difference between review and research papers

Differences Between Review Paper and Research Paper

A research paper includes original work while a review paper includes the summary of existing work which explains or solves a specific problem.

An integral part of a PhD dissertation or thesis is writing a research and review article, besides writing a thesis, proposal and synopsis. In addition, one also has to publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal which is indeed a tougher task, right!

Writing is an indispensable part of the doctorate degree and has significant value in honoring the same degree. A student when becoming a PhD candidate has to write a thesis statement, research proposal, synopsis of the doctorate, thesis, research article and review article, in chronological order.

If one fails to do so, they can’t get a degree. And that’s why writing is important. Nonetheless, students face problems while writing either research or review articles.

Supportive evidence suggests that students actually don’t know the basic and major differences between either so fail to publish both article types.

In the present piece of content, I will explain the importance of a review and research article as well as the differences between both. I am hoping that this article will add value to your knowledge and help you in your PhD.

Stay tuned.

difference between review and research papers

What is a Review Paper?

What is a research paper, review vs research paper: differences, research article vs review article- similarities:, wrapping up: .

A review chapter or review articles add value to the thesis as well as existing knowledge. Universities are usually recommended to write and publish it. From students’ perspectives, review writing frightens them.

However, from a supervisors’ perspective, it should be precise, concise and nearly perfect.

Review writing is a tedious, frustrating and time-consuming process that needs special attention. The reason why it should be nearly perfect is that it supports researchers’ original work.

Technically, the review article comprises a summary of the existing research in a structured manner. Normally, it addresses the original research work and solves the existing problem by literature.

However, it can’t solve any existing problem, it doesn’t need wet-lab experimentation. It only shows the existing state of understanding of a topic. Notedly, an expert of the subject, experienced person, professor and professional scientist can usually write a review.

A research paper/article contributes original research or work of a researcher on the present topic, usually includes web lab work. Much like the review, a research article should be published in a peer-reviewed journal too.

Research article writing takes too much time as it includes research work additionally. Comprehensive writing is required to explain the materials & methods section and results & outcomes while the elaborative explanation is sufficient to introduce a topic.

Structurally a typical research article or paper has an introduction or background, Materials & Methods, Results & discussion and conclusion.

Depending upon the requirement of the journal and the depth or concentration of the research, the length of the article may vary, however, ordinarily is between 2 to 8 pages.

Much like the review article, an abstract and a list of references must be included in the article.

In summary, the research paper provides new knowledge in the relevant field and solves an existing problem by it.

Now quickly move to the important part of this article, what are the differences between the review and research paper?

A review article is certainly a comprehensive, in-depth and extensively well-written piece of information covering summaries of already present knowledge. While the research article constitutes an elaborative introduction of the topic and an in-depth explanation of how the research was conducted. It contributes new knowledge.

A review is written based on the already existing information and so considered as a secondary source of information, while the research paper has original research work supported by already existing sources.

In terms of length, a review article has an in-depth explanation and so are longer, normally, 10 to 20 pages whilst the research article has an elaborative explanation and to the point information on the problem, usually ranging from 2 to 8 pages.

The review article addresses the problem whilst the research article solves the problem, certainly.

The conclusion of the review article supports the already present findings while the result of the research article is supported by the existing research work.

The purpose of writing a research paper is to critically analyze already existing or previous work in the form of short summaries. And restricted to a specific topic.

On the other side, the research article includes the author’s own work in detail

Structurally, the review article has a single heading or sometimes a conclusion at the end of the article whilst the research article has sections like an introduction to the topic, materials & methods, results, discussion and final interpretation.

Steps in review article writing are,

Topic finding
Searching relevant sources
Summarising each source
Correlating them with the topic or problem
Concluding the research.

Steps in research article writing are,

Choosing a problem or gap in present findings
Sample collection, experimentation and wet lab work
Finding, collecting and organizing the data
Correlating it with the present knowledge
Stating results
Final interpretation.

Normally, a subject expert or experienced person can write a review article while any student, or person having the original research work can write a research article.

The review article defines or clarifies a problem, explains it by compiling previous investigations and suggests problem-solving strategies or options. On the other hand, the research article has an original problem-solving statement supported by various chapters and previous research.

So the review article suggests possible outcomes to fill the knowledge gap while the research article provides evidence and new knowledge on how to fill the gap.

Summary:

Either document has been written for a different purpose which solves almost the same objective. Fortunately, there are several similarities in writing a research or review article. Hera re some,

Both have in-text citations, a references page, an abstract and contributors. Both also need a final conclusion too in order to address or solve a problem.

