Hubbry Logo
Review articleReview articleMain
Open search
Review article
Community hub
Review article
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Review article
Review article
Review article
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Research
A laptop computer next to archival materials
Research design
Research strategy
Philosophical schools
Methodology
Methods
Tools and software
Philosophy portal

A review article is a journal article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic within a certain discipline.[1][2] A review article is generally considered a secondary source since it may analyze and discuss the method and conclusions in previously published studies. It resembles a survey article or, in news publishing, overview article, which also surveys and summarizes previously published primary and secondary sources, instead of reporting new facts and results. Survey articles are however considered tertiary sources, since they do not provide additional analysis and synthesis of new conclusions. A review of such sources is often referred to as a tertiary review.

Academic publications that specialize in review articles are known as review journals. Review journals have their own requirements for the review articles they accept, so review articles may vary slightly depending on the journal they are being submitted to.

Review articles teach about:

  • the main people working in a field
  • recent major advances and discoveries
  • significant gaps in the research
  • current debates
  • suggestions of where research might go next

A meta-study summarizes a large number of already published experimental or epidemiological studies and provides statistical analysis of their result.

Review articles have increased in impact and relevance alongside the increase in the amount of research that needs to be synthesised.[3] They are a concise way of collating information for practitioners or academics that are not able to read the plethora of original research that is being published.

Categories

[edit]

There are various categories of review articles, including narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis. Review articles do not introduce new results, but rather state existing results, drawing conclusions on the results presented. Review articles can be categorised by using the same domain, underlying theory, or research method.[4] Sometimes these categories overlap.

Narrative reviews describe the published information on a theme or topic, but often does not include the methodological process involved in researching the topic. This can lead to narrative review articles being biased, missing important theoretical details pertaining to the original research, and innovative suggestions to further develop the field through further studies.[5]

A systematic review is more detailed and structured than a narrative review. It details the aims, hypothesis, and research method clearly so as to remain transparent and neutral.[6] This review format adheres to explicit criteria when selecting what research is included in the review. Common methods used to analyse selected research articles include text mining, citation, co-citation analysis, and topic modelling. These types of reviews also include a discussion on the theoretical implications of such research. Systematic reviews are more highly regarded and selected than narrative reviews due to their specificity and neutrality.[5] In the field of clinical research, the Cochrane organisation publishes systematic reviews (called Cochrane Reviews) on healthcare topics in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.[7]

A meta-analysis summarises quantitative results from a variety of research articles on a chosen topic. Given that these articles are formulating conclusions from multiple data sets, meta-analyses adhere to specific guidelines stipulated by the journals where they are published.[5] A meta-analysis lends itself more to statistical research, often converting the original research into one common metric referred to as "effect sizes", so as to easily identify patterns and anomalies among publications. Systematic reviews may include meta-analysis results.[6] The first edition of the Handbook of Research Synthesis aided the development of various analysis techniques that could be used in systematic review articles, thereby developing this form of literature.[6]

Exemplar of Alzheimer's Disease review article

Structure of a review article

[edit]

Review articles initially identify the scope and aim.[4] If submitting the review article to a journal, the author must familiarise themselves with the theme of the journal as well as its conditions for submission. Some journals only accept review articles whereas others strictly publish original research.[8] Once the scope of the journal the author intends to submit to is identified, then identify the own personal scope and aim for the article. Experienced author, Angus Crake emphasises the need to define a scope that is "manageable, not too large or small" and to "focus on recent advances if the field is well established". This equates to a succinct, refreshing review article that adds a new perspective to the field whilst still being grounded in academia.

When finding sources, it is ideal to search through multiple databases and search engines. This ensures a wide berth of knowledge that presents multiple perspectives and allows for a reasonably balanced article. Some disciplines encourage the use of certain search engines. For example, science-based review articles heavily utilise Medline, Embase and CINAHL.

The title, abstract and keywords chosen bring awareness to the audience of the article, and should describe what the article is about. Search engine optimisation is important when publishing articles within a discipline where the literature is already saturated.

Like most academic articles, a review article includes an 'abstract' at the start. The 'Abstract' section of the review article should include: a synopsis of the topic being discussed or the issue studied, an overview of the study participants used in the empirical study being reviewed, a discussion of the results found and conclusions drawn by the scholars conducting the study, an explanation of how such findings have already or could potentially impact the theory and practice within the relevant discipline.[9] Within this section, context and the relevance of the review is included. The jargon used will depend on the intended audience.

