of these structures.

• IMRAD Structure
• Review Structure
• Thematic Structure

Hot spot 1: Abstract -The abstract is a summary of the article. It is usually around one paragraph in length and covers the key factors from each section. Hot spot 2: Introduction - The introduction starts broadly and becomes more focused as it progresses to the specific research question. It covers background, context, the knowledge gap or problem the study addresses, and the aim/purpose of the study. Hot spot 3: Methods - A clear and precise description of how an experiment or study was conducted. It often includes the process, validity, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and materials used. Hot spot 4: Results - Here the author reports the findings of their study in connection to their research question(s). It describes what the researcher(s). Hot spot 5: Discussion/Conclusion - This section starts by focusing on the specific research, then broadens to address the wider implications. It summarises the key points, interprets the results, discusses the implications and significance of the results and outlines directions for future research. Hot spot 6: References - Each article includes a list of references at the end. The list provides details of all the resources referred to in the article, which were used by the researchers to write their article.

Skim these journal articles to see examples of this type of structure:

• Wallinheimo et al. (2022) (Humanities and Social Sciences)
• Kuiper et al. (2019) (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths)

Skim these are articles to see examples of this structure:

• De Vos et al. (2022)
• Wang et al. (2022)

To see this type of structure being used, have a look at these articles:

• Uhrqvist et al. (2021)
• Berglund (2021)

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous
• Next chapter >

1 The Importance of Journal Articles

• Published: March 2008
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This introductory chapter explains how and why journal articles are generally according greater prestige and merit within the scientific community, relative to other forms of disseminating research findings through venues such as books, book chapters, weblogs, and presenting papers at professional conferences. Published journal articles typically have gone through a rigorous screening process known as blind peer review, whereby independent experts provide the author with critical commentary and suggestions to improve their final paper, prior to publication. Most print journals are now widely accessible over the internet and are relatively easy for others to access. Articles submitted to journals usually appear in print sooner than books or book chapters, and continue to be accorded greater influence in promotion and tenure decisions within academia than alterative means of distributing information. Articles published in peer reviewed journals are likely to remain a very important means of distributing research findings for the foreseeable future.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Finding the resources for an excellent paper

Research for gwu health science students.

• Introduction
• Getting started
• Finding resources
• Evaluating results
• Practice questions
• Getting help
• Library Catalog
• The Internet

Finding resources: Using journals for your research

Unfortunately, it takes so long to write, edit and publish a textbook, that new information probably won't make it into texts until at least 3-5 years after its original publication.

So where do I turn for the most current information?

Check out journal articles..

Journal articles are the primary unit of medical information. As new data becomes available, it is published in journal articles:

• If a new randomized controlled trial changes the standard of care, it is published in a journal article.
• If an author writes a rigorous review on a specific topic, it is published in a journal article.
• If a group issues a guideline for how to treat a specific condition, it is usually published in a journal article.
• If a policy group reviews the underlying economic factors driving a particular health reform, it is published in a journal article.

Journal articles contain current information and research. They provide detailed reports of the methodology and results of laboratory research, case series reports, clinical trials, program evaluation, and other kinds of research studies. Journal articles focus on finding solutions to specific health care problems.

Professional research is usually published in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles. Peer review means that experts in a relevant field review manuscripts for quality and accuracy.

< Previous Next >

Content by the HImmelfarb Health Sciences Library. The "Finding the resources for an excellent paper" website was developed by Danielle Swails, Laurie Lyons, and Salima Ibarra for EDUC 265 in the fall of 2007. Site last updated in March 2008. Have questions? Ask us here .

Explore millions of high-quality primary sources and images from around the world, including artworks, maps, photographs, and more.

Explore migration issues through a variety of media types

• Part of Street Art Graphics
• Part of The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 2020)
• Part of Cato Institute (Aug. 3, 2021)
• Part of University of California Press
• Part of Open: Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture
• Part of Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter 2012)
• Part of R Street Institute (Nov. 1, 2020)
• Part of Leuven University Press
• Part of UN Secretary-General Papers: Ban Ki-moon (2007-2016)
• Part of Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 12, No. 4 (August 2018)
• Part of Leveraging Lives: Serbia and Illegal Tunisian Migration to Europe, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Mar. 1, 2023)
• Part of UCL Press

Harness the power of visual materials—explore more than 3 million images now on JSTOR.

Enhance your scholarly research with underground newspapers, magazines, and journals.

Explore collections in the arts, sciences, and literature from the world’s leading museums, archives, and scholars.

• EMU Library
• Research Guides
• Library & Research Help

Peer Review & Scholarly Sources

Why use scholarly sources.

• Scholarly Sources & Peer Review
• Types of Articles

Because of the level of authority and credibility evident in scholarly sources they contribute a great deal to the overall quality of your papers. Use of scholarly sources is an expected attribute of academic course work.

In all disciplines, knowledge is built by responding to the ideas and discoveries of those who came before us. Scholarly journal articles are unique in that they require authors to document and make verifiable the sources of the facts, ideas, and methods they used to arrive at their insights and conclusions. Scholarly articles also strive to identify and discuss the merits of alternative explanations and viewpoints for the positions they espouse. This makes it easier to assess the truth, as well as the strengths and weaknesses, of the claims made in a paper. This is the case for those with knowledge of a subject (for example, your professor), as well as for those just beginning to learn about a subject (for example, you).

As you know, anyone can say just about anything in articles posted on the web. While you might agree with the conclusions of a paper found on the web, you are often not given the chain of evidence you need to assess the truth of those conclusions. Likewise, articles published in popular magazines, while they provide information and opinions, are not required to document evidence that either supports or negates their conclusions. Scholarly journal articles, unlike web-based or popular magazine articles, are designed and structured to provide the elements necessary to most thoroughly evaluate the validity and truth of an author's position.

• << Previous: Types of Articles
• Last Updated: Jul 24, 2024 1:01 PM
• URL: https://guides.emich.edu/scholarly

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

Definition and Introduction

Journal article analysis assignments require you to summarize and critically assess the quality of an empirical research study published in a scholarly [a.k.a., academic, peer-reviewed] journal. The article may be assigned by the professor, chosen from course readings listed in the syllabus, or you must locate an article on your own, usually with the requirement that you search using a reputable library database, such as, JSTOR or ProQuest . The article chosen is expected to relate to the overall discipline of the course, specific course content, or key concepts discussed in class. In some cases, the purpose of the assignment is to analyze an article that is part of the literature review for a future research project.

Analysis of an article can be assigned to students individually or as part of a small group project. The final product is usually in the form of a short paper [typically 1- 6 double-spaced pages] that addresses key questions the professor uses to guide your analysis or that assesses specific parts of a scholarly research study [e.g., the research problem, methodology, discussion, conclusions or findings]. The analysis paper may be shared on a digital course management platform and/or presented to the class for the purpose of promoting a wider discussion about the topic of the study. Although assigned in any level of undergraduate and graduate coursework in the social and behavioral sciences, professors frequently include this assignment in upper division courses to help students learn how to effectively identify, read, and analyze empirical research within their major.

Franco, Josue. “Introducing the Analysis of Journal Articles.” Prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association’s 2020 Teaching and Learning Conference, February 7-9, 2020, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Sego, Sandra A. and Anne E. Stuart. "Learning to Read Empirical Articles in General Psychology." Teaching of Psychology 43 (2016): 38-42; Kershaw, Trina C., Jordan P. Lippman, and Jennifer Fugate. "Practice Makes Proficient: Teaching Undergraduate Students to Understand Published Research." Instructional Science 46 (2018): 921-946; Woodward-Kron, Robyn. "Critical Analysis and the Journal Article Review Assignment." Prospect 18 (August 2003): 20-36; MacMillan, Margy and Allison MacKenzie. "Strategies for Integrating Information Literacy and Academic Literacy: Helping Undergraduate Students make the most of Scholarly Articles." Library Management 33 (2012): 525-535.

Benefits of Journal Article Analysis Assignments

Analyzing and synthesizing a scholarly journal article is intended to help students obtain the reading and critical thinking skills needed to develop and write their own research papers. This assignment also supports workplace skills where you could be asked to summarize a report or other type of document and report it, for example, during a staff meeting or for a presentation.

There are two broadly defined ways that analyzing a scholarly journal article supports student learning:

Improve Reading Skills

Conducting research requires an ability to review, evaluate, and synthesize prior research studies. Reading prior research requires an understanding of the academic writing style , the type of epistemological beliefs or practices underpinning the research design, and the specific vocabulary and technical terminology [i.e., jargon] used within a discipline. Reading scholarly articles is important because academic writing is unfamiliar to most students; they have had limited exposure to using peer-reviewed journal articles prior to entering college or students have yet to gain exposure to the specific academic writing style of their disciplinary major. Learning how to read scholarly articles also requires careful and deliberate concentration on how authors use specific language and phrasing to convey their research, the problem it addresses, its relationship to prior research, its significance, its limitations, and how authors connect methods of data gathering to the results so as to develop recommended solutions derived from the overall research process.

Improve Comprehension Skills

In addition to knowing how to read scholarly journals articles, students must learn how to effectively interpret what the scholar(s) are trying to convey. Academic writing can be dense, multi-layered, and non-linear in how information is presented. In addition, scholarly articles contain footnotes or endnotes, references to sources, multiple appendices, and, in some cases, non-textual elements [e.g., graphs, charts] that can break-up the reader’s experience with the narrative flow of the study. Analyzing articles helps students practice comprehending these elements of writing, critiquing the arguments being made, reflecting upon the significance of the research, and how it relates to building new knowledge and understanding or applying new approaches to practice. Comprehending scholarly writing also involves thinking critically about where you fit within the overall dialogue among scholars concerning the research problem, finding possible gaps in the research that require further analysis, or identifying where the author(s) has failed to examine fully any specific elements of the study.

In addition, journal article analysis assignments are used by professors to strengthen discipline-specific information literacy skills, either alone or in relation to other tasks, such as, giving a class presentation or participating in a group project. These benefits can include the ability to:

• Effectively paraphrase text, which leads to a more thorough understanding of the overall study;
• Identify and describe strengths and weaknesses of the study and their implications;
• Relate the article to other course readings and in relation to particular research concepts or ideas discussed during class;
• Think critically about the research and summarize complex ideas contained within;
• Plan, organize, and write an effective inquiry-based paper that investigates a research study, evaluates evidence, expounds on the author’s main ideas, and presents an argument concerning the significance and impact of the research in a clear and concise manner;
• Model the type of source summary and critique you should do for any college-level research paper; and,
• Increase interest and engagement with the research problem of the study as well as with the discipline.

Kershaw, Trina C., Jennifer Fugate, and Aminda J. O'Hare. "Teaching Undergraduates to Understand Published Research through Structured Practice in Identifying Key Research Concepts." Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology . Advance online publication, 2020; Franco, Josue. “Introducing the Analysis of Journal Articles.” Prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association’s 2020 Teaching and Learning Conference, February 7-9, 2020, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Sego, Sandra A. and Anne E. Stuart. "Learning to Read Empirical Articles in General Psychology." Teaching of Psychology 43 (2016): 38-42; Woodward-Kron, Robyn. "Critical Analysis and the Journal Article Review Assignment." Prospect 18 (August 2003): 20-36; MacMillan, Margy and Allison MacKenzie. "Strategies for Integrating Information Literacy and Academic Literacy: Helping Undergraduate Students make the most of Scholarly Articles." Library Management 33 (2012): 525-535; Kershaw, Trina C., Jordan P. Lippman, and Jennifer Fugate. "Practice Makes Proficient: Teaching Undergraduate Students to Understand Published Research." Instructional Science 46 (2018): 921-946.

Structure and Organization

A journal article analysis paper should be written in paragraph format and include an instruction to the study, your analysis of the research, and a conclusion that provides an overall assessment of the author's work, along with an explanation of what you believe is the study's overall impact and significance. Unless the purpose of the assignment is to examine foundational studies published many years ago, you should select articles that have been published relatively recently [e.g., within the past few years].

Since the research has been completed, reference to the study in your paper should be written in the past tense, with your analysis stated in the present tense [e.g., “The author portrayed access to health care services in rural areas as primarily a problem of having reliable transportation. However, I believe the author is overgeneralizing this issue because...”].

Introduction Section

The first section of a journal analysis paper should describe the topic of the article and highlight the author’s main points. This includes describing the research problem and theoretical framework, the rationale for the research, the methods of data gathering and analysis, the key findings, and the author’s final conclusions and recommendations. The narrative should focus on the act of describing rather than analyzing. Think of the introduction as a more comprehensive and detailed descriptive abstract of the study.

Possible questions to help guide your writing of the introduction section may include:

• Who are the authors and what credentials do they hold that contributes to the validity of the study?
• What was the research problem being investigated?
• What type of research design was used to investigate the research problem?
• What theoretical idea(s) and/or research questions were used to address the problem?
• What was the source of the data or information used as evidence for analysis?
• What methods were applied to investigate this evidence?
• What were the author's overall conclusions and key findings?

Critical Analysis Section

The second section of a journal analysis paper should describe the strengths and weaknesses of the study and analyze its significance and impact. This section is where you shift the narrative from describing to analyzing. Think critically about the research in relation to other course readings, what has been discussed in class, or based on your own life experiences. If you are struggling to identify any weaknesses, explain why you believe this to be true. However, no study is perfect, regardless of how laudable its design may be. Given this, think about the repercussions of the choices made by the author(s) and how you might have conducted the study differently. Examples can include contemplating the choice of what sources were included or excluded in support of examining the research problem, the choice of the method used to analyze the data, or the choice to highlight specific recommended courses of action and/or implications for practice over others. Another strategy is to place yourself within the research study itself by thinking reflectively about what may be missing if you had been a participant in the study or if the recommended courses of action specifically targeted you or your community.