Research or review articles can be submitted or published in peer-reviewed journals.

Both require educational, professional, informal and research writing skills.

Importantly, both articles must be plagiarism-free, copying isn’t recommended.

Every PhD student must have written at least a single review and research article during their research or doctoral tenure to get an award. Achieving a successful publication needs critical writing skills and original research or findings.

The major difference between either is that the review article has summed information that directs one towards solving a problem and so does not include original work.

Whilst the research article actually proposes a way to solve a problem and so has original work.

Dr. Tushar Chauhan is a Scientist, Blogger and Scientific-writer. He has completed PhD in Genetics. Dr. Chauhan is a PhD coach and tutor.

About The Author

Dr Tushar Chauhan

Difference between M.D vs PhD

Doctorate vs PhD- differences and similarities

Review vs. Research Articles

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

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

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

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

Review Papers

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

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

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

Systematic Review Papers

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

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

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

Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed

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

Interesting
Scholarships
UGC-CARE Journals

Research Paper Vs Review Paper | 50 Differences

50 Differences Between Research Article and a Review Article

difference between research paper vs review papaer.png

A research paper is a piece of writing that reports facts, data, and other information on a specific topic. It is usually longer than a review paper and includes a detailed evaluation of the research. Whereas, a review paper is a shorter piece of writing that summarizes and evaluates the research on a specific topic. It is usually shorter than a research paper and does not include a detailed evaluation of the research. In this article, we have listed the 50 important differences between a review paper vs research article.

A research paper is typically much longer than a review paper.
A research paper is typically more detailed and comprehensive than a review paper.
A research paper is typically more focused on a specific topic than a review paper.
A research paper is typically more analytical and critical than a review paper.
A research paper is typically more objective than a review paper.
A research paper is typically written by one or more authors, while a review paper may be written by a single author.
A research paper is typically peer-reviewed, while a review paper may not be.
A research paper is typically published in a scholarly journal, while a review paper may be published in a variety of different publications.
The audience for a research paper is typically other scholars, while the audience for a review paper may be the general public.
The purpose of a research paper is typically to contribute to the scholarly literature, while the purpose of a review paper may be to provide an overview of the literature or to evaluate a particular research study.
The structure of a research paper is typically more complex than the structure of a review paper.
A research paper typically includes an abstract, while a review paper may not.
A research paper typically includes a literature review, while a review paper may not.
A research paper typically includes a methodology section, while a review paper may not.
A research paper typically includes results and discussion sections, while a review paper may not.
A research paper typically includes a conclusion, while a review paper may not.
A research paper is typically organized around a central research question , while a review paper may be organized around a central theme.
A research paper typically uses primary sources, while a review paper may use both primary and secondary sources.
A research paper is typically based on empirical research, while a review paper may be based on either empirical or non-empirical research.
A research paper is typically more formal than a review paper.
A research paper is typically written in the third person, while a review paper may be written in the first person.
A research paper typically uses formal language, while a review paper may use more informal language.
A research paper is typically objective in tone, while a review paper may be more subjective in tone.
A research paper typically uses APA style, while a review paper may use a different style.
A research paper typically includes a title page, while a review paper may not.
A research paper typically includes an abstract on the title page, while a review paper may not.
A research paper typically includes keywords on the title page, while a review paper may not.
A research paper typically includes an author note, while a review paper may not.
A research paper is typically organized around a central research question, while a review paper may be organized around a central theme.
A research paper is typically longer than a review paper.

I hope, this article would help you to know the differences between Research Paper and a Review Paper.

Also Read: What is a Research Design? Importance and Types

difference between research paper vs review papaer

Difference between
evaluation review paper
Research Paper

What is a Research Design? Importance and Types

Z-library is legal you can download 70,000,000+ scientific articles for free, top scopus indexed journals in aviation and aerospace engineering, email subscription.

iLovePhD is a research education website to know updated research-related information. It helps researchers to find top journals for publishing research articles and get an easy manual for research tools. The main aim of this website is to help Ph.D. scholars who are working in various domains to get more valuable ideas to carry out their research. Learn the current groundbreaking research activities around the world, love the process of getting a Ph.D.

WhatsApp Channel

Join iLovePhD WhatsApp Channel Now!

Artificial intelligence

What is the Difference between a Research Paper and a Review Paper?

What is the difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis?