The discussion section of the article presents multiple perspectives, stating limitations and potential extensions of the study being reviewed.[4] Also, within this section, similarities and dissonances among studies are stated.

The presentation of both the shortcomings and advancements of the research papers under review is important for comprehensiveness.[4] Daft (1985, p 198) emphasised this by saying "Previous work is always vulnerable. Criticising is easy, and of little value; it is more important to explain how research builds upon previous findings rather than to claim previous research is inadequate and incompetent."[10] Within this section of the review article is the suggestion of improvements and areas to further extend the research in reference.[11] The bibliography included at the end of review articles is equally important as it leads to further information on the study being discussed and is a way for academics and students alike to further their research. These are secondary sources.[12] Meyers and Sinding say,

"... The review selects from these (research) papers, juxtaposes them, and puts them in a narrative that holds them together… clearly the best reviews are not only concerned with what was done in the past, but also present a means to sculpt the future."[11]

Method of research

[edit]

Reference management software such as Papers, EndNote, and Zotero are useful for when it comes to actually structuring and writing your review article.[13]

Peer review process

[edit]

The process of review articles being peer-reviewed is critical to their credibility.[9] The peer review process is a way to ensure the article is as polished and accurate as possible. Most often, those reviewing the article are fellow academics or experts within the field under discussion in the paper. Sending out a peer review allows for gaps in the paper to be acknowledged so that the review can be as well-informed and comprehensive as possible. Peers will often recommend other research articles and studies to be included in the review, which can add strength to the article. Confusion amongst peers also indicates that your paper is not clear or lacking synergy.[14]

Relevance within academic literature

[edit]

A key aim of review articles is to pose other potential avenues of research, stating the limitations of the empirical studies under review and how future studies of the same nature can be improved.[2] They also present findings of other studies within the same discipline, comparing results and drawing conclusions based on each individual finding.[15] Essentially, they are an evaluation of already published academic research.

Review articles do not introduce new results, but reiterate existing results and draw conclusions on the results presented across many research articles.[11] Review articles hold importance as they forecast to see new research opportunities by synthesising the existing research and identifying gaps in this research.[12] They were born out of the necessity to categorise and make sense of the ongoing plethora of research publications being released annually. Between 1991 and 2008, there were forty times more papers published within the field of biodiversity alone.[16] This overload of research papers makes it difficult for scientists and clinicians to remain up to date on current findings and developments within their discipline.

Difference from a research article

[edit]

Research articles form the basis of review articles. Review articles use the original information presented in research articles to draw conclusions and pose suggestions for future research.[17]

Research and empirical articles are reporting the results of the author's study, thereby deeming it a primary source. They often include raw data and statistics, using the words participants, sample, subjects, and experiment frequently throughout. Review articles are academic but are not empirical. As opposed to presenting the results of a study (which would be a research article), review articles evaluate the results of already published studies.[15]

Key differences between review articles and research articles
  • A research article presents original information from the perspective of the author, whereas a review article analyses that statement and information.
  • A research article presents original content, whereas a review article synthesises that content and makes sense of it within the context of the discipline.
  • A research article has more narrow parameters on what is included (often depending on the journal it is being pitched to), whereas a review article is more open, being able to incorporate multiple research papers albeit still being contained within journal guidelines.[18]

Academic publishing

[edit]

Review articles in academic journals analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results.[19][17] An expert's opinion is valuable, but an expert's assessment of the literature can be more valuable. When reading individual articles, readers could miss features that are apparent to an expert clinician-researcher. Readers benefit from the expert's explanation and assessment of the validity and applicability of individual studies.[20]

Review articles come in the form of literature reviews and, more specifically, systematic reviews; both are a form of secondary literature.[21] Literature reviews provide a summary of what the authors believe are the best and most relevant prior publications. Systematic reviews determine an objective list of criteria, and find all previously published original papers that meet the criteria; they then compare the results presented in these papers.

Some academic journals likewise specialize in review of a field; they are known as review journals.