Possible questions to help guide your writing of the analysis section may include:

Introduction

• Did the author clearly state the problem being investigated?
• What was your reaction to and perspective on the research problem?
• Was the study’s objective clearly stated? Did the author clearly explain why the study was necessary?
• How well did the introduction frame the scope of the study?
• Did the introduction conclude with a clear purpose statement?

Literature Review

• Did the literature review lay a foundation for understanding the significance of the research problem?
• Did the literature review provide enough background information to understand the problem in relation to relevant contexts [e.g., historical, economic, social, cultural, etc.].
• Did literature review effectively place the study within the domain of prior research? Is anything missing?
• Was the literature review organized by conceptual categories or did the author simply list and describe sources?
• Did the author accurately explain how the data or information were collected?
• Was the data used sufficient in supporting the study of the research problem?
• Was there another methodological approach that could have been more illuminating?
• Give your overall evaluation of the methods used in this article. How much trust would you put in generating relevant findings?

Results and Discussion

• Were the results clearly presented?
• Did you feel that the results support the theoretical and interpretive claims of the author? Why?
• What did the author(s) do especially well in describing or analyzing their results?
• Was the author's evaluation of the findings clearly stated?
• How well did the discussion of the results relate to what is already known about the research problem?
• Was the discussion of the results free of repetition and redundancies?
• What interpretations did the authors make that you think are in incomplete, unwarranted, or overstated?
• Did the conclusion effectively capture the main points of study?
• Did the conclusion address the research questions posed? Do they seem reasonable?
• Were the author’s conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
• Has the author explained how the research added new knowledge or understanding?

Overall Writing Style

• If the article included tables, figures, or other non-textual elements, did they contribute to understanding the study?
• Were ideas developed and related in a logical sequence?
• Were transitions between sections of the article smooth and easy to follow?

Overall Evaluation Section

The final section of a journal analysis paper should bring your thoughts together into a coherent assessment of the value of the research study . This section is where the narrative flow transitions from analyzing specific elements of the article to critically evaluating the overall study. Explain what you view as the significance of the research in relation to the overall course content and any relevant discussions that occurred during class. Think about how the article contributes to understanding the overall research problem, how it fits within existing literature on the topic, how it relates to the course, and what it means to you as a student researcher. In some cases, your professor will also ask you to describe your experiences writing the journal article analysis paper as part of a reflective learning exercise.

Possible questions to help guide your writing of the conclusion and evaluation section may include:

• Was the structure of the article clear and well organized?
• Was the topic of current or enduring interest to you?
• What were the main weaknesses of the article? [this does not refer to limitations stated by the author, but what you believe are potential flaws]
• Was any of the information in the article unclear or ambiguous?
• What did you learn from the research? If nothing stood out to you, explain why.
• Assess the originality of the research. Did you believe it contributed new understanding of the research problem?
• Were you persuaded by the author’s arguments?
• If the author made any final recommendations, will they be impactful if applied to practice?
• In what ways could future research build off of this study?
• What implications does the study have for daily life?
• Was the use of non-textual elements, footnotes or endnotes, and/or appendices helpful in understanding the research?
• What lingering questions do you have after analyzing the article?

NOTE: Avoid using quotes. One of the main purposes of writing an article analysis paper is to learn how to effectively paraphrase and use your own words to summarize a scholarly research study and to explain what the research means to you. Using and citing a direct quote from the article should only be done to help emphasize a key point or to underscore an important concept or idea.

Business: The Article Analysis . Fred Meijer Center for Writing, Grand Valley State University; Bachiochi, Peter et al. "Using Empirical Article Analysis to Assess Research Methods Courses." Teaching of Psychology 38 (2011): 5-9; Brosowsky, Nicholaus P. et al. “Teaching Undergraduate Students to Read Empirical Articles: An Evaluation and Revision of the QALMRI Method.” PsyArXi Preprints , 2020; Holster, Kristin. “Article Evaluation Assignment”. TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology . Washington DC: American Sociological Association, 2016; Kershaw, Trina C., Jennifer Fugate, and Aminda J. O'Hare. "Teaching Undergraduates to Understand Published Research through Structured Practice in Identifying Key Research Concepts." Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology . Advance online publication, 2020; Franco, Josue. “Introducing the Analysis of Journal Articles.” Prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association’s 2020 Teaching and Learning Conference, February 7-9, 2020, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Reviewer's Guide . SAGE Reviewer Gateway, SAGE Journals; Sego, Sandra A. and Anne E. Stuart. "Learning to Read Empirical Articles in General Psychology." Teaching of Psychology 43 (2016): 38-42; Kershaw, Trina C., Jordan P. Lippman, and Jennifer Fugate. "Practice Makes Proficient: Teaching Undergraduate Students to Understand Published Research." Instructional Science 46 (2018): 921-946; Gyuris, Emma, and Laura Castell. "To Tell Them or Show Them? How to Improve Science Students’ Skills of Critical Reading." International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education 21 (2013): 70-80; Woodward-Kron, Robyn. "Critical Analysis and the Journal Article Review Assignment." Prospect 18 (August 2003): 20-36; MacMillan, Margy and Allison MacKenzie. "Strategies for Integrating Information Literacy and Academic Literacy: Helping Undergraduate Students Make the Most of Scholarly Articles." Library Management 33 (2012): 525-535.

Writing Tip

Not All Scholarly Journal Articles Can Be Critically Analyzed

There are a variety of articles published in scholarly journals that do not fit within the guidelines of an article analysis assignment. This is because the work cannot be empirically examined or it does not generate new knowledge in a way which can be critically analyzed.

If you are required to locate a research study on your own, avoid selecting these types of journal articles:

• Theoretical essays which discuss concepts, assumptions, and propositions, but report no empirical research;
• Statistical or methodological papers that may analyze data, but the bulk of the work is devoted to refining a new measurement, statistical technique, or modeling procedure;
• Articles that review, analyze, critique, and synthesize prior research, but do not report any original research;
• Brief essays devoted to research methods and findings;
• Articles written by scholars in popular magazines or industry trade journals;
• Academic commentary that discusses research trends or emerging concepts and ideas, but does not contain citations to sources; and
• Pre-print articles that have been posted online, but may undergo further editing and revision by the journal's editorial staff before final publication. An indication that an article is a pre-print is that it has no volume, issue, or page numbers assigned to it.

Journal Analysis Assignment - Myers . Writing@CSU, Colorado State University; Franco, Josue. “Introducing the Analysis of Journal Articles.” Prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association’s 2020 Teaching and Learning Conference, February 7-9, 2020, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Woodward-Kron, Robyn. "Critical Analysis and the Journal Article Review Assignment." Prospect 18 (August 2003): 20-36.

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Giving an Oral Presentation >>
• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 9:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Finding Scholarly Articles: Home

What's a Scholarly Article?

Your professor has specified that you are to use scholarly (or primary research or peer-reviewed or refereed or academic) articles only in your paper. What does that mean?

Scholarly or primary research articles are peer-reviewed , which means that they have gone through the process of being read by reviewers or referees  before being accepted for publication. When a scholar submits an article to a scholarly journal, the manuscript is sent to experts in that field to read and decide if the research is valid and the article should be published. Typically the reviewers indicate to the journal editors whether they think the article should be accepted, sent back for revisions, or rejected.

To decide whether an article is a primary research article, look for the following:

• The author’s (or authors') credentials and academic affiliation(s) should be given;
• There should be an abstract summarizing the research;
• The methods and materials used should be given, often in a separate section;
• There are citations within the text or footnotes referencing sources used;
• Results of the research are given;
• There should be discussion   and  conclusion ;
• With a bibliography or list of references at the end.

Caution: even though a journal may be peer-reviewed, not all the items in it will be. For instance, there might be editorials, book reviews, news reports, etc. Check for the parts of the article to be sure.   

You can limit your search results to primary research, peer-reviewed or refereed articles in many databases. To search for scholarly articles in  HOLLIS , type your keywords in the box at the top, and select  Catalog&Articles  from the choices that appear next.   On the search results screen, look for the  Show Only section on the right and click on  Peer-reviewed articles . (Make sure to  login in with your HarvardKey to get full-text of the articles that Harvard has purchased.)

Many of the databases that Harvard offers have similar features to limit to peer-reviewed or scholarly articles.  For example in Academic Search Premier , click on the box for Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals  on the search screen.

Review articles are another great way to find scholarly primary research articles.   Review articles are not considered "primary research", but they pull together primary research articles on a topic, summarize and analyze them.  In Google Scholar , click on Review Articles  at the left of the search results screen. Ask your professor whether review articles can be cited for an assignment.

A note about Google searching.  A regular Google search turns up a broad variety of results, which can include scholarly articles but Google results also contain commercial and popular sources which may be misleading, outdated, etc.  Use Google Scholar  through the Harvard Library instead.

About Wikipedia .  W ikipedia is not considered scholarly, and should not be cited, but it frequently includes references to scholarly articles. Before using those references for an assignment, double check by finding them in Hollis or a more specific subject  database .

Still not sure about a source? Consult the course syllabus for guidance, contact your professor or teaching fellow, or use the Ask A Librarian service.

• Last Updated: Oct 3, 2023 3:37 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/FindingScholarlyArticles

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

• UNO Criss Library

Social Work Research Guide

What is a research journal.

• Find Articles
• Find E-Books and Books

Reading an Academic Article

• Free Online Resources
• Reference and Writing
• Citation Help This link opens in a new window

Anatomy of a Scholarly Article

TIP: When possible, keep your research question(s) in mind when reading scholarly articles. It will help you to focus your reading.

Title : Generally are straightforward and describe what the article is about. Titles often include relevant key words.

Abstract : A summary of the author(s)'s research findings and tells what to expect when you read the full article. It is often a good idea to read the abstract first, in order to determine if you should even bother reading the whole article.

Discussion and Conclusion : Read these after the Abstract (even though they come at the end of the article). These sections can help you see if this article will meet your research needs. If you don’t think that it will, set it aside.

Introduction : Describes the topic or problem researched. The authors will present the thesis of their argument or the goal of their research.

Literature Review : May be included in the introduction or as its own separate section. Here you see where the author(s) enter the conversation on this topic. That is to say, what related research has come before, and how do they hope to advance the discussion with their current research?

Methods : This section explains how the study worked. In this section, you often learn who and how many participated in the study and what they were asked to do. You will need to think critically about the methods and whether or not they make sense given the research question.

Results : Here you will often find numbers and tables. If you aren't an expert at statistics this section may be difficult to grasp. However you should attempt to understand if the results seem reasonable given the methods.

Works Cited (also be called References or Bibliography ): This section comprises the author(s)’s sources. Always be sure to scroll through them. Good research usually cites many different kinds of sources (books, journal articles, etc.). As you read the Works Cited page, be sure to look for sources that look like they will help you to answer your own research question.

Adapted from http://library.hunter.cuny.edu/research-toolkit/how-do-i-read-stuff/anatomy-of-a-scholarly-article

A research journal is a periodical that contains articles written by experts in a particular field of study who report the results of research in that field. The articles are intended to be read by other experts or students of the field, and they are typically much more sophisticated and advanced than the articles found in general magazines. This guide offers some tips to help distinguish scholarly journals from other periodicals.

CHARACTERISTICS OF RESEARCH JOURNALS

PURPOSE : Research journals communicate the results of research in the field of study covered by the journal. Research articles reflect a systematic and thorough study of a single topic, often involving experiments or surveys. Research journals may also publish review articles and book reviews that summarize the current state of knowledge on a topic.

APPEARANCE : Research journals lack the slick advertising, classified ads, coupons, etc., found in popular magazines. Articles are often printed one column to a page, as in books, and there are often graphs, tables, or charts referring to specific points in the articles.

AUTHORITY : Research articles are written by the person(s) who did the research being reported. When more than two authors are listed for a single article, the first author listed is often the primary researcher who coordinated or supervised the work done by the other authors. The most highly‑regarded scholarly journals are typically those sponsored by professional associations, such as the American Psychological Association or the American Chemical Society.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY : Articles submitted to research journals are evaluated by an editorial board and other experts before they are accepted for publication. This evaluation, called peer review, is designed to ensure that the articles published are based on solid research that meets the normal standards of the field of study covered by the journal. Professors sometimes use the term "refereed" to describe peer-reviewed journals.

WRITING STYLE : Articles in research journals usually contain an advanced vocabulary, since the authors use the technical language or jargon of their field of study. The authors assume that the reader already possesses a basic understanding of the field of study.

REFERENCES : The authors of research articles always indicate the sources of their information. These references are usually listed at the end of an article, but they may appear in the form of footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography.

PERIODICALS THAT ARE NOT RESEARCH JOURNALS

POPULAR MAGAZINES : These are periodicals that one typically finds at grocery stores, airport newsstands, or bookstores at a shopping mall. Popular magazines are designed to appeal to a broad audience, and they usually contain relatively brief articles written in a readable, non‑technical language.

Examples include: Car and Driver , Cosmopolitan , Esquire , Essence , Gourmet , Life , People Weekly , Readers' Digest , Rolling Stone , Sports Illustrated , Vanity Fair , and Vogue .

NEWS MAGAZINES : These periodicals, which are usually issued weekly, provide information on topics of current interest, but their articles seldom have the depth or authority of scholarly articles.

Examples include: Newsweek , Time , U.S. News and World Report .

OPINION MAGAZINES : These periodicals contain articles aimed at an educated audience interested in keeping up with current events or ideas, especially those pertaining to topical issues. Very often their articles are written from a particular political, economic, or social point of view.