Review of the Journal’s Editing: Current State and Future Plans

Original research is the foundation of a research paper. Experiments, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, and other types of analysis may be used depending on the field or subject. Still, authors must collect and analyse raw data and perform an original report. The study and interpretation of this data will be the foundation of the research paper. A review article, also known as a review paper, is a piece of writing focused on previously published papers. It does not include any new studies. In general, review papers summarise the existing literature on a subject to clarify the current state of knowledge on the subject.

Introduction  

The terms “review paper” and “research paper” are not interchangeable. Both have similar characteristics and may even be related, but some variations exist. For Example, the research paper is an academic writing style in which the student must respond to an important, systematic, and theoretical level of questioning. Similarly, a review paper allows students to interpret what they have learned about the subject matter to demonstrate a thorough understanding by writing. For Example, it can be up to 5,000 words long and come in various formats (1) .

Research paper  

Regardless of the topic, a research paper has a basic structure: the title page, table of contents, introduction/background information, literature review, methodology, findings, discussion, and conclusions/recommendations. Individually these parts have their own set of writing guidelines. The framework is usually the same regardless of the issue question under investigation. This form of paper typically necessitates a significant amount of time for study and writing. There are several different study forms, each with its own characteristics based on data collection methods , such as interviews, observations, questionnaires, surveys, and experiments. Dependent on the volume and complication of the problem question, the analysis may take anything from a day to years, depending on the hypothesis and intent of the study. 

Review paper  

On the other hand, a review paper is used to assess students’ awareness after they have learned a few topics. For Example, following the completion of a specific theme, students may be asked to compose an essay, take a test, or complete a task related to that theme. In addition, students are expected to write review papers to show that they have acquired the necessary knowledge and skills in a particular topic. 

A review paper may be written in a critical essay on a current or common topic. The student or research scholar must provide their point of view on the subject while still showing an accurate and concise understanding of the topic when it is structured in this way. The article should have some convincing points and proof or data to back them up. Generally, a review paper is written to demonstrate that a student has studied or gained knowledge of a specific topic. The review paper is usually handed in at the end of the semester and accounts for a significant portion of the final exam. The length of a review paper is generally between 3,000 and 5,000 words (2) .

The key features of a Research paper   

This type of scholarly writing entails delving into a subject concept to address a specific theoretical question. A standard text is 5,000 words long, although it is often longer. The student is expected to interpret and thoroughly analyse knowledge on a given subject. It can be assigned at any time, but most instructors assign it at the start of the semester to give students ample time to collect Information and draft their papers. This type of paper often includes the compilation of primary data and its subsequent analysis. 

The Key Features of a Review Paper  

A student writes this paper to illustrate their understanding of a specific topic. The job is generally between 3,000 and 5,000 words long. A chosen topic should be thoroughly investigated, and the writer should express their viewpoint on the subject at hand. This assignment is typically assigned at the end of the semester and directly impacts the final grade. Scholarly journals, academic works , lab papers, and textbooks should be used as references for the review paper.

The Differences between these research and review papers  

Despite this, there are certain similarities between the two assignments. First, students should choose a subject that picks their interest in each case. They use the same tools, and the paper structures can be pretty similar. The main distinction between these two types of academic writing is that a research paper can be assigned at any time and does not usually count against a student’s final grade. Another consideration for writing teachers is that a research paper often includes a hypothesis, while a review paper typically supports a thesis assertion. 

Furthermore, a research paper typically includes a lengthy list of references. On the other hand, the review paper assignment usually is shorter and does not have a conclusion. Another critical distinction between a research paper and a review paper is that a research paper encourages students to participate in problem-solving activities. In contrast, a review paper assesses the student’s expertise rather than necessarily solving the problem (3) .

Conclusion  

The review and the research paper are types of writing in which the first is based on the second. Both are essential parts of literature and writing since they give readers a better understanding of the topic. Reviews and research papers can be obtained from a variety of outlets. Both are different in terms of duration and material. These papers must adhere to a set of guidelines. Anyone wishing to join the world of writing must possess strong reading and analytical abilities, which will aid in writing the review and research article. 

About pubrica

Pubrica’s team of researchers and authors develop Scientific and medical research papers that can act as an indispensable tools to the practitioner/authors. Pubrica medical writers help you to write and edit the introduction by introducing the reader to the shortcomings or empty spaces in the identified research field. Our experts know the structure that follows the broad topic, the problem, and the background and advance to a narrow topic to state the hypothesis. 

pubrica-academy

What are the suggestions given by peer reviewers in the introduction section of the original research article?

theoretical framework and conceptual framework (2)

Is there a difference between the theoretical framework and conceptual framework of the study?