The concept of "review article" is separate from the concept of peer-reviewed literature. A review article, even one that is requested or "peer-invited", will be either peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed depending on how submissions are treated.[22][23]

Impact

[edit]

According to a 2021 study in the American Sociological Review, "papers cited by formal review articles generally experience a dramatic loss in future citations. Typically, the review gets cited instead of the specific articles mentioned in the review." The study identifies an exception to this trend: articles that are characterized by the review as being bridges between clusters of scholarship tend to get disproportionate future attention.[24] An analysis was conducted by McAlister et al. of review articles in six different medical journals. Of the six journals, less than 25% included a description, evaluation, or synthesis of evidence that had been provided. Only one-third of the articles had a clinical topic at the forefront, and only half of the articles presented quantitative data that support the suggestions made at the end of the piece.

Historically, review journals have a higher impact than primary research journals.[25] The year 2006 showed the top 10 most impactful journals to be compiled exclusively of review articles. In addition to this, review articles are cited more frequently than research articles.[3] There are currently no studies commenting on the effect of review articles on the impactfullness of journals that usually only publish research papers. This prevents one from saying with certainty that review articles could replace original research papers in large journals. Of the 538 review articles published in pathology journals within the year 2005, a mere 21% of them have been cited over ten times following their issuance. Furthermore, in a 2000-2006 comparison of journals; The American Journal of Pathology, The Journal of Pathology, and Laboratory Investigation, published both with and without review articles included, it was found that journals published with review articles had a greater impact on readers than those that did not include review articles.[26]

In terms of the growth of review articles, the rate has been exponential.[27] The number of papers on the topic of 'pathology' has increased 2.3 times between the years 1991 to 2006. Within the science discipline, the number of review articles in the Science Citation Index increased from 14,815 to 45,829 between 1991 and 2005. Following the same trend, the number of dedicated review journals within the Science Citation Index database grew from 163 to 198 between 1999 and 2006. Although, the percentage of review articles in review journals that formed the foundation of review literature decreased by 17% between 1999 and 2005.[8] This indicates that most review articles are being allocated to original research journals as opposed to strictly review journals. This is also dependent on the quality of the review articles published.

Separate to the quality of articles, the number of review articles published poses its own challenge to those searching for succinct but comprehensive research analysis. This makes it just as difficult for experts to navigate through the synthesised review articles as it is to sift through the primary research itself. Additionally, the inclusion of poorly referenced, inadequately researched, and overly biased review articles serve to muddy the water and make it even harder to determine quality writing.[15]

Social, behavioural and health science disciplines

[edit]

Following the release of the Handbook of Research Synthesis, the use of review articles within the social, behavioural and health science disciplines has proliferated. 2007 statistics showed that systematic review articles were produced at a rate of 2,500 per year on the MEDLINE platform (Moher et al., 2007). The increase in prevalence of review articles within these disciplines can be attributed to the pull towards "evidence-based practice". This term was coined by Sackett (2000) and refers to the combination of available research, practitioner expertise, and consumer values. Due to the inundation of original research in the field, there is a need for review articles which highlight relevant studies, results and trends.[4] The varying methods and participants used among original research studies can provide inconsistent results, thereby presenting a challenge in synthesising information using one common metric. The conjunction of meta-analyses and systematic reviews has proven to be more effective in organising data and drawing conclusions, especially when it comes to clinical trials within the medical field.[6]

See also

[edit]
  • Case series, sometimes called a clinical review because it reviews or summarizes the records for a series of patients at a single medical clinic
  • Living review

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Review article

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A review article, also known as a or survey article, is a scholarly publication that synthesizes and critically evaluates existing research on a specific topic within an , providing an overview of current knowledge, highlighting key findings, and identifying gaps for future investigation. Unlike original research articles, which report new empirical data, review articles compile and analyze previously published studies to offer a comprehensive perspective without conducting new experiments. The primary purposes of review articles include updating readers on the latest developments in a field, preventing redundant research by clarifying resolved questions, and guiding new studies by pointing out unresolved issues or controversies. They serve as secondary sources that bridge theoretical foundations with practical applications, often influencing , , or further by consolidating from diverse studies. In , review articles are highly valued for their role in advancing knowledge synthesis, with high-impact journals like Nature Reviews or Annual Review of specializing in them to disseminate authoritative overviews. Review articles vary in methodology and scope, with common types including narrative reviews, which provide a broad, descriptive summary of without strict protocols; systematic reviews, which use rigorous, reproducible methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant studies on a question, often including meta-analyses for quantitative integration; and scoping reviews, which map the extent and nature of research on emerging or complex topics. Other variants, such as umbrella reviews that synthesize multiple systematic reviews or rapid reviews for time-sensitive needs, cater to specific goals like evidence-based decision-making in or . The choice of type depends on the research question's breadth, available evidence, and intended audience, ensuring reviews remain objective and comprehensive. Structurally, review articles typically begin with an introduction outlining the topic's significance, followed by a body that organizes thematically or chronologically, and conclude with discussions of implications and recommendations. They undergo to maintain scholarly rigor, contributing to their citation impact—review articles often receive more citations than original due to their syntheses serving as foundational references. Overall, review articles play a pivotal in scientific progress by distilling vast information into accessible insights, fostering interdisciplinary connections, and shaping the direction of ongoing .