Examples include: Catholic World , Christianity Today , Commentary , Ms. , The Militant , Mother Jones , The Nation , National Review , The New Republic , The Progressive , and World Marxist Review .

TRADE MAGAZINES : People who need to keep up with developments in a particular industry or occupation read these magazines. Many trade magazines publish one or more special issues each year that focus on industry statistics, directory lists, or new product announcements.

Examples include: Beverage World , Progressive Grocer , Quick Frozen Foods International , Rubber World , Sales and Marketing Management , Skiing Trade News , and Stores .

Literature Reviews

• Literature Review Guide General information on how to organize and write a literature review.
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It Contains two sets of questions to help students review articles, and to review their own literature reviews.
• << Previous: Find E-Books and Books
• Next: Statistics >>
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 10:14 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unomaha.edu/social_work

• Insights blog

How to write and structure a journal article

Sharing your research data  can be hugely  beneficial to your career , as well as to the scholarly community and wider society. But before you do so, there are some important ethical considerations to remember.

What are the rules and guidance you should follow, when you begin to think about how to write and structure a journal article? Ruth First Prize winner Steven Rogers, PhD said the first thing is to be passionate about what you write.

Steven Nabieu Rogers, Ruth First Prize winner.

Let’s go through some of the best advice that will help you pinpoint the features of a journal article, and how to structure it into a compelling research paper.

Planning for your article

When planning to write your article, make sure it has a central message that you want to get across. This could be a novel aspect of methodology that you have in your PhD study, a new theory, or an interesting modification you have made to theory or a novel set of findings.

2018 NARST Award winner Marissa Rollnick advised that you should decide what this central focus is, then create a paper outline bearing in mind the need to:

Isolate a manageable size

Create a coherent story/argument

Make the argument self-standing

Target the journal readership

Change the writing conventions from that used in your thesis

Get familiar with the journal you want to submit to

It is a good idea to choose your target journal before you start to write your paper. Then you can tailor your writing to the journal’s requirements and readership, to increase your chances of acceptance.

When selecting your journal think about audience, purposes, what to write about and why. Decide the kind of article to write. Is it a report, position paper, critique or review? What makes your argument or research interesting? How might the paper add value to the field?

If you need more guidance on how to choose a journal,  here is our guide to narrow your focus.

Once you’ve chosen your target journal, take the time to read a selection of articles already published – particularly focus on those that are relevant to your own research.

This can help you get an understanding of what the editors may be looking for, then you can guide your writing efforts.

The  Think. Check. Submit.  initiative provides tools to help you evaluate whether the journal you’re planning to send your work to is trustworthy.

The journal’s  aims and scope  is also an important resource to refer back to as you write your paper – use it to make sure your article aligns with what the journal is trying to accomplish.

Keep your message focused

The next thing you need to consider when writing your article is your target audience. Are you writing for a more general audience or is your audience experts in the same field as you? The journal you have chosen will give you more information on the type of audience that will read your work.

When you know your audience, focus on your main message to keep the attention of your readers. A lack of focus is a common problem and can get in the way of effective communication.

Stick to the point. The strongest journal articles usually have one point to make. They make that point powerfully, back it up with evidence, and position it within the field.

How to format and structure a journal article

The format and structure of a journal article is just as important as the content itself, it helps to clearly guide the reader through.

How do I format a journal article?

Individual journals will have their own specific formatting requirements, which you can find in the  instructions for authors.

You can save time on formatting by downloading a template from our  library of templates  to apply to your article text. These templates are accepted by many of our journals. Also, a large number of our journals now offer  format-free submission,  which allows you to submit your paper without formatting your manuscript to meet that journal’s specific requirements.

General structure for writing an academic journal article

The title of your article is one of the first indicators readers will get of your research and concepts. It should be concise, accurate, and informative. You should include your most relevant keywords in your title, but avoid including abbreviations and formulae.

Keywords are an essential part of producing a journal article. When writing a journal article you must select keywords that you would like your article to rank for.

Keywords help potential readers to discover your article when conducting research using search engines.

The purpose of your abstract is to express the key points of your research, clearly and concisely. An abstract must always be well considered, as it is the primary element of your work that readers will come across.

An abstract should be a short paragraph (around 300 words) that summarizes the findings of your journal article. Ordinarily an abstract will be comprised of:

What your research is about

What methods have been used

What your main findings are

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements can appear to be a small aspect of your journal article, however it is still important. This is where you acknowledge the individuals who do not qualify for co-authorship, but contributed to your article intellectually, financially, or in some other manner.

When you acknowledge someone in your academic texts, it gives you more integrity as a writer as it shows that you are not claiming other academic’s ideas as your own intellectual property. It can also aid your readers in their own research journeys.

Introduction

An introduction is a pivotal part of the article writing process. An introduction not only introduces your topic and your stance on the topic, but it also (situates/contextualizes) your argument in the broader academic field.

The main body is where your main arguments and your evidence are located. Each paragraph will encapsulate a different notion and there will be clear linking between each paragraph.

Your conclusion should be an interpretation of your results, where you summarize all of the concepts that you introduced in the main body of the text in order of most to least important. No new concepts are to be introduced in this section.

References and citations

References and citations should be well balanced, current and relevant. Although every field is different, you should aim to cite references that are not more than 10 years old if possible. The studies you cite should be strongly related to your research question.

Clarity is key

Make your writing accessible by using clear language. Writing that is easy to read, is easier to understand too.

You may want to write for a global audience – to have your research reach the widest readership. Make sure you write in a way that will be understood by any reader regardless of their field or whether English is their first language.

Write your journal article with confidence, to give your reader certainty in your research. Make sure that you’ve described your methodology and approach; whilst it may seem obvious to you, it may not to your reader. And don’t forget to explain acronyms when they first appear.

Engage your audience. Go back to thinking about your audience; are they experts in your field who will easily follow technical language, or are they a lay audience who need the ideas presented in a simpler way?

Be aware of other literature in your field, and reference it

Make sure to tell your reader how your article relates to key work that’s already published. This doesn’t mean you have to review every piece of previous relevant literature, but show how you are building on previous work to avoid accidental plagiarism.

When you reference something, fully understand its relevance to your research so you can make it clear for your reader. Keep in mind that recent references highlight awareness of all the current developments in the literature that you are building on. This doesn’t mean you can’t include older references, just make sure it is clear why you’ve chosen to.

How old can my references be?

Your literature review should take into consideration the current state of the literature.

There is no specific timeline to consider. But note that your subject area may be a factor. Your colleagues may also be able to guide your decision.

Researcher’s view

Grasian Mkodzongi, Ruth First Prize Winner

Top tips to get you started

Communicate your unique point of view to stand out. You may be building on a concept already in existence, but you still need to have something new to say. Make sure you say it convincingly, and fully understand and reference what has gone before.

Editor’s view

Professor Len Barton, Founding Editor of Disability and Society

Be original

Now you know the features of a journal article and how to construct it. This video is an extra resource to use with this guide to help you know what to think about before you write your journal article.

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services  offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to write your title and abstract

Journal manuscript layout guide

Improve the quality of English of your article

How to edit your paper

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Why Use Peer Reviewed Articles in your Research?

What are peer reviewed articles.

Peer reviewed, or scholarly, articles are written by experts and are read and reviewed by other scholars in the field.  Their comments and suggestions are incorporated into the article before it is published in a scholarly journal. This process is known as peer review and helps check the accuracy and validity of the research as well as the article’s overall quality.

These articles are the main way scholars communicate with each other about their research findings.  They are like a conversation between scholars on a particular topic.  Sometimes scholars agree, and sometimes they don’t!  And just like a conversation, it is all about finding the pertinent information and moving the conversation forward.

How do articles get peer reviewed? What role does peer review play in scholarly research and publication?

Why use Peer Reviewed Articles?

Peer reviewed articles are considered the gold standard source type for academic research.  They are written by researchers, or experts, on the topic, so it takes some of the guess work out of wondering if you should use them or not.

In peer reviewed articles, you will find:

• findings from original research
• detailed information about a narrow aspect of your topic
• expert language
• charts or graphs
• a list of references, or sources, the author used

Your Research Journey at Portland State University Library Copyright © 2020 by Amy Stanforth is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

APIAR – Blog

Nurturing knowledge without boundaries

Question? Contact Us.

(+61) 041 572 0019, [email protected].

Top 10 Benefits of Using Academic Journals Online for Scholarly Research

May 28th, 2017    Admin    Business , Journals

Conducting research for scholarly projects has been made much easier by academic journals online. When tasked with writing projects or dissertations, students can now easily access credible information from online academic journal databases. With a computer, tablet or Smartphone and an internet connection, you can access a vast array of academic journal databases and electronic material. They say information is power and what better way to empower yourself than with digital information sourced from academic journals.

Why should you use academic journals for your research?

There’s a long list of advantages associated with drawing research information from academic journals online. And while everything has its pros and cons, the pros of using academic journals for research purposes far outweigh the cons. The following are some of the distinct advantages of using these excellent information sources for your research:

• They are highly credible.

For authors to publish academic journals online, they are required to verify their information sources through links and citations. Mere personal opinions without proper, factual backup are not admissible. This makes online academic journals entirely credible and authoritative because you can verify the facts from their original sources. This, in turn, influences your work’s overall quality, making it reliable also, as well as enriched with facts and truths.

• They offer clarity.

Scholarly articles attempt to discuss and outline the merits of other explanations and viewpoints which are in contrast to their views. They do not seek to justify their own opinions and conclusions as the only credible truths, but rather acknowledge the contrasting opinions as credible too and then clarify why they draw different conclusions. This helps you understand the pros and cons of the claims expressed in the journals, from more than one author’s viewpoint.

• They offer evidence for their claims.

Authors of online academic journals are required to provide proof that supports their claims by referencing the sources of their information. This helps you access the truth, and you can draw your own conclusions if you don’t agree with the authors. You can also tell where they borrowed their school of thoughts from and clarify anything you don’t understand.

• Research options.

Academic journals online come with several research options, which helps widen your scope. They allow you to explore both quantitative and qualitative research, for optimum results. With both, you can analyze statistical data, opinions, verbal data, etc. This gives you a wider range of information to work with, and you can, therefore, perform a comprehensive research from academic journals. You know that to write a high-quality paper you must lay a strong foundation for it through thorough, in-depth research, right? So these options allow you to conduct proper research so you can craft a paper worth its salt.

• Provides case studies.

Academic journals include real life case studies which are excellent sources of in-depth information and knowledge. By following case studies, you can apply your wealth of knowledge to real life situations and play scenarios out in your mind for better understanding. Doing this helps you to get a better grasp of the concepts and ideas with which you’re working. From case studies, you can form your hypothesis as a researcher.

• Provides great reading with a wealth of knowledge.

Academic journals promote active reading and provoke deep thinking. They offer a wealth of knowledge which comes critiqued and forces you to critique it also. When you’re presented with so many facts in one single source, you’re prompted to seek out their sources to verify whether they’re true. They also drive your zeal to write enriching work. All these sharpen your authority with your chosen topics.

• Focused research.

Online journals are like encyclopedias, offering information in large quantities to scholars. There’s a wide variety of databases to source information from, but it’s so much easier to access this information online because all you need is a computer and internet. Narrowing your search to a focused angle then becomes easier because all you need is to type in specific keyword phrases and you’ll get thousands of search results in just a few seconds.

• Freedom to collect journals.

Unlike in the print copies days when you could only access information physically in libraries, academic journals online come with the option of free downloads which allow you to save material to your PC or Smartphone. Doing this allows you to access information even in the absence of internet, and you can build your journal library on your computer. Even if you have to buy a journal or two, they’re quite a worthwhile investment. You cannot put a price tag on knowledge, can you?

• Broadened perspective.

Academic journals are a collection of thoughts and opinions by their authors who, after conducting researches and analyses, pen down their thoughts and finding in journals. And just like talking to different people about a certain topic broadens your perspective on the topic, so does reading the thoughts and conclusions of different authors. Journals help you view topics from many different angles, hence formulating your individual opinion and conclusion.

• Information comes in many forms.

Most articles contained in journals include graphs, tables, images & photographs, videos, etc., which help illustrate the information being portrayed. Journals also come in many downloadable forms such as pdf, html, etc. You don’t have to limit yourself to plain text or reading materials. Some journals are even in the form of cds, and you can listen to them while you drive.

Due to the high-quality information contained in journals which are enriched with facts and truths, you’re bound to get rave ratings from your lecturers if you use academic journals online for your scholarly research. Internet and technology have become widely available the whole world over so that most people can access e-journals for research. Do not be left behind. Join the bandwagon and use academic journals online for all your education needs.

Business , Journals , knowledge , Online , Research

• Privacy Policy

Our Address

Level 13, 465 Victoria Ave Chatswood NSW 2067 Australia.

Tel: (+61) 041 572 0019 Email:  [email protected]

Web: https://apiar.org.au

Social Media

• Find journals
• My journals

Register Sign in

Register or sign-in in order to manage your journal lists

Sign in or register to save a journal

To save a journal and create lists, you need to sign in to your Elsevier account.

Find the right journal for your research

Looking for the best journal match for your paper? Search the world's leading source of academic journals using your abstract or your keywords and other details.

Check if you're eligible for open access (OA) savings.

The top 10 journal articles of 2020

In 2020, APA’s 89 journals published more than 5,000 articles—the most ever and 25% more than in 2019. Here’s a quick look at the 10 most downloaded to date.

Vol. 52 No. 1 Print version: page 24

1. Me, My Selfie, and I: The Relations Between Selfie Behaviors, Body Image, Self-Objectification, and Self-Esteem in Young Women

Veldhuis, j., et al..