Give an Example of Studies that used the QUADAS-2 tool?

Comments are closed.

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review

How is a literature review different from a research paper?

What should I do before starting my literature review?
What type of literature review should I write and how should I organize it?
What should I be aware of while writing the literature review?
For more information on Literature Reviews
More Research Help

The purpose of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument. The literature review is one part of a research paper. In a research paper, you use the literature review as a foundation and as support for the new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and analyze the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

<< Previous: What is a literature review
Next: What should I do before starting my literature review? >>
Last Updated: Feb 26, 2021 11:35 AM
URL: https://midway.libguides.com/LiteratureReview

RESEARCH HELP

Research Guides
Databases A-Z
Journal Search
Citation Help

LIBRARY SERVICES

Accessibility
Interlibrary Loan
Study Rooms

INSTRUCTION SUPPORT

Course Reserves
Library Instruction
Little Memorial Library
512 East Stephens Street
859.846.5316
[email protected]

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

Roughly how many sources should you include?
What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
Should you evaluate your sources?
Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Master Your Homework
Do My Homework

The Contrasts Between Research and Review Papers

Research and review papers are two common types of academic writing, but they have distinct differences that need to be understood in order to produce the most effective work. Research papers involve an exploration into a particular topic or field of study, while review papers provide summaries and critiques of existing research on a given subject. These distinctions must be taken into account when considering the purpose and structure of both forms of scholarly discourse. This article will examine each type more closely, discussing their respective features as well as highlighting areas where authors can improve in terms of creating effective works for either category.

I. Introduction to Research and Review Papers

Ii. comparison of structure between research and review papers, iii. differences in content for research vs. review papers, iv. distinctions in language used for each type of paper, v. in-depth analysis of the purposes served by each paper type, vi. advantages and disadvantages between a research & review approach, vii conclusion: summarizing the contrasts between two types of writing.

What are Research and Review Papers? Research papers and review papers can both be academic documents, yet they differ in terms of purpose. A research paper is typically longer than a review paper and strives to explore an original thought or concept within its respective field of study. To write a successful research paper, it must present evidence that clearly demonstrates the researcher’s claims, which could include statistics as well as facts from reliable sources such as books, articles or published interviews.

A review paper on the other hand is shorter but more comprehensive in scope compared to a research paper; it focuses on summarizing relevant information about previously conducted studies pertaining to its respective field without introducing any new ideas into the mix. Its main aim is for readers to gain better understanding about what has been already discussed by experts on their topics of interest. Additionally, this type of document often contains critical evaluation methods so that readers have access to various perspectives when formulating their own conclusions.

Research Paper : Longer format aimed at exploring original thought/concept.
Review Paper : Shorter format with focus on summarizing previously discussed work.

Structure Differences Research papers and review papers may seem quite similar at a glance, but upon closer inspection there are several key differences in the structure of these two types of documents. Let’s dive into some of these distinctions to gain better insight into both paper forms.

In comparison to research papers, which usually seek out new information or build on existing facts, reviews present an opinion-based discussion about published works.
Research papers tend to be longer than reviews since they involve data gathering and analysis while reviews include only summaries and critique.

.Additionally, as research looks for solutions to problems it often contains recommendations that outline potential future directions whereas a review tends not to contain such advice due its summary nature. The language style used in each type is also distinct with research requiring more technical terms while reviews utilize everyday language making them easier for general readership. Finally, though references from primary sources are expected in both cases, the list associated with a review will typically be smaller given the summarizing format .

The differences between research and review papers can be quite complex. When writing either type of paper, there are several important distinctions to keep in mind.

Research Papers

Research papers focus on the author’s original work, such as experiments or analysis of data sets. It typically involves collecting information from existing sources and analyzing it to provide insight into a specific problem. The results of this research should then be summarized, compared with previous studies related to the topic, and discussed thoroughly.

Review Papers

It is true that when it comes to writing an academic paper, the language used can vary greatly depending on its type. Research papers and review papers are two distinct types of documents with their own unique features.

Research Papers : These scholarly works require a more analytical approach in which the writer examines existing research and makes deductions from these findings. To create persuasive arguments for his or her ideas, the author must be adept at using jargon associated with their field as well as incorporating facts from credible sources. Furthermore, effective use of rhetorical devices such as appeals to logic should also be utilized.
Review Papers : In comparison to research papers, review papers entail summarizing already published work instead of investigating new topics. As such, they typically employ simpler language than what would normally be seen in a research paper while including references directly related to its subject matter. The goal here is not only providing an objective summary but also providing insights into how different aspects are interconnected.