Definition and Types

Definition

A review article is a scholarly publication that synthesizes, analyzes, and critically evaluates existing on a specific topic or , without introducing new empirical or original experiments. Unlike primary articles, it aims to consolidate diverse sources into a coherent overview, highlighting key findings, methodologies, and debates within the field. This form of writing serves as a foundational tool in academic disciplines, particularly in sciences, , and social sciences, where the volume of published necessitates periodic synthesis. Review articles emerged in the with the proliferation of scientific journals, as the growing body of primary literature required mechanisms for summarization and contextualization. This development paralleled the of , enabling researchers to navigate an increasingly complex knowledge landscape without the need for exhaustive personal searches. The primary purposes of a review article include summarizing the current state of knowledge on a topic, identifying gaps or inconsistencies in the , providing essential for ongoing and future research, and guiding practitioners in applying established findings. By offering an unbiased and systematic assessment, these articles help funding bodies prioritize areas needing investigation and assist educators in . In scope, review articles can range from broad overviews that cover expansive themes to more focused thematic critiques examining specific sub-areas, typically spanning 5,000 to 20,000 words depending on the journal and discipline. Various types, such as or systematic reviews, further adapt this format to different analytical needs.

Types

Review articles encompass various types, each tailored to specific purposes in synthesizing and interpreting existing . These types differ in their methodological rigor, scope, and objectives, ranging from broad overviews to targeted analyses that inform theory or practice. Narrative reviews provide descriptive summaries of the literature on a topic, often incorporating the author's opinions and interpretations to offer a broad, non-exhaustive overview suitable for historical or conceptual explorations. They typically lack strict inclusion criteria and emphasize thematic or chronological synthesis rather than systematic appraisal. In the , narrative reviews are commonly used for topics like , as seen in examinations of cultural and historical significance in fields such as Blue Humanities. Critical reviews involve in-depth evaluations of the strengths, weaknesses, biases, and conceptual contributions of existing studies, aiming to derive new hypotheses, models, or theoretical insights through rigorous . Unlike narrative reviews, they prioritize critical appraisal over mere description, often focusing on significant items to assess their impact and limitations. In , critical reviews are applied to assess drug , such as evaluating the benefits and harms in clinical trials to guide therapeutic decisions. Scoping reviews map the extent, nature, and distribution of available on emerging or broad topics, identifying key concepts, sources of , and knowledge gaps without conducting deep critical synthesis or assessments. They employ a preliminary, tabular approach to clarify terminology and assess the feasibility of future in-depth reviews, typically involving team-based efforts to minimize . This type is particularly useful for informing agendas or on underdeveloped areas. Systematic reviews use rigorous, reproducible methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific , often including meta-analyses to quantitatively integrate data and assess heterogeneity. They aim to minimize through predefined protocols, comprehensive searches, and quality assessments, providing high-level for clinical guidelines or . In sciences, systematic reviews are common for evaluating interventions, such as the efficacy of treatments for chronic diseases. Integrative reviews synthesize diverse sources, including both qualitative and quantitative data from experimental and non-experimental studies, to generate new frameworks, theories, or perspectives on a . They follow a structured of problem identification, comprehensive literature search, data evaluation, and narrative integration, making them applicable to interdisciplinary fields like for analyzing methodological issues or defining concepts.