Young women who appreciate their bodies and consider them physical objects are more likely to select, edit, and post selfies to social media, suggests this study in Psychology of Popular Media (Vol. 9, No. 1). Researchers surveyed 179 women, ages 18 to 25, on how often they took selfies, how they selected selfies to post, how often they used filters and editing techniques, and how carefully they planned their selfie postings. They also assessed participants’ levels of body appreciation and dissatisfaction, self-objectification, and self-esteem. Higher levels of self-objectification were linked to more time spent on all selfie behaviors, while body appreciation was related to more time spent selecting selfies to post, but not frequency of taking or editing selfies. Body dissatisfaction and self-esteem were not associated with selfie behaviors. DOI: 10.1037/ppm0000206

2. A Closer Look at Appearance and Social Media: Measuring Activity, Self-Presentation, and Social Comparison and Their Associations With Emotional Adjustment

Zimmer-gembeck, m. j., et al..

This Psychology of Popular Media (online first publication) article presents a tool to assess young people’s preoccupation with their physical appearance on social media. Researchers administered a 21-item survey about social media to 281 Australian high school students. They identified 18 items with strong inter-item correlation centered on three categories of social media behavior: online self-presentation, appearance-related online activity, and appearance comparison. In a second study with 327 Australian university students, scores on the 18-item survey were found to be associated with measures of social anxiety and depressive symptoms, appearance-related support from others, general interpersonal stress, coping flexibility, sexual harassment, disordered eating, and other factors. The researchers also found that young women engaged in more appearance-related social media activity and appearance comparison than did young men. DOI: 10.1037/ppm0000277

3. The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-2019) Outbreak: Amplification of Public Health Consequences by Media Exposure

Garfin, d. r., et al..

Repeated media exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with psychological distress and other public health consequences, according to this commentary in Health Psychology (Vol. 39, No. 5). The authors reviewed research about trends in health behavior and psychological distress as a response to media coverage of crises, including terrorist attacks, school shootings, and disease outbreaks. They found that repeated media exposure to collective crises was associated with increased anxiety and heightened acute and post-traumatic stress, with downstream effects on health outcomes such as new incidence of cardiovascular disease. Moreover, misinformation can further amplify stress responses and lead to misplaced or misguided health-protective and help-seeking behaviors. The authors recommended public health agencies use social media strategically, such as with hashtags, to keep residents updated during the pandemic. They also urged the public to avoid sensationalism and repeated coverage of the same information. DOI: 10.1037/hea0000875

4. Barriers to Mental Health Treatment Among Individuals With Social Anxiety Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Goetter, e. m., et al..

This study in Psychological Services (Vol. 17, No. 1) indicates that 3 in 4 people who suffer from anxiety do not receive proper care. Researchers recruited 226 participants in the United States who were previously diagnosed with social anxiety disorder or generalized anxiety disorder and assessed their symptom severity and asked them to self-report any barriers to treatment. Shame and stigma were the highest cited barriers, followed by logistical and financial barriers and not knowing where to seek treatment. Participants with more severe symptoms reported more barriers to treatment than those with milder symptoms. Racial and ethnic minorities reported more barriers than racial and ethnic majorities even after controlling for symptom severity. The researchers called for increased patient education and more culturally sensitive outreach to reduce treatment barriers. DOI: 10.1037/ser0000254

5. The Construction of “Critical Thinking”: Between How We Think and What We Believe

This History of Psychology (Vol. 23, No. 3) article examines the emergence of “critical thinking” as a psychological concept. The author describes how, between World War I and World War II in the United States, the concept emerged out of growing concerns about how easily people’s beliefs could be changed and was constructed in a way that was independent of what people believed. The author delves into how original measurements of critical thinking avoided assumptions about the accuracy of specific real-world beliefs and details how subsequent critical thinking tests increasingly focused on logical abilities, often favoring outcome (what we believe) over process (how we think). DOI: 10.1037/hop0000145

6. Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder: Integration of Alcoholics Anonymous and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Breuninger, m. m., et al..

This article in Training and Education in Professional Psychology (Vol. 14, No. 1) details how to work with alcohol use disorder patients who are participating in both cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The authors point to distinctions between AA and CBT: The goal of AA is total abstinence and the primary therapeutic relationship is with a peer in recovery, while CBT takes a less absolute approach and the primary relationship is with a psychotherapist. The authors also point to commonalities: both approaches emphasize identifying and replacing dysfunctional beliefs and place value in social support. The authors recommend clinicians and trainees become more educated about AA and recommend a translation of the 12-step language into CBT terminology to bridge the gap. DOI: 10.1037/tep0000265

7. Positivity Pays Off: Clients’ Perspectives on Positive Compared With Traditional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression

Geschwind, n., et al..

Positive cognitive behavioral therapy, a version of CBT focused on exploring exceptions to the problem rather than the problem itself, personal strengths, and embracing positivity, works well to counter depressive symptoms and build well-being, according to this study in Psychotherapy (Vol. 57, No. 3). Participants received a block of eight sessions of traditional CBT and a block of eight sessions of positive CBT. Researchers held in-depth interviews with 12 of these participants. Despite initial skepticism, most participants reported preferring positive CBT but indicated experiencing a steeper learning curve than with traditional CBT. Researchers attributed positive CBT’s favorability to four factors: feeling empowered, benefiting from effects of positive emotions, learning to appreciate baby steps, and rediscovering optimism as a personal strength. DOI: 10.1037/pst0000288

8. Targeted Prescription of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Versus Person-Centered Counseling for Depression Using a Machine Learning Approach

Delgadillo, j., & gonzalez salas duhne, p..

Amachine learning algorithm can identify which patients would derive more benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) versus counseling for depression, suggests research in this Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (Vol. 88, No. 1) article. Researchers retrospectively explored data from 1,085 patients in the United Kingdom treated with either CBT or counseling for depression and discovered six patient characteristics—age, employment status, disability, and three diagnostic measures of major depression and social adjustment—relevant to developing an algorithm for prescribing the best approach. The researchers then used the algorithm to determine which therapy would work best for an additional 350 patients with depression. They found that patients receiving their optimal treatment type were twice as likely to improve significantly. DOI: 10.1037/ccp0000476

9. Traumatic Stress in the Age of COVID-19: A Call to Close Critical Gaps and Adapt to New Realities

Horesh, d., & brown, a. d..

This article in Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy (Vol. 12, No. 4) argues that COVID-19 should be examined from a post-traumatic stress perspective. The authors call for mental health researchers and clinicians to develop better diagnoses and prevention strategies for COVID-related traumatic stress; create guidelines and talking points for the media and government officials to use when speaking to an anxious, and potentially traumatized, public; and provide mental health training to professionals in health care, education, childcare, and occupational support in order to reach more people. DOI: 10.1037/tra0000592

10. Emotional Intelligence Predicts Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Maccann, c., et al..

Students with high emotional intelligence get better grades and score higher on standardized tests, according to the research presented in this article in Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 146, No. 2). Researchers analyzed data from 158 studies representing more than 42,529 students—ranging in age from elementary school to college—from 27 countries. The researchers found that students with higher emotional intelligence earned better grades and scored higher on achievement tests than those with lower emotional intelligence. This finding was true even when controlling for intelligence and personality factors, and the association held regardless of age. The researchers suggest that students with higher emotional intelligence succeed because they cope well with negative emotions that can harm academic performance; they form stronger relationships with teachers, peers, and family; and their knowledge of human motivations and socialinteractions helps them understand humanities subject matter. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000219

5 interviews to listen to now

Psychology’s most innovative thinkers are featured on APA’s Speaking of Psychology podcast , which highlights important research and helps listeners apply psychology to their lives. The most popular episodes of 2020, as measured by the number of downloads in the first 30 days, were: 

• How to have meaningful dialogues despite political differences , with  Tania Israel, PhD
• Canine cognition and the survival of the friendliest , with  Brian Hare, PhD  
• The challenges faced by women in leadership , with  Alice Eagly, PhD
• How to choose effective, science-based mental health apps , with  Stephen Schueller, PhD  
• Psychedelic therapy , with Roland Griffiths, PhD  

Listen to all of the Speaking of Psychology episodes .

Contact APA

You may also like.

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
• v.25(3); 2014 Oct

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Jacalyn kelly.

1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Tara Sadeghieh

Khosrow adeli.

2 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

3 Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding publication of this article.

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?

Peer Review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” ( 1 ). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication.

HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW

The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece ( 2 ). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Physician ( 2 ). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients’ medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient ( 2 ).

The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public ( 3 ). At this time, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science ( 3 ). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method ( 3 ). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results ( 4 ). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 ( 5 ), however, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research ( 6 ). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Royal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: “Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author.” ( 7 ). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the “Committee on Papers” to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions ( 6 ).

Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period ( 7 ). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal’s standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.

IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal ( 8 ). The Institute for Scientific Information ( ISI ) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.

OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1 ). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.

Overview of the review process

When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study’s scope ( 9 ). If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1 .

WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?

Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) ( 7 ). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.

WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?

Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on one’s resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher’s involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions ( 11 ). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field ( 5 ).

ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?

A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review ( 12 ). One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?

On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper ( 12 ), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the “Sense About Science” survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper ( 12 ).

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED

Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed ( 13 ). After logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled ‘refereed’) reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.

THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.

Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so ( 14 ).

The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time ( 14 ). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.

The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill ( 15 ). The introduction identifies the study’s purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions ( 15 ). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.

The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be used it to repeat the experiment ( 15 ). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer’s job to identify what details need to be added.

The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation ( 15 ). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant ( 15 ). The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.

The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies ( 15 ). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research ( 15 ). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.

The references are found at the end of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.

Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal’s standards for publication,

and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field ( 16 ) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2 .

How a peer review evaluates a manuscript

To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW

The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another’s identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer’s identity is kept private, but the author’s identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review ( 2 ). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors ( 2 ). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite ( 2 ). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author’s work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their relationship with a superior ( 2 ). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value ( 12 ). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review ( 7 ).

Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review ( 7 ). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed ( 2 ). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author ( 2 ). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first ( 2 ).

Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work ( 2 ). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea ( 12 ), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review ( 7 ). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias ( 2 ).

Masking the author’s identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review ( 17 ). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the ‘intervention’ arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts ( 17 ). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors ( 17 ). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had different results ( 18 ). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher ( 18 ). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter ( 17 ). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality ( 17 ).

In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site ( 10 ). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had experience with post-publication review ( 7 ). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media ( 19 ). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed ( 19 ). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print ( 19 ). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the ‘arXiv’ developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists ( 19 ). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.

PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS

Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner ( 20 ). Nevertheless, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall’s List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing ( 21 ). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes ( 21 ). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an effective peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.

JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES

Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% ( 7 ). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review ( 7 ). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision ( 7 ).

SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM

Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be ‘dissatisfied’ ( 7 ). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that ‘scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review’ ( 7 ). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review ‘provides control in scientific communication’ ( 7 ).

HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY

The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject ( 22 ):

1) Be professional

Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it.

2) Be pleasant

If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, but do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.

3) Read the invite

When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the email, respond to the link.

4) Be helpful

Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer’s perspective.

5) Be scientific

The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don’t fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as part of the review.

6) Be timely

Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.

7) Be realistic

The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.

8) Be empathetic

Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.

Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.

10) Be organised

A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well as for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.

In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor’s and author’s shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect ( 11 ). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think about the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively ( 11 ). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers’ papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process ( 11 ). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science ( 11 ).

The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about ( 23 ). If there is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor ( 23 ). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague’s help, and approval must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions ( 23 ). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process ( 23 ). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers ( 23 ).

COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question ( 24 ). It is also common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables ( 24 ). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do not control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied ( 24 ). Another common fault is the author’s failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers ( 24 ). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence ( 24 ). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand ( 24 ). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing ( 24 ). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources section.

CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW

A major criticism of peer review is that there is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, ‘Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain’ ( 25 ). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers ( 7 ). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.

Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees ( 26 ). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers ( 26 ). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer ( 26 ). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) ( 26 ). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php ( 26 ).

Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, ‘The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt’ ( 27 ). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue ( 27 ).

It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected by their peers upon review ( 28 ). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information ( 28 ). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.

Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all ( 29 ). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard ( 29 ). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as “peer-reviewed”, they rarely publish any high quality research ( 29 ). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense ( 29 ). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review ( 30 ).

Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists’ time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid ( 31 ). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue ( 32 ). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs ( 32 ). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper ( 32 ). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published first.

RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW

F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review ( 32 ). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times ( 32 ). It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work first ( 32 ). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters ( 32 ).

PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences ( 33 ). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of ‘impact ’, ‘novelty’ or ‘interest’ ( 34 ). It works on a “lifetime publishing plan” model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication ( 34 ). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article ( 34 ). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish ( 34 ).

Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system ( 35 ). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research ( 35 ). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again ( 35 ). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the right match. This process could take months or even years ( 35 ). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time before their paper is published ( 35 ). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard ( 35 ). The majority of the author’s fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium ( 35 ). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate ( 35 ). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper ( 35 ). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report ( 35 ). The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them ( 35 ). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time ( 35 ). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected ( 35 ). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers ( 35 ).

According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality ( 32 ). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection ( 32 ). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled ( 32 ). In Keith Collier’s opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement ( 35 ). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact ( 35 ). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for “cascading” and shared peer review ( 35 ).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Peer review has become fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Adderall in Higher Doses May Raise Psychosis Risk, Study Says

New research suggests that dosage plays a role in a rare side effect of A.D.H.D. stimulants.