The world of research and academia is characterized by the use of different paper types. Each one serves its own unique purpose, so understanding them all can be immensely beneficial for any scholar or student. Research Papers offer a platform to dive deep into an issue, displaying knowledge on the subject while investigating further areas that require attention. While they may include personal observations and assumptions, most parts rely heavily on factual evidence gathered from established sources.

In contrast to this are Review Papers . These documents serve as compilations of existing literature in a certain field; including relevant books, articles and other publications put together in order to provide readers with an informed overview about the topic being discussed. As such, these papers tend not to focus too much on introducing new ideas but rather exploring already known theories more thoroughly.

Research & Review: Pros and Cons

When conducting academic research, there is a debate as to which approach yields the most comprehensive results – a Research or Review paper? While each has its own merits, it’s essential for scholars to identify the differences between these two types of papers. One key difference lies in their objectives; with research papers being focused on developing new knowledge from original sources whereas review articles are written to synthesize existing literature about a given topic. As such, when composing research work more time must be taken into investigating fresh material compared to that required for producing reviews. This can lead to drawbacks if the data collection process becomes overly lengthy or costly. An advantage associated with writing reviews is its improved accessibility since they often contain concise summaries of diverse topics rather than single experiments/studies conducted by one author as featured in typical research articles. It can also provide an efficient way for scientists studying similar subjects within different disciplines towards discovering previously unknown connections between them – helping accelerate progress in their field even further! Additionally, reviewing is beneficial for novice researchers trying their hand at making sense out of complex data.

In conclusion then while both approaches have distinct strengths and weaknesses related outcomes will depend heavily upon how well authors apply them suitably according relevant contexts. Experienced writers need only discern carefully what kind of article best meets their needs before taking any decision either way!

At its core, the contrast between a research paper and a review paper comes down to scope. A research paper is focused on original work while reviews are concerned with compiling existing evidence and summarizing it in an accessible format.

Research Papers : Research papers provide new insights into a topic or field of study through fresh investigation. They involve gathering primary data (through interviews, experiments) or secondary sources like journal articles. Additionally, they tend to require extensive literature reviews that explore prior studies related to the author’s chosen area of inquiry.
Review Papers: On the other hand, review papers take already published results as their starting point and aim to synthesize them by analyzing various aspects such as methodologies employed by different authors in similar fields of inquiry; assumptions made when designing studies; implications for future practice; emerging trends etc., offering readers comprehensive insight into current understanding about certain topics within limited spaces.

In conclusion, writing either type of paper requires rigorous analysis combined with creative thinking skills but at differing levels depending on whether one is researching from scratch or reviewing what has been done previously. While both types carry equal importance due to their distinct purposes in academia – providing raw knowledge versus neatly packaged summaries respectively – ultimately there can be no denying that each plays its own unique role towards advancing human thought overall!

English: The contrast between research and review papers is an important concept to understand when writing scholarly work. While both are forms of academic writings, they each bring a unique set of characteristics that need to be considered in order for the paper’s purpose to be effectively met. By understanding how research and review papers differ from one another, authors can better craft their pieces with insight into the nuances between them. As this article has illustrated, doing so will allow authors to produce higher-quality works that achieve their intended goals more successfully.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
ScientificWorldJournal
v.2024; 2024
PMC10807936

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Ayodeji amobonye.

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

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

Japareng Lalung

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

Santhosh Pillai

Associated data.