Structure and Components

Overall Structure

A review article typically follows a logical organizational framework designed to guide readers through the synthesis of existing literature on a specific topic, ensuring clarity and comprehensive coverage. This structure emphasizes a progression from contextual setup to critical analysis and forward-looking insights, distinguishing it from original research by focusing on integration rather than new data generation. The introduction provides essential background on the topic, articulates the rationale for conducting the —such as addressing gaps or consolidating fragmented —and clearly states the objectives and scope. It orients readers, often non-specialists, by explaining the field's significance and outlining the key themes to be explored, while avoiding excessive technical jargon. The body forms the core of the article, thematically organizing the literature to demonstrate evolution, connections, and divergences in the research. This section may be structured chronologically to trace historical developments, thematically to group related concepts, or methodologically to compare approaches across studies, with subheadings facilitating navigation. It critically evaluates primary sources, highlighting strengths, limitations, and interconnections rather than merely summarizing. A methods section is typically included in systematic and scoping reviews to describe the literature search strategy, including databases used, keywords, time frame, and inclusion/exclusion criteria, promoting transparency and reproducibility. In narrative reviews, such a section is rare or absent. The discussion synthesizes findings from the body, identifying overarching trends, controversies, unresolved gaps, and broader implications for theory, practice, or policy. It integrates insights across themes, often contrasting conflicting results and proposing conceptual frameworks to unify the literature. The conclusion recaps the primary insights, reiterates the review's contributions, and offers recommendations for future research, such as unexplored areas or methodological improvements. It avoids introducing new information, instead reinforcing the narrative's key takeaways. Review articles commonly include an abstract of 150–250 words summarizing the topic, objectives, main findings, and implications, followed by 4–8 keywords for indexing and discoverability. References typically range from 50 to 200 citations, drawing heavily from recent peer-reviewed sources to substantiate the synthesis, with formatting adhering to journal-specific styles like APA or Vancouver.

Key Components

Review articles incorporate literature synthesis through structured tables that distill key information from multiple studies, enabling readers to quickly compare methodologies, results, and implications across the field. These tables often feature columns for essential details such as author(s), publication year, study methods, sample size, key findings, and limitations, providing a concise yet comprehensive overview that highlights patterns, contradictions, or gaps in the existing research. For instance, in a review on climate change impacts, a table might summarize 20 studies by listing each author's name and year alongside their analytical approach (e.g., modeling vs. observational) and primary outcomes (e.g., rise projections). This approach not only aids in synthesizing diverse but also enhances the article's analytical depth by facilitating cross-study comparisons. Visual aids play a crucial role in clarifying complex narratives within review articles, with figures such as flowcharts depicting the literature selection process and timelines illustrating the historical evolution of a topic. In systematic reviews, the PRISMA flow diagram serves as a standard visual tool, outlining phases like identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of studies, which promotes transparency and reproducibility. Timelines, meanwhile, map milestones in research development—for example, plotting key publications and breakthroughs in from the to the present—helping readers grasp temporal dynamics and progress. These elements improve accessibility and engagement without overwhelming the text. Effective citation practices are foundational to review articles, requiring balanced referencing that draws from a wide array of sources to prevent bias and ensure comprehensive coverage of the literature. Authors must avoid over-citing supportive works while neglecting contradictory evidence, a practice known as citation bias, which can distort scholarly interpretations; instead, citations should proportionally represent diverse viewpoints, methodologies, and geographic origins. Reference management tools like facilitate this by allowing efficient organization, searching, and formatting of hundreds of citations, integrating seamlessly with word processors to generate bibliographies in various styles. Such tools streamline the process while upholding rigor. Ethical considerations underpin the credibility of articles, mandating explicit declarations of conflicts of interest to disclose any financial, personal, or professional ties that could influence the synthesis or interpretation of the . For applicable types, adherence to standardized reporting guidelines like PRISMA ensures transparent documentation of methods, results, and limitations, fostering trust in the work. These declarations and guidelines are typically stated in dedicated sections, aligning with broader publication standards. Supplementary materials extend the utility of review articles by housing detailed appendices, such as extended bibliographies beyond the main reference list or extractions from synthesized studies, which support deeper exploration without encumbering the primary narrative. These materials might include full datasets from meta-analyses or additional tables of excluded studies with rationale, accessible via online links or journal platforms to maintain completeness and verifiability.