By Christina Caron

Julianna McLeod, 26, had her first psychotic episode while taking Vyvanse for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder last year.

Ms. McLeod, who lives in Ontario, Canada, had taken the drug before but paused while pregnant with her first child and didn’t start taking it again until six months postpartum.

Although the dose was 40 milligrams, she often forgot when she had last taken a pill. So she took one whenever she remembered — and may have ended up taking more than her prescribed daily dose.

The delusions that she experienced made her feel euphoric and highly energetic.

“I felt like my brain was exploding with connections,” she said. In her mind, she was a “super detective” who was uncovering the people and organizations that were secretly engaging in child sex trafficking.

She even began to believe that someone was drugging her and her baby.

Psychosis and mania are each known side effects of stimulant medications, and the Food and Drug Administration has added warnings to the medications’ labels saying that they may cause symptoms like hallucinations, delusional thinking or mania. But these side effects are considered rare — experienced by an estimated 1 in 1,000 patients — and have not been extensively researched. It can take months for someone to fully recover.

A new study published on Thursday in The American Journal of Psychiatry suggests that dosage may play a role. It found that among people who took high doses of prescription amphetamines such as Vyvanse and Adderall, there was a fivefold increased risk of developing psychosis or mania for the first time compared with those who weren’t taking stimulants.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Research progress on mirnas and artificial mirnas in insect and disease resistance and breeding in plants.