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

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

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

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

3. Types of Review Articles

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

3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

3.2. Systematic Reviews

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

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

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

3.3. Meta-Analysis

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

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

3.4. Bibliometric Review

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

3.5. Patent Review

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

4. Searching Literature

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

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

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

5. Structuring the Review Article

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

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

5.2. Abstract

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

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

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

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

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

5.4. Keywords

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

5.5. Introduction

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

5.6. Methodology

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

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

5.7. Main Body of the Review

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

5.8. Tables and Figures

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

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

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

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

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

5.10. References

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

6. Concluding Remarks

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

Acknowledgments

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

Data Availability

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Trending Now
Foundational Courses
Data Science
Practice Problem
Machine Learning
System Design
DevOps Tutorial
Difference Between Hadoop and MapReduce
ChatGPT vs Google BARD - Top Differences That You Should Know
Difference Between Blu-Ray and DVD
Difference Between Machine Language and Assembly Language
Difference Between Public Cloud and Private Cloud
What is Google Crowdsource and How One Can Contribute to this?
Difference Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence
Difference Between Small Data and Big Data
Difference between Buffering and Caching in OS
Difference Between Hadoop and HBase
Difference between Classification and Clustering in DBMS
Difference Between Hadoop and Splunk
Difference between T-SQL and PL-SQL
Difference Between Hadoop and Spark
Difference Between Hadoop and Hive
Difference between Data Scientist and Data Engineer
Difference between Monitor and Television
Difference between Indirect and Implied Addressing Modes
Best Free and Public DNS Servers of 2024

Difference between Research Paper and Review Paper

Scholarly literature can be of different types. Many of them require researchers to perform an original study, whereas others are based on previously published research. Amateur researchers have quite a confusion understanding each type of scholarly literature and the difference between them.

Research Paper

When researchers partake in an original study or investigation of a unique topic, for example, a study of the prevalence of substance abuse in a specific community or geographical area, the findings of that study are presented as a research paper. The most essential component of a research paper is the analysis of the topic, evidence to support the study and the conclusion of the study. It can comprise of the answer to the reach question and may include a hypothesis, the resource requirement for the study and the method followed to reach the conclusion. The formatting of a research paper is fairly similar across all subjects and institutions, though it can vary from one region to another depending upon the pattern laid down by the publishing and educational bodies. This scholarly work is unique and bears no similarity to any other published work. Analysis of the data can vary from the use of software to authentic experiments.

Review Paper

Review papers are universal and can be focused upon a wide range of mediums, including articles in journals, books, magazines, and software. A review paper refers to the study and survey of a recently published Research paper on a specific topic or subject. For instance, climate change due to industrial waste has many scholarly Research paper. these papers can be reviewed by any other number of scholars for its merits. In order to write a review paper successfully, one needs to have knowledge of what other scholars have written on the subject and their thoughts on the subject, particularly in recent times. the reach papers act as a reference and source material for these review papers. These can be stimulating and extremely exhaustive with the intent for undertaking research by introducing challenging materials and facts. It should act as a summary of the original research paper with all its relevant literature on the topic.

Key differences between the Research paper and Review paper are given in the table below:

Please Login to comment...

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Difference Between | Descriptive Analysis and Comparisons

Search form, difference between research paper and review paper.

Key Difference: The primary difference between a research paper and a review paper is that a research paper is based on the author’s original research and their analysis and interpretation of their research finishing, whereas a review paper collects and collates information on a particular topic from various different written publications.

A research paper involves writing about research that one has conducted themselves. It includes the parameters involved in the research as well as their analysis and interpretation of the research.

Writing a research paper involves many different steps such as selecting a topic, creating a hypothesis, doing research, testing the hypothesis, making conclusions, and writing a paper supporting or disproving the hypothesis.

A review paper, on the other hand, involves collection information from a variety of different sources. These sources can be primary or secondary. Primary sources can be people who have conducted research and have first hand information, whereas secondary sources are papers and documents that have covered the topic on hand.

A review paper collects and combines information from these various sources and presents in all in one place. The benefit of this that it makes information regarding a particular topic easier to find and reference. A student may be asked to support an argument or a hypothesis in a review paper by citing various works and sources of information.

Review papers can be categorized into three different types: -

Narrative – which collects and attempts to explain any and all existing knowledge on a particular topic. It is based on research that is already conducted and published by someone else.
Systematic – in which one searches all existing scientific literature on a topic and tries to find an answer to a particular question or problem.
Meta-analysis – which compares and combines the findings of previously published studies. It is usually done in order to assess the effectiveness of an intervention or mode of treatment.

The job of a research paper is for one to be able to present new ideas and new information which can hep move science ahead, whereas a review paper allows one to combine ideas by collecting information from various sources, which makes information easier to find and refer to.

Comparison between Research Paper and Review Paper:

Add new comment

SMU Libraries
Scholarship & Research
Teaching & Learning
Bridwell Library
Business Library
DeGolyer Library
Fondren Library
Hamon Arts Library
Underwood Law Library
Fort Burgwin Library
Exhibits & Digital Collections
SMU Scholar
Special Collections & Archives
Connect With Us
Research Guides by Subject
How Do I . . . ? Guides
Find Your Librarian
Writing Support

Types of Research Papers: Overview

Types of Research Questions

A research paper is simply a piece of writing that uses outside sources. There are different types of research papers with varying purposes and expectations for sourcing.