Research and Writing Process

Research Methods

The research methods for compiling a review article vary by type, with systematic reviews employing rigorous, reproducible approaches and narrative or scoping reviews allowing more flexibility in literature selection. For systematic reviews, the process begins with a thorough literature search to identify relevant studies. Authors typically utilize specialized databases such as for biomedical literature, for multidisciplinary coverage, and for broad academic indexing to ensure comprehensive retrieval. Search strategies involve crafting precise queries using keywords related to the topic, combined with operators to refine results; for instance, combining terms like "climate change AND policy" narrows the focus to intersections of and , while "OR" broadens synonyms such as "global warming OR ." This approach allows reviewers to systematically explore peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and books, often supplemented by hand-searching reference lists of key papers to capture seminal works. In narrative reviews, searches are often more selective, guided by expert knowledge to provide a broad overview rather than exhaustive coverage. Once potential sources are identified in systematic reviews, authors establish clear to select high-quality, relevant literature. Inclusion criteria commonly emphasize direct to the review's scope, a specific date range such as publications post-2000 to reflect contemporary developments, and rigorous quality standards like peer-reviewed status or thresholds. Exclusion criteria, conversely, eliminate studies based on factors such as outdated methodologies, non-empirical content, or low methodological rigor, ensuring the corpus remains focused and credible. These criteria are predefined in a protocol to maintain transparency and , guiding the evaluation of thousands of initial hits down to a manageable set for deeper analysis. The screening process in systematic reviews follows a multi-stage protocol to efficiently filter sources. It starts with an initial of titles and abstracts to quickly discard irrelevant items, often conducted independently by multiple reviewers to minimize oversight. Promising candidates advance to full-text assessment, where methodological soundness and alignment with criteria are scrutinized in detail. Collaborative tools like Rayyan facilitate this by enabling blind screening, , and , particularly useful for team-based reviews handling large volumes. To address potential biases in the selected studies for systematic reviews, authors perform risk-of-bias assessments using validated instruments. The ROBINS-I tool, designed for non-randomized studies of interventions, evaluates domains such as , , and deviations from intended interventions, assigning ratings from low to critical risk. This step is crucial for and scoping reviews alike, as it informs the weighting of evidence and highlights limitations in the underlying research base, though less formally applied in non-systematic types. Scoping reviews map the literature using similar but broader searches to identify key concepts and sources, without the depth of quality appraisal seen in systematic reviews. Finally, for systematic reviews, the entire process is documented transparently to allow verification and replication. A PRISMA is commonly employed to visualize the search outcomes, illustrating stages such as the initial yield (e.g., 1,000 records from database searches), exclusions at each screening level, and the final included set (e.g., 50 studies), thereby providing a clear of decisions. This reporting standard enhances the review's methodological integrity and facilitates reader assessment of completeness. Narrative reviews may document searches more descriptively without such diagrams.

Writing Methods

Writing a review article involves synthesizing gathered into a coherent that advances scholarly understanding. Synthesis approaches vary depending on the review type, with thematic synthesis commonly used to group findings by recurring themes or patterns across studies, facilitating integration without quantitative aggregation. Meta-narrative synthesis, another approach, traces the historical of paradigms to highlight shifts in perspectives and methodologies over time. Framework analysis provides a structured method for mapping data onto predefined categories, enabling systematic comparison and interpretation of qualitative evidence. Narrative reviews often rely on descriptive summarization rather than formal synthesis methods. The authorial voice in review articles must balance objectivity—through evidence-based summaries—with critical analysis that evaluates strengths, limitations, and gaps in the literature, ensuring the work contributes novel insights rather than mere recapitulation. To maintain this balance, authors should avoid unsubstantiated opinions while rigorously assessing methodological rigor and contextual relevance across sources. Avoiding is essential, achieved through careful paraphrasing that rearticulates ideas in original wording while providing explicit attribution via citations, often verified using detection tools to keep similarity below 15%. Proper attribution not only upholds ethical standards but also underscores the synthesized nature of the review. The revision process typically employs iterative drafting, where initial outlines evolve through multiple cycles of refinement to enhance logical flow and depth. Co-author peer feedback plays a crucial role, involving collaborative reviews to identify inconsistencies, strengthen arguments, and ensure comprehensive coverage before finalization. Clarity checks, such as reading aloud or using tools, further verify that the text remains engaging and comprehensible to a broad academic audience. Adherence to style guidelines is paramount, with formats like APA or dictating citation structure, headings, and reference lists to meet journal expectations. Word limits vary by publication but commonly constrain abstracts to 150–300 words and full articles to 5,000–10,000 words, necessitating concise expression without sacrificing substance. Common pitfalls include over-reliance on seminal works, which can skew coverage toward established ideas at the expense of emerging research; mitigation involves systematically including diverse sources from recent literature searches. Ignoring contradictory evidence risks presenting a biased , addressed by explicitly discussing discrepancies and their implications to foster a nuanced synthesis.