1. Introduction

2. progress in mirna research on insect resistance and breeding in plants, 2.1. plant endogenous mirnas, 2.2. insect endogenous mirnas, 3. progress in mirna research on disease resistance and breeding in plants, 4. application of artificial mirnas (amirnas) in research on plant resistance, 4.1. application of amirnas for insecticidal effects in plants, 4.2. application of amirnas for disease resistance in plants, 5. prospects and conclusions, 5.1. applications of rnai technology in crop production, 5.2. challenges in the application of mirna technology in crop breeding, 5.3. conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• Correia de Sousa, M.; Gjorgjieva, M.; Dolicka, D.; Sobolewski, C.; Foti, M. Deciphering miRNAs’ action through miRNA editing. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019 , 20 , 6249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jonas, S.; Izaurralde, E. Towards a molecular understanding of microRNA-mediated gene silencing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2015 , 16 , 421–433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lukasik, A.; Zielenkiewicz, P. Plant microRNAs—Novel players in natural medicine? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016 , 18 , 9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ameres, S.; Zamore, P. Diversifying microRNA sequence and function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013 , 14 , 475–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gebert, L.; Macrae, I. Regulation of microRNA function in animals. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019 , 20 , 21–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yu, S.; Wang, J. The Crosstalk between MicroRNAs and Gibberellin Signaling in Plants. Plant Cell Physiol. 2020 , 61 , 1880–1890. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kozomara, A.; Birgaoanu, M.; Griffiths-Jones, S. miRbase: From microRNA sequences to function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 , 47 , 155–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Chen, D.; Chen, F.; Fang, X.; Hong, G.; Wang, L.; Wang, J.; Chen, X. Jasmonate response decay and defense metabolite accumulation contributes to age-regulated dynamics of plant insect resistance. Nat. Commun. 2017 , 8 , 13925. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wamiq, G.; Khan, J. Overexpression of ghr-miR166b generates resistance against Bemisia tabaci infestation in Gossypium hirsutum plants. Planta 2018 , 247 , 1175–1189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agrawal, A.; Rajamani, V.; Reddy, V.; Mukherjee, S.; Bhatnagar, R. Transgenic plants over-expressing insect-specific microRNA acquire insecticidal activity against Helicoverpa armigera : An alternative to Bt-toxin technology. Transgenic Res. 2015 , 24 , 791–801. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ge, Y.; Han, J.; Zhou, G.; Xu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Shi, M.; Guo, C.; Wu, G. Silencing of miR156 confers enhanced resistance to brown planthopper in rice. Planta 2018 , 248 , 813–826. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shen, Y.; Yang, G.; Miao, X.; Shi, Z. OsmiR159 Modulate BPH Resistance Through Regulating G-Protein γ Subunit GS3 Gene in Rice. Rice 2023 , 16 , 30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dai, Z.; Tan, J.; Zhou, C.; Yang, X.; Yang, F.; Zhang, S.; Sun, S.; Miao, X.; Shi, Z. The OsmiR396-OsGRF8-OsF3H-flavonoid pathway mediates resistance to the brown planthopper in rice ( Oryza sativa ). Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019 , 17 , 1657–1669. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, J.; Liu, Q.; Yuan, L.; Shen, W.; Shi, Q.; Qi, G.; Zhang, Z. Osa-miR162a Enhances the Resistance to the Brown Planthopper via α-Linolenic Acid Metabolism in Rice ( Oryza sativa ). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023 , 71 , 11847–11859. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fan, D.; Ran, L.; Hu, J.; Ye, X.; Xu, D.; Li, J.; Su, H.; Wang, X.; Ren, S.; Luo, K. miR319a/TCP module and DELLA protein regulate trichome initiation synergistically and improve insect defenses in Populus tomentosa. New Phytol. 2020 , 227 , 867–883. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, W.; Li, Z.; Fan, J.; Hu, C.; Yang, R.; Qi, X.; Chen, H.; Zhao, F.; Wang, S. Identification of jasmonic acid-associated microRNAs and characterization of the regulatory roles of the miR319/TCP4 module under root-knot nematode stress in tomato. J. Exp. Bot. 2015 , 66 , 4653–4667. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xia, X.; Shao, Y.; Jiang, J.; Du, X.; Sheng, L.; Chen, F.; Fang, W.; Guan, Z.; Chen, S. MicroRNA expression pro file during aphid feeding in chrysanthemum ( Chrysanthemum morifolium ). PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0143720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Q.; Dou, W.; Taning, C.; Smagghe, G.; Wang, J. Regulatory roles of microRNAs in insect pests: Prospective targets for insect pest control. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2021 , 70 , 158–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muthu Lakshmi Bavithra, C.; Murugan, M.; Pavithran, S.; Naveena, K. Enthralling genetic regulatory mechanisms meddling insecticide resistance development in insects: Role of transcriptional and post-transcriptional events. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2023 , 10 , 1257859. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bordoloi, K.; Agarwala, N. MicroRNAs in plant insect interaction and insect pest control. Plant Gene 2021 , 26 , 100271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sempere, L.; Dubrovsky, E.; Dubrovskaya, V.; Berger, E. The expression of the let-7 small regulatory RNA is controlled by ecdysone duriniz metamorphosis in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev. Biol. 2002 , 244 , 170–179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sempere, L.; Sokol, N.; Dubrovsky, E.; Berger, E.; Ambrosa, V. Temporal regulation of microRNA expression in Drosophila melanogaster mediated by hormonal signals and Broad-Complex gene activity. Dev. Biol. 2003 , 259 , 9–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Varghese, J.; Cohen, S. microRNA miR-14 acts to modulate a positive autoregulatory loop controlling steroid hormone signaling in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 2007 , 21 , 2277–2282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• He, K.; Xiao, H.; Sun, Y.; Ding, S.; Situ, G.; Li, F. Transgenic microRNA-14 rice shows high resistance to rice stemborer. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019 , 17 , 461–471. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, K.; Xiao, H.; Sun, Y.; Situ, G.; Xi, Y.; Li, F. microRNA-14 as an efficient suppressor to switch off ecdysone production after ecdysis in insects. RNA Biol. 2019 , 16 , 1313–1325. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Epstein, Y.; Perry, N.; Volin, M.; Zohar-Fux, M.; Braun, R.; Porat-Kuperstein, L.; Toledano, H. miR-9a modulates maintenance and ageing of Drosophila germline stem cells by limiting N-cadherin expression. Nat. Commun. 2017 , 8 , 600. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X.; Zhao, M.; Tian, M.; Zhao, J.; Cai, W.; Hua, H. An InR/mir-9a/NlUbx regulatory cascade regulates wing diphenism in brown planthoppers. Insect Sci. 2021 , 28 , 1300–1313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, H.; Song, X.; Wang, G.; Yang, K.; Wang, Y.; Niu, L.; Chen, X.; Fang, R. Plant-generated artificial small RNAs mediated aphid resistance. PLoS ONE 2014 , 9 , e97410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pruss, G.J.; Nester, E.W.; Vance, V. Infiltration with Agrobacterium tumefaciens induces host defense and development-dependent responses in the infiltrated zone. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2008 , 21 , 1528–1538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Djami-Tchatchou, A.; Dubery, I. miR393 regulation of lectin receptor-like kinases associated with LPS perception in Arabidopsis thaliana. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2019 , 513 , 88–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kasschau, K.; Xie, Z.; Allen, E.; Llave, C.; Chapman, E.; Krizan, K.; Carrington, J. P1/HC-Pro, a viral suppressor of RNA silencing, interferes with Arabidopsis development and miRNA function. Dev. Cell 2003 , 4 , 205–217. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chapman, E.; Prokhnevsky, A.; Gopinath, K.; Dolja, V.; Carrington, J. Viral RNA silencing suppressors inhibit the microRNA pathway at an intermediate step. Genes Dev. 2004 , 18 , 1179–1186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Windels, D.; Vazquez, F. miR393: Integrator of environmental cues in auxin signaling? Plant Signal. Behav. 2011 , 6 , 1672–1675. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, Y.; Cao, X.; Zhu, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhang, K.; Xiao, Z.; Wang, H.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, L.; Li, G.; et al. Osa-miR398b boosts H2O2 production and rice blast disease-resistance via multiple superoxide dismutases. New Phytol. 2019 , 222 , 1507–1522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gill, S.; Tuteja, N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010 , 48 , 909–930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, H.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Q.; Fu, Y.; Feng, C.; Wang, B.; Huang, L.; Kang, Z. Monodehydroascorbate reductase gene, regulated by the wheat PN-2013 miRNA, contributes to adult wheat plant resistance to stripe rust through ROS metabolism. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2014 , 1839 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, J.; Yang, R.; Yang, Z.; Yao, S.; Zhao, S.; Wang, Y.; Li, P.; Song, X.; Jin, L.; Zhou, T.; et al. ROS accumulation and antiviral defence control by microRNA528 in rice. Nat. Plants 2017 , 3 , 485–510. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Navarro, L.; Dunoyer, P.; Jay, F.; Arnold, B.; Dharmasiri, N.; Estelle, M.; Voinnet, O.; Jones, J.D. A plant miRNA contributes to antibacterial resistance by repressing auxin signaling. Science 2006 , 312 , 436–439. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yin, Z.; Li, Y.; Han, X.; Shen, F. Genome-wide profiling of miRNAs and other small non-coding RNAs in the Verticillium dahliae-inoculated cotton roots. PLoS ONE 2012 , 7 , e35765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, T.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, J.; Wang, S.; Jin, Y.; Chen, Z.; Fang, Y.; Hua, C.; Ding, S.; Guo, H. Cotton plants export microRNAs to inhibit virulence gene expression in a fungal pathogen. Nat. Plants 2016 , 2 , 16153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, G.; Lei, Y.; Liu, J.; Hao, M.; Zhang, Z.; Tang, Y.; Chen, A.; Wu, J. The ghr-miR164 and GhNAC100 modulate cotton plant resistance against Verticillium dahlia. Plant Sci. 2020 , 293 , 110438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jiang, N.; Cui, J.; Shi, Y.; Yang, G.; Zhou, X.; Hou, X.; Meng, J.; Luan, Y. Tomato lncRNA23468 functions as a competing endogenous RNA to modulate NBSLRR genes by decoying miR482b in the tomato- Phytophthora infestans interaction. Hortic. Res. 2019 , 6 , 28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Chern, M.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Lu, J.; Li, X.; Dang, W.; Ma, X.; Yang, Z.; et al. Suppression of rice miR168 improves yield, flowering time and immunity. Nat. Plants 2021 , 7 , 129–136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yang, Z.; Hui, S.; Lv, Y.; Zhang, M.; Chen, D.; Tian, J.; Zhang, H.; Liu, H.; Cao, J.; Xie, W.; et al. miR395-regulated sulfate metabolism exploits pathogen sensitivity to sulfate to boost immunity in rice. Mol. Plant 2022 , 15 , 671–688. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, F.; Pignatta, D.; Bendix, C.; Brunkard, J.O.; Cohn, M.M.; Tung, J.; Sun, H.; Kumar, P.; Baker, B. MicroRNA regulation of plant innate immune receptors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012 , 109 , 1790–1795. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, M.; Peng, H.; Gao, J.; Pan, G.; Zhang, Z. Identification and functional analysis of miRNAs in response to banded leaf and sheath blight in Zea mays . Chin. J. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2012 , 28 , 1122–1132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loreti, E.; Perata, P. Mobile plant microRNAs allow communication within and between organisms. New Phytol. 2022 , 235 , 2176–2182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niu, D.; Lii, Y.; Chellappan, P.; Lei, L.; Peralta, K.; Jiang, C.; Guo, J.; Coaker, G.; Jin, H. miRNA863-3p sequentially targets negative immune regulator ARLPKs and positive regulator SERRATE upon bacterial infection. Nat. Commun. 2016 , 7 , 11324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, X.; Yuan, Y.R.; Pei, Y.; Lin, S.; Tuschl, T.; Patel, D.; Chua, N. Cucumber mosaic virus-encoded 2b suppressor inhibits Arabidopsis Argonaute1 cleavage activity to counter plant defense. Genes Dev. 2006 , 20 , 3255–3268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwab, R.; Ossowski, S.; Riester, M.; Warthmann, N.; Weigel, D. Highly specific gene silencing by artificial microRNAs in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2006 , 18 , 1121–1133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kryovrysanaki, N.; James, A.; Tselika, M.; Bardani, E.; Kalantidis, K. RNA silencing pathways in plant development and defense. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2022 , 66 , 163–175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ding, S. RNA silencing. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2000 , 11 , 152–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Wu, L.; Qi, Y.; Zhou, J. Identification of microRNAs involved in pathogen-associated molecular pattern-triggered plant innate immunity. Plant Physiol. 2010 , 152 , 2222–2231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Baldrich, P.; Kakar, K.; Sire, C.; Moreno, A.; Berger, A.; GarcíaChapa, M.; López-Moya, J.; Riechmann, J.; San Segundo, B. Small RNA profiling reveals regulation of Arabidopsis miR168 and heterochromatic siRNA415 in response to fungal elicitors. BMC Genom. 2014 , 15 , 1083. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Srivastava, A.; Pan, Y.; Bai, J.; Fang, J.; Shi, H.; Zhu, J. Knockdown of rice microRNA166 confers drought resistance by causing leaf rolling and altering stem xylem development. Plant Physiol. 2018 , 176 , 2082–2094. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mengistu, A.; Tenkegna, T. The role of miRNA in plant-virus interaction: A review. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2021 , 48 , 2853–2861. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jagadeeswaran, G.; Saini, A.; Sunkar, R. Biotic and abiotic stress down-regulate miR398 expression in Arabidopsis. Planta 2009 , 229 , 1009–1014. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rawat, N.; Kiran, S.; Du, D.; Gmitter, F.; Deng, Z. Comprehensive meta-analysis, co-expression, and miRNA nested network analysis identifies gene candidates in citrus against Huanglongbing disease. BMC Plant Biol. 2015 , 15 , 184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chisholm, S.; Coaker, G.; Day, B.; Staskawicz, B. Host-microbe interactions: Shaping the evolution of the plant immune response. Cell 2006 , 124 , 810–814. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ngou, B.; Ding, P.; Jones, J. Thirty years of resistance: Zig-zag through the plant immune system. Plant Cell 2022 , 34 , 1447–1478. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shivaprasad, P.; Chen, H.; Patel, K.; Bond, D.; Santos, B.; Baulcombe, D. A microRNA superfamily regulates nucleotide binding site-leucine-rich repeats and other mRNAs. Plant Cell 2012 , 24 , 859–874. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lu, S.; Sun, Y.; Chiang, V. Stress-responsive microRNAs in populus. Plant J. 2008 , 55 , 131–151. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Campo, S.; Peris-Peris, C.; Siré, C.; Moreno, A.; Donaire, L.; Zytnicki, M.; Notredame, C.; Llave, C.; San Segundo, B. Identification of a novel microRNA (miRNA) from rice that targets an alternatively spliced transcript of the Nramp6 (Natural resistance-associated macrophage protein 6) gene involved in pathogen resistance. New Phytol. 2013 , 199 , 212–227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Lu, Y.; Shi, Y.; Wu, L.; Xu, Y.; Huang, F. Multiple rice micrornas are involved in immunity against the blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae. Plant Physiol. 2014 , 164 , 1077–1092. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Xin, M.; Wang, Y.; Yao, Y.; Xie, C.; Peng, H.; Ni, Z.; Sun, Q. Diverse set of microRNAs are responsive tompowdery mildew infection and heat stress in wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.). BMC Plant Biol. 2010 , 10 , 123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hua, C.; Zhao, J.; Guo, H. Trans-Kingdom RNA Silencing in Plant-Fungal Pathogen Interactions. Mol. Plant 2018 , 11 , 235–244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, J.; Gu, X.; Liu, J.; He, Z. Roles of small RNAs in crop disease resistance. Stress Biol. 2021 , 1 , 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, T.; Li, W.; Li, F.; Ren, M.; Wang, W. microRNAs: Key Regulators in Plant Responses to Abiotic and Biotic Stresses via Endogenous and Cross-Kingdom Mechanisms. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024 , 25 , 1154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sablok, G.; Pérez-Quintero, Á.; Hassan, M.; Tatarinova, T.; López, C. Artificial microRNAs (amiRNAs) engineering—On how microRNAbased silencing methods have affected current plant silencing research. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2011 , 406 , 315–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ai, T.; Zhang, L.; Gao, Z.; Zhu, C.; Guo, X. Highly efficient virus resistance mediated by artificial microRNAs that target the suppressor of PVX and PVY in plants. Plant Biol. 2011 , 13 , 304–316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, W.; Zhai, J.; Lee, J. Highly efficient gene silencing using perfect complementary artificial miRNA targeting AP1 or heteromeric artificial miRNA targeting AP1 and CAL genes. Plant Cell Rep. 2009 , 28 , 469–480. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schwab, R.; Palatnik, J.; Riester, M.; Schommer, C.; Schmidet, M.; Weigel, D. Specific effects of microRNAs on the plant transcriptome. Dev. Cell 2005 , 8 , 517–527. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Niu, Q.; Lin, S.; Reyes, J.; Chen, K.; Wu, H.; Yeh, S.; Chua, N. Expression of artificial microRNAs in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana confers virus resistance. Nat. Biotechnol. 2006 , 24 , 1420–1428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, X.; Li, H.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, C.; Gong, P.; Ziaf, K.; Xiao, F.; Ye, Z. Expression of artificial microRNAs in tomato confers efficient and stable virus resistance in a cellautonomous manner. Transgenic Res. 2011 , 20 , 569–581. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saini, R.; Raman, V.; Dhandapani, G.; Malhotra, E.; Sreevathsa, R.; Kumar, P.; Sharma, T.; Pattanayak, D. Silencing of HaAce1 gene by host-delivered artificial microRNA disrupts growth and development of Helicoverpa armigera . PLoS ONE 2018 , 13 , e0194150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qu, J.; Ye, J.; Fang, R. Artificial microRNA-mediated virus resistance in plants. J. Virol. 2007 , 81 , 6690–6699. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Song, Y.; Han, Q.; Jiang, F.; Sun, R.; Fan, Z.; Zhu, C.; Wen, F. Effects of the sequence characteristics of miRNAs on multi-viral resistance mediated by single amiRNAs in transgenic tobacco. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2014 , 77 , 90–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, X.; Weng, Z.; Li, H.; Kong, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Li, F.; Ma, W.; Lin, Y.; Chen, H. Transgenic rice overexpressing insect endogenous microRNA csu-novel-260 is resistant to striped stem borer under field conditions. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2021 , 19 , 421–423. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, S.; Wu, H.; Liu, H.; Zheng, J.; Lin, Y.; Chen, H. The overexpression of insect endogenous small RNAs in transgenic rice inhibits growth and delays pupation of striped stem borer ( Chilo suppressalis ). Pest Manag. Sci. 2017 , 73 , 1453–1461. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, H.; Shen, E.; Wu, H.; Ma, W.; Chen, H.; Lin, Y. Trans-kingdom expression of an insect endogenous microRNA in rice enhances resistance to striped stem borer Chilo suppressalis . Pest Manag. Sci. 2022 , 78 , 770–777. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, C.; Wei, J.; Lin, Y.; Chen, H. Gene silencing using the recessive rice bacterial blight resistance gene xa13 as a new paradigm in plant breeding. Plant Cell Rep. 2012 , 31 , 851–862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shen, W.; Cao, S.; Liu, J.; Zhang, W.; Chen, J.; Li, J. Overexpression of an Osa-miR162a Derivative in Rice Confers Cross-Kingdom RNA Interference-Mediated Brown Planthopper Resistance without Perturbing Host Development. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 , 22 , 12652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daborn, P.; Lumb, C.; Harrop, T.; Blasetti, A.; Pasricha, S.; Morin, S.; Mitchell, S.; Donnelly, M.; Müller, P.; Batterham, P. Using Drosophila melanogaster to validate metabolism-based insecticide resistance from insect pests. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2012 , 42 , 918–924. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kung, Y.; Lin, S.; Huang, Y.; Chen, T.; Harish, S.; Chua, N.; Yeh, S. Multiple artificial microRNAs targeting conserved motifs of the replicase gene confer robust transgenic resistance to negative-sense single-stranded RNA plant virus. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012 , 13 , 303–317. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zeng, Y.; Wagner, E.; Cullen, B. Both natural and designed micro RNAs can inhibit the expression of cognate mRNAs when expressed in human cells. Mol. Cell 2002 , 9 , 1327–1333. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parizotto, E.; Dunoyer, P.; Rahm, N.; Himber, C.; Voinnet, O. In vivo investigation of the transcription, processing, endonucleolytic activity, and functional relevance of the spatial distribution of a plant miRNA. Genes Dev. 2004 , 18 , 2237–2242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Toppino, L.; Kooiker, M.; Lindner, M.; Dreni, L.; Rotino, G.; Kater, M. Reversible male sterility in eggplant ( Solanum melongena L.) by artificial microRNA-mediated silencing of general transcription factor genes. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2011 , 9 , 684–692. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Warthmann, N.; Chen, H.; Ossowski, S.; Weigel, D.; Hervé, P. Highly specific gene silencing by artificial miRNAs in rice. PLoS ONE 2008 , 3 , e1829. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wagaba, H.; Patil, B.; Mukasa, S.; Alicai, T.; Fauquet, C.; Taylor, N. Artificial microRNA-derived resistance to Cassava brown streak disease. J. Virol Methods 2016 , 231 , 231–243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peng, J.; Chen, T.; Raja, J.; Yang, C.; Chien, W.; Lin, C.; Liu, F.; Wu, H.; Yeh, S. Broad-spectrum transgenic resistance against distinct tospovirus species at the genus level. PLoS ONE 2014 , 9 , e96073. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chandra, T.; Jaiswal, S.; Iquebal, M.; Singh, R.; Gautam, R.; Rai, A.; Kumar, D. Revitalizing miRNAs mediated agronomical advantageous traits improvement in rice. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2023 , 202 , 107933. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lin, S.; Wu, H.; Elena, S.; Chen, K.; Niu, Q.; Yeh, S.; Chen, C.; Chua, N. Molecular evolution of a viral noncoding sequence under the selective pressure of amiRNA-mediated silencing. PLoS Pathog. 2009 , 5 , e1000312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Simón-Mateo, C.; García, J.A. MicroRNA-guided processing impairs Plum pox virus replication, but the virus readily evolves to escape this silencing mechanism. J. Virol. 2006 , 80 , 2429–2436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Duan, C.G.; Wang, C.H.; Fang, R.X.; Guo, H.S. Artificial MicroRNAs highly accessible to targets confer efficient virus resistance in plants. J. Virol. 2008 , 82 , 11084–11095. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dhandapani, R.; Gurusamy, D.; Howell, J.; Palli, S. Development of CS-TPP-dsRNA nanoparticles to enhance RNAi efficiency in the yellow fever mosquito. Aedes Aegypti. Sci. Rep. 2019 , 9 , 8775. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niehl, A.; Heinlein, M. Perception of double-stranded RNA in plant antiviral immunity. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2019 , 20 , 1203–1210. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, M.; Jin, H. Spray-induced gene silencing:A powerful innovative strategy for crop protection. Trends Microbiol. 2017 , 25 , 4–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zotti, M.; Dos Santos, E.; Cagliari, D.; Christiaens, O.; Taning, C.; Smagghe, G. RNA interference technology in crop protection against arthropod pests, pathogens and nematodes. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018 , 74 , 1239–1250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Camacho, A.; Van Deynze, A.; Chi-Ham, C.; Bennett, A.B. Genetically engineered crops that fly under the US regulatory radar. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014 , 32 , 1087–1091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demirer, G.S.; Zhang, H.; Goh, N.S.; González-Grandío, E.; Landry, M.P. Carbon nanotube-mediated DNA delivery without transgene integration in intact plants. Nat. Protoc. 2019 , 14 , 2954–2971. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demirer, G.S.; Zhang, H.; Matos, J.L.; Goh, N.S.; Cunningham, F.J.; Sung, Y.; Chang, R.; Aditham, A.J.; Chio, L.; Cho, M.J.; et al. High aspect ratio nanomaterials enable delivery of functional genetic material without DNA integration in mature plants. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019 , 14 , 456–464. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tripathi, S.; Sarkar, S. Carbon dots in agricultural system. In Carbon Dots in Agricultural Systems ; Khan, R., Murali, S., Gogoi, S., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 175–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwartz, S.H.; Hendrix, B.; Hoffer, P.; Sanders, R.A.; Zheng, W. Carbon Dots for Efficient Small Interfering RNA Delivery and Gene Silencing in Plants. Plant Physiol. 2020 , 184 , 647–657. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Ma, Z.; Wang, J.; Li, C. Research Progress on miRNAs and Artificial miRNAs in Insect and Disease Resistance and Breeding in Plants. Genes 2024 , 15 , 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15091200

Ma Z, Wang J, Li C. Research Progress on miRNAs and Artificial miRNAs in Insect and Disease Resistance and Breeding in Plants. Genes . 2024; 15(9):1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15091200

Ma, Zengfeng, Jianyu Wang, and Changyan Li. 2024. "Research Progress on miRNAs and Artificial miRNAs in Insect and Disease Resistance and Breeding in Plants" Genes 15, no. 9: 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15091200

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Peer Reviewed

GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research. Our analysis of a selection of questionable GPT-fabricated scientific papers found in Google Scholar shows that many are about applied, often controversial topics susceptible to disinformation: the environment, health, and computing. The resulting enhanced potential for malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base, particularly in politically divisive domains, is a growing concern.

Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Sweden

Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Sweden

Division of Environmental Communication, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

Research Questions

• Where are questionable publications produced with generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) that can be found via Google Scholar published or deposited?
• What are the main characteristics of these publications in relation to predominant subject categories?
• How are these publications spread in the research infrastructure for scholarly communication?
• How is the role of the scholarly communication infrastructure challenged in maintaining public trust in science and evidence through inappropriate use of generative AI?

research note Summary

• A sample of scientific papers with signs of GPT-use found on Google Scholar was retrieved, downloaded, and analyzed using a combination of qualitative coding and descriptive statistics. All papers contained at least one of two common phrases returned by conversational agents that use large language models (LLM) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Google Search was then used to determine the extent to which copies of questionable, GPT-fabricated papers were available in various repositories, archives, citation databases, and social media platforms.
• Roughly two-thirds of the retrieved papers were found to have been produced, at least in part, through undisclosed, potentially deceptive use of GPT. The majority (57%) of these questionable papers dealt with policy-relevant subjects (i.e., environment, health, computing), susceptible to influence operations. Most were available in several copies on different domains (e.g., social media, archives, and repositories).
• Two main risks arise from the increasingly common use of GPT to (mass-)produce fake, scientific publications. First, the abundance of fabricated “studies” seeping into all areas of the research infrastructure threatens to overwhelm the scholarly communication system and jeopardize the integrity of the scientific record. A second risk lies in the increased possibility that convincingly scientific-looking content was in fact deceitfully created with AI tools and is also optimized to be retrieved by publicly available academic search engines, particularly Google Scholar. However small, this possibility and awareness of it risks undermining the basis for trust in scientific knowledge and poses serious societal risks.

Implications

The use of ChatGPT to generate text for academic papers has raised concerns about research integrity. Discussion of this phenomenon is ongoing in editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, and on social media (Bom, 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2024; Thorp, 2023). There are now several lists of papers suspected of GPT misuse, and new papers are constantly being added. 1 See for example Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . While many legitimate uses of GPT for research and academic writing exist (Huang & Tan, 2023; Kitamura, 2023; Lund et al., 2023), its undeclared use—beyond proofreading—has potentially far-reaching implications for both science and society, but especially for their relationship. It, therefore, seems important to extend the discussion to one of the most accessible and well-known intermediaries between science, but also certain types of misinformation, and the public, namely Google Scholar, also in response to the legitimate concerns that the discussion of generative AI and misinformation needs to be more nuanced and empirically substantiated  (Simon et al., 2023).

Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com , is an easy-to-use academic search engine. It is available for free, and its index is extensive (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). It is also often touted as a credible source for academic literature and even recommended in library guides, by media and information literacy initiatives, and fact checkers (Tripodi et al., 2023). However, Google Scholar lacks the transparency and adherence to standards that usually characterize citation databases. Instead, Google Scholar uses automated crawlers, like Google’s web search engine (Martín-Martín et al., 2021), and the inclusion criteria are based on primarily technical standards, allowing any individual author—with or without scientific affiliation—to upload papers to be indexed (Google Scholar Help, n.d.). It has been shown that Google Scholar is susceptible to manipulation through citation exploits (Antkare, 2020) and by providing access to fake scientific papers (Dadkhah et al., 2017). A large part of Google Scholar’s index consists of publications from established scientific journals or other forms of quality-controlled, scholarly literature. However, the index also contains a large amount of gray literature, including student papers, working papers, reports, preprint servers, and academic networking sites, as well as material from so-called “questionable” academic journals, including paper mills. The search interface does not offer the possibility to filter the results meaningfully by material type, publication status, or form of quality control, such as limiting the search to peer-reviewed material.

To understand the occurrence of ChatGPT (co-)authored work in Google Scholar’s index, we scraped it for publications, including one of two common ChatGPT responses (see Appendix A) that we encountered on social media and in media reports (DeGeurin, 2024). The results of our descriptive statistical analyses showed that around 62% did not declare the use of GPTs. Most of these GPT-fabricated papers were found in non-indexed journals and working papers, but some cases included research published in mainstream scientific journals and conference proceedings. 2 Indexed journals mean scholarly journals indexed by abstract and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, where the indexation implies journals with high scientific quality. Non-indexed journals are journals that fall outside of this indexation. More than half (57%) of these GPT-fabricated papers concerned policy-relevant subject areas susceptible to influence operations. To avoid increasing the visibility of these publications, we abstained from referencing them in this research note. However, we have made the data available in the Harvard Dataverse repository.

The publications were related to three issue areas—health (14.5%), environment (19.5%) and computing (23%)—with key terms such “healthcare,” “COVID-19,” or “infection”for health-related papers, and “analysis,” “sustainable,” and “global” for environment-related papers. In several cases, the papers had titles that strung together general keywords and buzzwords, thus alluding to very broad and current research. These terms included “biology,” “telehealth,” “climate policy,” “diversity,” and “disrupting,” to name just a few.  While the study’s scope and design did not include a detailed analysis of which parts of the articles included fabricated text, our dataset did contain the surrounding sentences for each occurrence of the suspicious phrases that formed the basis for our search and subsequent selection. Based on that, we can say that the phrases occurred in most sections typically found in scientific publications, including the literature review, methods, conceptual and theoretical frameworks, background, motivation or societal relevance, and even discussion. This was confirmed during the joint coding, where we read and discussed all articles. It became clear that not just the text related to the telltale phrases was created by GPT, but that almost all articles in our sample of questionable articles likely contained traces of GPT-fabricated text everywhere.

Evidence hacking and backfiring effects

Generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) can be used to produce texts that mimic scientific writing. These texts, when made available online—as we demonstrate—leak into the databases of academic search engines and other parts of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication. This development exacerbates problems that were already present with less sophisticated text generators (Antkare, 2020; Cabanac & Labbé, 2021). Yet, the public release of ChatGPT in 2022, together with the way Google Scholar works, has increased the likelihood of lay people (e.g., media, politicians, patients, students) coming across questionable (or even entirely GPT-fabricated) papers and other problematic research findings. Previous research has emphasized that the ability to determine the value and status of scientific publications for lay people is at stake when misleading articles are passed off as reputable (Haider & Åström, 2017) and that systematic literature reviews risk being compromised (Dadkhah et al., 2017). It has also been highlighted that Google Scholar, in particular, can be and has been exploited for manipulating the evidence base for politically charged issues and to fuel conspiracy narratives (Tripodi et al., 2023). Both concerns are likely to be magnified in the future, increasing the risk of what we suggest calling evidence hacking —the strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base.

The authority of quality-controlled research as evidence to support legislation, policy, politics, and other forms of decision-making is undermined by the presence of undeclared GPT-fabricated content in publications professing to be scientific. Due to the large number of archives, repositories, mirror sites, and shadow libraries to which they spread, there is a clear risk that GPT-fabricated, questionable papers will reach audiences even after a possible retraction. There are considerable technical difficulties involved in identifying and tracing computer-fabricated papers (Cabanac & Labbé, 2021; Dadkhah et al., 2023; Jones, 2024), not to mention preventing and curbing their spread and uptake.

However, as the rise of the so-called anti-vaxx movement during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing obstruction and denial of climate change show, retracting erroneous publications often fuels conspiracies and increases the following of these movements rather than stopping them. To illustrate this mechanism, climate deniers frequently question established scientific consensus by pointing to other, supposedly scientific, studies that support their claims. Usually, these are poorly executed, not peer-reviewed, based on obsolete data, or even fraudulent (Dunlap & Brulle, 2020). A similar strategy is successful in the alternative epistemic world of the global anti-vaccination movement (Carrion, 2018) and the persistence of flawed and questionable publications in the scientific record already poses significant problems for health research, policy, and lawmakers, and thus for society as a whole (Littell et al., 2024). Considering that a person’s support for “doing your own research” is associated with increased mistrust in scientific institutions (Chinn & Hasell, 2023), it will be of utmost importance to anticipate and consider such backfiring effects already when designing a technical solution, when suggesting industry or legal regulation, and in the planning of educational measures.

Recommendations

Solutions should be based on simultaneous considerations of technical, educational, and regulatory approaches, as well as incentives, including social ones, across the entire research infrastructure. Paying attention to how these approaches and incentives relate to each other can help identify points and mechanisms for disruption. Recognizing fraudulent academic papers must happen alongside understanding how they reach their audiences and what reasons there might be for some of these papers successfully “sticking around.” A possible way to mitigate some of the risks associated with GPT-fabricated scholarly texts finding their way into academic search engine results would be to provide filtering options for facets such as indexed journals, gray literature, peer-review, and similar on the interface of publicly available academic search engines. Furthermore, evaluation tools for indexed journals 3 Such as LiU Journal CheckUp, https://ep.liu.se/JournalCheckup/default.aspx?lang=eng . could be integrated into the graphical user interfaces and the crawlers of these academic search engines. To enable accountability, it is important that the index (database) of such a search engine is populated according to criteria that are transparent, open to scrutiny, and appropriate to the workings of  science and other forms of academic research. Moreover, considering that Google Scholar has no real competitor, there is a strong case for establishing a freely accessible, non-specialized academic search engine that is not run for commercial reasons but for reasons of public interest. Such measures, together with educational initiatives aimed particularly at policymakers, science communicators, journalists, and other media workers, will be crucial to reducing the possibilities for and effects of malicious manipulation or evidence hacking. It is important not to present this as a technical problem that exists only because of AI text generators but to relate it to the wider concerns in which it is embedded. These range from a largely dysfunctional scholarly publishing system (Haider & Åström, 2017) and academia’s “publish or perish” paradigm to Google’s near-monopoly and ideological battles over the control of information and ultimately knowledge. Any intervention is likely to have systemic effects; these effects need to be considered and assessed in advance and, ideally, followed up on.

Our study focused on a selection of papers that were easily recognizable as fraudulent. We used this relatively small sample as a magnifying glass to examine, delineate, and understand a problem that goes beyond the scope of the sample itself, which however points towards larger concerns that require further investigation. The work of ongoing whistleblowing initiatives 4 Such as Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . , recent media reports of journal closures (Subbaraman, 2024), or GPT-related changes in word use and writing style (Cabanac et al., 2021; Stokel-Walker, 2024) suggest that we only see the tip of the iceberg. There are already more sophisticated cases (Dadkhah et al., 2023) as well as cases involving fabricated images (Gu et al., 2022). Our analysis shows that questionable and potentially manipulative GPT-fabricated papers permeate the research infrastructure and are likely to become a widespread phenomenon. Our findings underline that the risk of fake scientific papers being used to maliciously manipulate evidence (see Dadkhah et al., 2017) must be taken seriously. Manipulation may involve undeclared automatic summaries of texts, inclusion in literature reviews, explicit scientific claims, or the concealment of errors in studies so that they are difficult to detect in peer review. However, the mere possibility of these things happening is a significant risk in its own right that can be strategically exploited and will have ramifications for trust in and perception of science. Society’s methods of evaluating sources and the foundations of media and information literacy are under threat and public trust in science is at risk of further erosion, with far-reaching consequences for society in dealing with information disorders. To address this multifaceted problem, we first need to understand why it exists and proliferates.

Finding 1: 139 GPT-fabricated, questionable papers were found and listed as regular results on the Google Scholar results page. Non-indexed journals dominate.

Most questionable papers we found were in non-indexed journals or were working papers, but we did also find some in established journals, publications, conferences, and repositories. We found a total of 139 papers with a suspected deceptive use of ChatGPT or similar LLM applications (see Table 1). Out of these, 19 were in indexed journals, 89 were in non-indexed journals, 19 were student papers found in university databases, and 12 were working papers (mostly in preprint databases). Table 1 divides these papers into categories. Health and environment papers made up around 34% (47) of the sample. Of these, 66% were present in non-indexed journals.

Finding 2: GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are disseminated online, permeating the research infrastructure for scholarly communication, often in multiple copies. Applied topics with practical implications dominate.

The 20 papers concerning health-related issues are distributed across 20 unique domains, accounting for 46 URLs. The 27 papers dealing with environmental issues can be found across 26 unique domains, accounting for 56 URLs.  Most of the identified papers exist in multiple copies and have already spread to several archives, repositories, and social media. It would be difficult, or impossible, to remove them from the scientific record.

As apparent from Table 2, GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are seeping into most parts of the online research infrastructure for scholarly communication. Platforms on which identified papers have appeared include ResearchGate, ORCiD, Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology (JPTCP), Easychair, Frontiers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (IEEE), and X/Twitter. Thus, even if they are retracted from their original source, it will prove very difficult to track, remove, or even just mark them up on other platforms. Moreover, unless regulated, Google Scholar will enable their continued and most likely unlabeled discoverability.

A word rain visualization (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023), which combines word prominences through TF-IDF 5 Term frequency–inverse document frequency , a method for measuring the significance of a word in a document compared to its frequency across all documents in a collection. scores with semantic similarity of the full texts of our sample of GPT-generated articles that fall into the “Environment” and “Health” categories, reflects the two categories in question. However, as can be seen in Figure 1, it also reveals overlap and sub-areas. The y-axis shows word prominences through word positions and font sizes, while the x-axis indicates semantic similarity. In addition to a certain amount of overlap, this reveals sub-areas, which are best described as two distinct events within the word rain. The event on the left bundles terms related to the development and management of health and healthcare with “challenges,” “impact,” and “potential of artificial intelligence”emerging as semantically related terms. Terms related to research infrastructures, environmental, epistemic, and technological concepts are arranged further down in the same event (e.g., “system,” “climate,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” “learning,” “education,” “sustainable”). A second distinct event further to the right bundles terms associated with fish farming and aquatic medicinal plants, highlighting the presence of an aquaculture cluster.  Here, the prominence of groups of terms such as “used,” “model,” “-based,” and “traditional” suggests the presence of applied research on these topics. The two events making up the word rain visualization, are linked by a less dominant but overlapping cluster of terms related to “energy” and “water.”