While this guide explains those differences broadly, disciplines and assignments vary. Ask your professor for clarification on the purpose, types of appropriate research questions , and expectations of sources for your assignment.

Need More Help?

Related guides.

Literature Reviews
Annotated Bibliographies
Starting Your Research

Research and Writing Lab

Need last minute help but didn't book an appointment? Every week we offer online drop-in labs.

Tuesdays 3:00pm - 4:30pm via Zoom @ https://smu.zoom.us/j/92637892352 and in-person, Fondren Red 1st floor (near elevators)

Next: Types of Research Questions >>
Last Updated: Apr 22, 2024 1:10 PM
URL: https://guides.smu.edu/researchpapertypes

IMAGES

Research Paper vs. Review Paper: How to Distinguish?
Research Paper vs. Review Paper: Differences Between Research Papers
Differences Between Review Paper and Research Paper
Research Paper vs. Review: 5 Main Differences
Research Paper Vs Review Paper
5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper

VIDEO

Difference between Research paper and a review. Which one is more important?
Difference between Review, Revision &appeal.......#lexlitigator #legal #legalupdates #law
How to Make Table of Contents for Review Paper ?
Diffrence between Review, Revision and Appeal
court appeal difference between review and appeal #shortvideo
Difference between Survey paper Vs Review Article Vs Research Paper

COMMENTS

5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
Scholarly literature can be of different types; some of which require that researchers conduct an original study, whereas others can be based on existing research. One of the most popular Q&As led us to conclude that of all the types of scholarly literature, researchers are most confused by the differences between a research paper and a review paper. This infographic explains the five main ...
What is the difference between research papers and review papers
Here are four key differences between research papers and review papers: Purpose: Review papers evaluate existing research, identify trends, and discuss the current state of knowledge on a specific topic; they are based on the study of previously published literature. On the other hand, research paperscontain original research work undertaken ...
What is the difference between a research paper and a review paper
The research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of this data. A review article or review paper is based on other published articles. It does not report original research. Review articles generally summarize the existing literature on a topic in an attempt to explain the current state of understanding on the topic.
Comparing Research and Review Papers: Key Differences
Distinguishing Between Research and Review Papers. Both research and review papers are used for academic purposes, however they differ in purpose and writing style. The primary difference between the two is that a research paper involves original investigation of a subject, while a review paper summarises already-existing information about it.
Review Paper vs. Research Paper: Main Differences
These are the main differences, however, there may be others: A research paper is usually more detailed and thorough than a review paper. A research paper is usually peer-reviewed, but a review paper is not always. In general, a research paper is more formal than a review paper. A research paper's tone is normally objective, but a review ...
Difference between a Research Paper and a Review Paper
The kind of research may vary depending on your field or the topic (experiments, survey, interview, questionnaire, etc.), but authors need to collect and analyze raw data and conduct an original study. The research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of this data. A review article or review paper is based on other published ...
Research and Review Papers: The Key Differences
Research papers and review papers are two distinct types of scholarly works, each with its own purpose. The primary difference between the two is that research papers aim to provide new insight into a given topic whereas review papers build upon existing knowledge by summarizing what has already been published on the subject.
The Difference Between Research and Review Papers
Research papers aim to present and explore a particular issue in depth, while review papers make an assessment of existing literature within the same field. Both have their own set of rules and requirements that need to be followed. Typically require students or academics to conduct independent research on a topic.
Review Paper vs. Research Paper
There are three key differences between a review paper and a research paper: purpose, structure, and timeframe. Purpose Review papers are a special type of paper that summarizes a body of research ...
Differences Between Review Paper and Research Paper
A research paper includes original work while a review paper includes the summary of existing work which explains or solves a specific problem. An integral part of a PhD dissertation or thesis is writing a research and review article, besides writing a thesis, proposal and synopsis. In addition, one also has to publish an article in a peer ...
Review vs. research articles
Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed. Many databases have special features that allow the searcher to restrict results to articles that match specific criteria. In other words, only articles of a certain type will be displayed in the search results. These "limiters" can be useful when searching for research or review articles ...
Research Paper Vs Review Paper
A research paper is typically objective in tone, while a review paper may be more subjective in tone. A research paper typically uses APA style, while a review paper may use a different style. A research paper typically includes a title page, while a review paper may not. A research paper typically includes an abstract on the title page, while ...
Research Paper vs. Review Paper: Differences Between Research Papers
The differences between a research paper and a review paper in the purpose, structure, and timeframe of writing it.Scientific Research Paper Checklist: https...
What is the difference between a review paper and a research paper?
Welcome to Academia SE. I have to disagree with your definitions. A research paper does not need to be based on an experiment (e.g., many mathematical papers). Also, a paper which does not describe (or derive) its results and discussions is just a very bad paper - this has nothing to do with the paper being a research or review paper.
What is the Difference between a Research Paper and a Review ...
Another critical distinction between a research paper and a review paper is that a research paper encourages students to participate in problem-solving activities. In contrast, a review paper assesses the student's expertise rather than necessarily solving the problem (3). Research paper. Review paper.
How is a literature review different from a research paper?
The literature review is one part of a research paper. In a research paper, you use the literature review as a foundation and as support for the new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and analyze the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.
Literature Reviews
But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper? The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute.
The Contrasts Between Research and Review Papers
Research and review papers are two common types of academic writing, but they have distinct differences that need to be understood in order to produce the most effective work. Research papers involve an exploration into a particular topic or field of study, while review papers provide summaries and critiques of existing research on a given subject.
Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for
An ideal review article should be logically structured and efficiently utilise illustrations, in the form of tables and figures, to convey the key findings and relationships in the study. According to Tay , illustrations often take a secondary role in review papers when compared to primary research papers which are focused on illustrations ...
Difference between Research Paper and Review Paper
Key differences between the Research paper and Review paper are given in the table below: Attributes. Research Paper. Review Paper. Purpose. Its purpose is to report a detailed description of the original research study that is unique and specific to a subject. Its purpose is to critic and analyze a published literature on a specific topic. Basis.
How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Difference between Research Paper and Review Paper
Tweet. Key Difference: The primary difference between a research paper and a review paper is that a research paper is based on the author's original research and their analysis and interpretation of their research finishing, whereas a review paper collects and collates information on a particular topic from various different written publications.
Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses
To help with shaping up the review, a researcher might wish to form a research team or alternatively enlist the help of colleagues or advisors to guide the scope of the literature review, the review process and the triangulation of key decisions (Briner and Denyer, 2012). While systematic reviews can be completed by an individual researcher, a ...
Overview
Types of Research Papers: Overview. Overview. Types of Research Questions. A research paper is simply a piece of writing that uses outside sources. There are different types of research papers with varying purposes and expectations for sourcing. While this guide explains those differences broadly, disciplines and assignments vary.