Publication and Evaluation

Peer Review Process

Upon submission to an , a review article undergoes initial screening by the editorial office to assess its fit within the journal's scope, , and basic quality. This stage often results in desk rejection for approximately 20–50% of submissions, primarily due to misalignment with the journal's focus or lack of novel contributions. If the passes initial screening, the editor selects 2–4 independent experts as peer reviewers, chosen for their expertise in the relevant field. Reviewer anonymity is commonly maintained through single-blind or double-blind processes, where the authors' identities may or may not be concealed from reviewers. Selection follows guidelines from the (COPE), emphasizing impartiality, conflict-of-interest declarations, and timely responses to invitations. Reviewers evaluate the article based on specific criteria tailored to review articles, including the comprehensiveness of the coverage, logical synthesis of existing , novelty of insights or perspectives offered, and methodological rigor in selecting and analyzing sources. They assess whether the review provides a balanced, critical account that identifies knowledge gaps and advances the field, while avoiding undue repetition of prior reviews. Feedback is constructive, focusing on clarity, structure, and potential biases. Following review, the editor synthesizes the comments and issues a decision: acceptance, minor revisions (typically addressing clarifications within 2–4 weeks), major revisions (requiring substantial changes and re-review, often 4–8 weeks total), or rejection. Authors respond to revisions point-by-point, and rejected manuscripts may be appealed if procedural errors or significant misunderstandings are evident, though success rates are low and limited to one appeal per article. Post-acceptance, the enters production, involving copyediting for language, style, and consistency, followed by by the authors to ensure accuracy before final publication. This phase typically takes 1–3 months, depending on the journal.

Publishing Pathways

articles are typically disseminated through established academic journals that specialize in synthesizing research, with authors selecting venues based on factors such as scope alignment, , and audience reach. Many articles are commissioned by journal editors to ensure alignment with the journal's needs, though unsolicited submissions are possible but may have lower rates. High-impact series like the Annual Review collections, which cover disciplines from to social sciences, prioritize comprehensive reviews that integrate primary for broad scholarly benefit. Similarly, discipline-specific journals such as Psychological Bulletin focus on meta-analyses and integrative reviews in , offering rigorous platforms for advancing field-wide understanding. Publishing options include traditional subscription models, where access is paywalled and funded by reader subscriptions or institutional licenses, versus open access (OA) approaches that prioritize immediate, free availability to enhance global dissemination. Gold OA, the full immediate-release model, often requires authors to pay article processing charges (APCs) ranging from approximately $2,000 to $5,000 to cover production and peer-review costs, while hybrid models allow selective OA articles within subscription journals. DOAJ-listed journals, which adhere to strict quality criteria including transparent peer review and licensing, provide benefits like increased visibility, higher download rates, and broader indexing in academic databases. Beyond journals, review articles can appear in alternative formats to reach diverse audiences or expedite sharing. Book chapters in edited volumes allow for in-depth explorations within thematic collections, often undergoing editorial review rather than full , and serve as syntheses for interdisciplinary readers. may include review-style overviews presented at specialized events, capturing timely syntheses in fields like or , though they typically receive lighter scrutiny than journal publications. Online platforms such as enable preprints of review articles, allowing authors to share drafts prior to formal publication for early feedback and citation accrual without . Copyright management plays a key role in publication, with many journals offering licenses to facilitate reuse and wider sharing while protecting authorship. The CC-BY license, for instance, permits distribution, adaptation, and commercial use as long as proper attribution is provided, promoting open scholarship and compliance with funder mandates. This approach contrasts with restrictive traditional copyrights, enabling reviews to influence policy, education, and further research more effectively. The timeline from submission to for review articles generally spans 6 to 12 months, encompassing , revisions, and production stages, with delays often longer in prestigious journals due to high submission volumes and thorough processes. Positive outcomes can accelerate acceptance, but overall duration varies by venue and field.