The bar chart of the terms in the paper subset (see Figure 2) complements the word rain visualization by depicting the most prominent terms in the full texts along the y-axis. Here, word prominences across health and environment papers are arranged descendingly, where values outside parentheses are TF-IDF values (relative frequencies) and values inside parentheses are raw term frequencies (absolute frequencies).

Finding 3: Google Scholar presents results from quality-controlled and non-controlled citation databases on the same interface, providing unfiltered access to GPT-fabricated questionable papers.

Google Scholar’s central position in the publicly accessible scholarly communication infrastructure, as well as its lack of standards, transparency, and accountability in terms of inclusion criteria, has potentially serious implications for public trust in science. This is likely to exacerbate the already-known potential to exploit Google Scholar for evidence hacking (Tripodi et al., 2023) and will have implications for any attempts to retract or remove fraudulent papers from their original publication venues. Any solution must consider the entirety of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication and the interplay of different actors, interests, and incentives.

We searched and scraped Google Scholar using the Python library Scholarly (Cholewiak et al., 2023) for papers that included specific phrases known to be common responses from ChatGPT and similar applications with the same underlying model (GPT3.5 or GPT4): “as of my last knowledge update” and/or “I don’t have access to real-time data” (see Appendix A). This facilitated the identification of papers that likely used generative AI to produce text, resulting in 227 retrieved papers. The papers’ bibliographic information was automatically added to a spreadsheet and downloaded into Zotero. 6 An open-source reference manager, https://zotero.org .

We employed multiple coding (Barbour, 2001) to classify the papers based on their content. First, we jointly assessed whether the paper was suspected of fraudulent use of ChatGPT (or similar) based on how the text was integrated into the papers and whether the paper was presented as original research output or the AI tool’s role was acknowledged. Second, in analyzing the content of the papers, we continued the multiple coding by classifying the fraudulent papers into four categories identified during an initial round of analysis—health, environment, computing, and others—and then determining which subjects were most affected by this issue (see Table 1). Out of the 227 retrieved papers, 88 papers were written with legitimate and/or declared use of GPTs (i.e., false positives, which were excluded from further analysis), and 139 papers were written with undeclared and/or fraudulent use (i.e., true positives, which were included in further analysis). The multiple coding was conducted jointly by all authors of the present article, who collaboratively coded and cross-checked each other’s interpretation of the data simultaneously in a shared spreadsheet file. This was done to single out coding discrepancies and settle coding disagreements, which in turn ensured methodological thoroughness and analytical consensus (see Barbour, 2001). Redoing the category coding later based on our established coding schedule, we achieved an intercoder reliability (Cohen’s kappa) of 0.806 after eradicating obvious differences.

The ranking algorithm of Google Scholar prioritizes highly cited and older publications (Martín-Martín et al., 2016). Therefore, the position of the articles on the search engine results pages was not particularly informative, considering the relatively small number of results in combination with the recency of the publications. Only the query “as of my last knowledge update” had more than two search engine result pages. On those, questionable articles with undeclared use of GPTs were evenly distributed across all result pages (min: 4, max: 9, mode: 8), with the proportion of undeclared use being slightly higher on average on later search result pages.

To understand how the papers making fraudulent use of generative AI were disseminated online, we programmatically searched for the paper titles (with exact string matching) in Google Search from our local IP address (see Appendix B) using the googlesearch – python library(Vikramaditya, 2020). We manually verified each search result to filter out false positives—results that were not related to the paper—and then compiled the most prominent URLs by field. This enabled the identification of other platforms through which the papers had been spread. We did not, however, investigate whether copies had spread into SciHub or other shadow libraries, or if they were referenced in Wikipedia.

We used descriptive statistics to count the prevalence of the number of GPT-fabricated papers across topics and venues and top domains by subject. The pandas software library for the Python programming language (The pandas development team, 2024) was used for this part of the analysis. Based on the multiple coding, paper occurrences were counted in relation to their categories, divided into indexed journals, non-indexed journals, student papers, and working papers. The schemes, subdomains, and subdirectories of the URL strings were filtered out while top-level domains and second-level domains were kept, which led to normalizing domain names. This, in turn, allowed the counting of domain frequencies in the environment and health categories. To distinguish word prominences and meanings in the environment and health-related GPT-fabricated questionable papers, a semantically-aware word cloud visualization was produced through the use of a word rain (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023) for full-text versions of the papers. Font size and y-axis positions indicate word prominences through TF-IDF scores for the environment and health papers (also visualized in a separate bar chart with raw term frequencies in parentheses), and words are positioned along the x-axis to reflect semantic similarity (Skeppstedt et al., 2024), with an English Word2vec skip gram model space (Fares et al., 2017). An English stop word list was used, along with a manually produced list including terms such as “https,” “volume,” or “years.”

• Artificial Intelligence
• / Search engines

Cite this Essay

Haider, J., Söderström, K. R., Ekström, B., & Rödl, M. (2024). GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156

• / Appendix B

Bibliography

Antkare, I. (2020). Ike Antkare, his publications, and those of his disciples. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics (pp. 177–200). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0018

Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ , 322 (7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115

Bom, H.-S. H. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academic writing: A roundtable discussion. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging , 57 (4), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-023-00809-2

Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72 (12), 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495

Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751

Carrion, M. L. (2018). “You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science , 27 (3), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728024

Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala (2023). CDHUppsala/word-rain [Computer software]. https://github.com/CDHUppsala/word-rain

Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2023). Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School (HSK) Misinformation Review, 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-117

Cholewiak, S. A., Ipeirotis, P., Silva, V., & Kannawadi, A. (2023). SCHOLARLY: Simple access to Google Scholar authors and citation using Python (1.5.0) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764801

Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling , 11 (2), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6

Dadkhah, M., Oermann, M. H., Hegedüs, M., Raman, R., & Dávid, L. D. (2023). Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis , 10 (4), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090

DeGeurin, M. (2024, March 19). AI-generated nonsense is leaking into scientific journals. Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/technology/ai-generated-text-scientific-journals/

Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2020). Sources and amplifiers of climate change denial. In D.C. Holmes & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 49–61). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00013

Fares, M., Kutuzov, A., Oepen, S., & Velldal, E. (2017). Word vectors, reuse, and replicability: Towards a community repository of large-text resources. In J. Tiedemann & N. Tahmasebi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 271–276). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0237

Google Scholar Help. (n.d.). Inclusion guidelines for webmasters . https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html

Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., & Qiu, J. (2022). AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns , 3 (7), 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511

Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods , 11 (2), 181–217.   https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Haider, J., & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “Sting” in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 68 (2), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669

Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research , 13 (4), 1148–1154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164801/

Jones, N. (2024). How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature , 626 (8000), 697–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00372-6

Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology , 307 (2), e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171

Littell, J. H., Abel, K. M., Biggs, M. A., Blum, R. W., Foster, D. G., Haddad, L. B., Major, B., Munk-Olsen, T., Polis, C. B., Robinson, G. E., Rocca, C. H., Russo, N. F., Steinberg, J. R., Stewart, D. E., Stotland, N. L., Upadhyay, U. D., & Ditzhuijzen, J. van. (2024). Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes. BMJ , 384 , e076518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076518

Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. Scientometrics , 107 , 1477–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1917-2

Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics , 126 (1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023). Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4 (5). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-127

Skeppstedt, M., Ahltorp, M., Kucher, K., & Lindström, M. (2024). From word clouds to Word Rain: Revisiting the classic word cloud to visualize climate change texts. Information Visualization , 23 (3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14738716241236188

Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Vetenskapsrådet.

Stokel-Walker, C. (2024, May 1.). AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/

Subbaraman, N. (2024, May 14). Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures: Wiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraud. The Wall Street Journal . https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc

The pandas development team. (2024). pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (v2.2.2) [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10957263

Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science , 379 (6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879

Tripodi, F. B., Garcia, L. C., & Marwick, A. E. (2023). ‘Do your own research’: Affordance activation and disinformation spread. Information, Communication & Society , 27 (6), 1212–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2245869

Vikramaditya, N. (2020). Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch [Computer software]. https://github.com/Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch

This research has been supported by Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the research program Mistra Environmental Communication (Haider, Ekström, Rödl) and the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [2020.0004] (Söderström).

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

The research described in this article was carried out under Swedish legislation. According to the relevant EU and Swedish legislation (2003:460) on the ethical review of research involving humans (“Ethical Review Act”), the research reported on here is not subject to authorization by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (“etikprövningsmyndigheten”) (SRC, 2017).

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.

Data Availability

All data needed to replicate this study are available at the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WUVD8X

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the article manuscript as well as the editorial group of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review for their thoughtful feedback and input.

• Search this journal
• Search all journals
• View access options
• View profile
• Create profile

Add email alerts

You are adding the following journal to your email alerts

The Use of Contribution Analysis in Evaluating Health Interventions: A Scoping Review

Introduction, ethical approval, declaration of conflicting interests, cite article, share options, information, rights and permissions, metrics and citations, figures and tables, study design, search strategy, study selection, data extraction, data analysis and presentation.

Characteristics of Studies

Types of Health Interventions

Implementation of ca in the health context, adaptations to ca for the health context, methods and procedures used for building the toc, methods and procedures used for testing and refining the toc, data sources and collection, data analysis and interpretation, strengths and challenges in using ca for health interventions, informing decision-making and improvements, enhancing conceptual understanding of health programs and policies, increased ownership and appreciation of evaluation, methodological challenges, practical and resource challenges, download to reference manager.

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share this article

Share with email, share on social media, share access to this article.

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information

Published in.

• contribution analysis
• complex health interventions
• scoping review
• methodological challenges
• stakeholder engagement

Rights and permissions

Affiliations, journals metrics.

This article was published in Evaluation & the Health Professions .

Article usage *

Total views and downloads: 2

* Article usage tracking started in December 2016

Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 0

There are no citing articles to show.

Figures & Media

View options, view options, access options.

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

I am signed in as:

I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.

Login failed. Please check you entered the correct user name and password.

Access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional or society access and free tools such as email alerts and saved searches.

loading institutional access options

Click the button below for the full-text content

AEA and AES members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

Also from Sage

• CQ Library Elevating debate opens in new tab
• Sage Data Uncovering insight opens in new tab
• Sage Business Cases Shaping futures opens in new tab
• Sage Campus Unleashing potential opens in new tab
• Sage Knowledge Multimedia learning resources opens in new tab
• Sage Research Methods Supercharging research opens in new tab
• Sage Video Streaming knowledge opens in new tab
• Technology from Sage Library digital services opens in new tab

UC stroke researchers integral to MOST clinical trial

Trial data published in new england journal of medicine.

Adding blood thinners to clot-busting medications to treat ischemic strokes did not improve long-term outcomes, according to new research published Sept. 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine , coauthored by University of Cincinnati researchers.

The majority of strokes are caused by blood clots preventing oxygen from reaching the brain. Blood clots in smaller brain vessels can only be treated with a singular clot-busting medication.

Following pioneering work completed by UC stroke researchers over the last 20 years, the trial examined if an additional medication can help break up blood clots better than the standard clot busting agent alone.

The MOST clinical trial tested the effect of additional blood thinners (argatroban and eptifibatide) to see if their additional use could improve patient outcomes. All patients received standard of care clot-busting medications and then were randomly selected to receive one of two additional therapies or to receive a placebo infusion.

The study had an adaptive design that called for an independent review of outcomes after the first 500 out of a planned 1,200 participants were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the first 500 patients, because early results showed it was highly unlikely that the extra blood thinners could lead to better patient outcomes if the research continued.

“I think this study was well-designed and the answers were definitive,” said coauthor Stacie Demel, DO, PhD, associate professor in UC’s College of Medicine and a UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute physician. “Thankfully the addition of these medications did not cause harm to patients, but we know now that they did not help patients either. As a field, we now have an answer to the question that we’ve been asking for years.”

Demel noted the standardization of endovascular therapy (EVT) in addition to clot-busting medications just prior to the start of the trial may have contributed to the outcome. EVT is a minimally invasive stroke procedure that removes blood clots from large vessels in the brain.

“I think it is getting harder to show benefit of anything more effective than EVT,” Demel said. “EVT is really good at taking clots out, restoring and reperfusing the brain. It’s hard to show something more effective than that.”

Former UC faculty member Opeolu Adeoye, MD, now BJC HealthCare professor and chair in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, was lead author of the published research.   Other UC coauthors on the research include Joseph Broderick, Pooja Khatri, Arthur Pancioli, Achala Vagal, Melissa Hoffman, Iris Davis and Noor Sabagha.

Featured photo at top of illustration of brain with stroke symptoms. Photo/PeterSchreiber.media/iStock.

• Clinical Research
• College of Medicine
• Academic Health Center
• UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute
• Neurology & Rehabilitation Medicine

Related Stories

Uc trial tests tongue exercises to improve swallowing function after stroke.

January 9, 2024

A new trial at the University of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience Institute, funded by a $660,000 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, will test an at-home tongue endurance exercise to improve patients’ swallowing function after a stroke.

Learning more about how cancer affects stroke risk

October 16, 2023

A collaborative team led by University of Cincinnati, University of North Carolina and Duke University researchers is studying how specific cancers and treatments affect patients' risk of stroke.

Collaborative University of Cincinnati Cancer Center team opens Phase 2 brain tumor trial

March 26, 2024

A multidisciplinary team of University of Cincinnati Cancer Center researchers have opened a Phase 2 clinical trial to test a new combination treatment for glioblastomas, the most deadly form of brain tumors.