Differences Between Review Paper and Research Paper

What is a Review Paper?

Share this:

About The Author

Dr Tushar Chauhan

Difference between M.D vs PhD

Doctorate vs PhD- differences and similarities

Review vs. Research Articles

Review Papers

Systematic Review Papers

Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed

Research Paper Vs Review Paper | 50 Differences

Table of contents

What is a Research Design? Importance and Types

WhatsApp Channel

What is the Difference between a Research Paper and a Review Paper?

What is the difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis?

Review of the Journal’s Editing: Current State and Future Plans

Introduction

Conclusion

About pubrica

pubrica-academy

What are the suggestions given by peer reviewers in the introduction section of the original research article?

Is there a difference between the theoretical framework and conceptual framework of the study?

Give an Example of Studies that used the QUADAS-2 tool?

How to Write a Literature Review

How is a literature review different from a research paper?

Literature Reviews

Introduction

What is a literature review, then?

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

Why do we write literature reviews?

Who writes these things, anyway?

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

Find models

Narrow your topic

Consider whether your sources are current

Strategies for writing the literature review

Convey it to your reader

Consider organization

Begin composing

Use evidence

Be selective

Use quotes sparingly

Summarize and synthesize

Keep your own voice

Use caution when paraphrasing

Revise, revise, revise

Works consulted

The Contrasts Between Research and Review Papers

I. Introduction to Research and Review Papers

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Japareng Lalung

Santhosh Pillai

1. Introduction

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

3. Types of Review Articles

3.1. Narrative Reviews

3.2. Systematic Reviews

3.3. Meta-Analysis

3.4. Bibliometric Review

3.5. Patent Review

4. Searching Literature

5. Structuring the Review Article

5.2. Abstract

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

5.4. Keywords

5.5. Introduction

5.6. Methodology

5.7. Main Body of the Review

5.8. Tables and Figures

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

5.10. References

6. Concluding Remarks

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Difference between Research Paper and Review Paper

Research Paper

Review Paper

Please Login to comment...

Introduction  

Conclusion  