Differences from Original Research Articles

Review articles primarily aim to synthesize and critically evaluate existing on a specific topic, offering an integrated perspective on the state of knowledge, trends, and unresolved questions within a field, rather than generating new empirical . In contrast, original research articles focus on presenting findings derived from the authors' own investigations, contributing to advance scientific understanding through primary or experiments. This fundamental difference in purpose underscores the complementary roles these article types play in , with reviews providing context and originals driving discovery. Methodologically, review articles draw exclusively from secondary sources, employing techniques such as narrative synthesis, , or chronological organization to integrate insights from prior studies, without conducting new experiments, surveys, or observations. Original articles, however, utilize empirical approaches—including controlled experiments, observational studies, or computational simulations—to collect and analyze primary , ensuring through detailed protocols. These methodological distinctions highlight reviews' role in consolidation versus originals' emphasis on and validation. In terms of structure, original research articles commonly adhere to the format—Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion—to systematically report the study's design, execution, outcomes, and implications. Review articles deviate from this rigidity, typically featuring an introduction outlining the scope, body sections grouped by themes or subtopics with critical appraisals of the , and a conclusion highlighting knowledge gaps and future directions. Reviews often incorporate more interpretive discussion to connect disparate findings, while originals prioritize objective presentation of results. Review articles are generally longer, ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 words to accommodate comprehensive coverage, and rely on extensive bibliographies with 50 to 200 or more references to encompass the reviewed corpus. Original articles tend to be more concise, typically 3,000 to 8,000 words, with 20 to 50 citations primarily supporting the and contextualizing the new contributions. This disparity reflects the synthetic depth of reviews versus the focused reporting in originals. For example, a review article on AI ethics, such as "Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI " by Corrêa et al. (2023), synthesizes global policies through without new data. Conversely, an original research article like "Flash: Fast and Memory-Efficient Exact with IO-Awareness" by Dao et al. (2022) reports experimental benchmarks on a novel algorithm's performance in transformer models.

Differences from Systematic Reviews

Review articles, commonly known as or traditional reviews, differ from systematic reviews in their methodological rigor and approach to synthesis. reviews are inherently selective and interpretive, drawing on the author's expertise to highlight key themes, trends, and debates within a body of without adhering to a rigid protocol. In contrast, systematic reviews employ a highly structured process, beginning with a clearly defined and predefined to ensure transparency and reproducibility. A hallmark of this rigor is the use of frameworks like PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome), which guides the formulation of the review question and the selection of studies from the planning stage onward. The scope and depth of literature searching further distinguish the two. Review articles typically sample a representative of the , focusing on seminal or illustrative works to provide an accessible , which allows for flexibility but risks incomplete coverage. Systematic reviews, however, prioritize comprehensiveness, conducting exhaustive searches across electronic databases, , and other sources to identify all potentially relevant studies, often minimizing through strategies like hand-searching reference lists. When quantitative data permit, systematic reviews incorporate to statistically pool results, enhancing the precision of findings beyond what synthesis can achieve. Bias control represents another key divergence. In review articles, author judgment plays a prominent role in selecting and interpreting studies, which can introduce subjectivity and , though this interpretive lens often fosters innovative insights. Systematic reviews mitigate such risks through objective tools and processes, including independent dual screening of studies and the application of evidence grading systems like GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), which systematically evaluates factors such as risk of , inconsistency, and imprecision to rate the overall certainty of evidence. Reporting standards also vary significantly. Review articles follow journal-specific guidelines without a universal framework, leading to heterogeneous presentation that emphasizes narrative flow over exhaustive detail. Systematic reviews, by design, adhere to standardized reporting checklists such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), which ensures complete disclosure of methods, results, and limitations through items like flow diagrams and risk-of-bias assessments. Furthermore, the methodological quality of systematic reviews can be appraised using tools like AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), which evaluates adherence to best practices across 16 domains. These differences influence their respective use cases in academia and practice. Review articles excel in exploratory contexts, such as emerging fields or conceptual discussions, where they identify knowledge gaps and stimulate future directions. Systematic reviews, with their emphasis on unbiased aggregation of , are indispensable for informing evidence-based policies, clinical guidelines, and , as exemplified by the Cochrane Library's database of over 15,000 systematic reviews (as of 2024) that underpin healthcare recommendations worldwide.

Role and Impact in Academia

Relevance in Scholarly Literature

Review articles play a foundational role in scholarly by consolidating vast bodies of existing into coherent syntheses, thereby serving as essential entry points for researchers navigating fields characterized by exponential growth. These articles compile, summarize, critique, and integrate prior studies, reducing the cognitive overload associated with fragmented and rapidly expanding bases, particularly in disciplines like business and management where annual output has surged dramatically. By providing holistic overviews, they facilitate theory development and enable newcomers to quickly grasp key advancements without sifting through thousands of primary sources. This consolidation not only advances cumulative but also ensures that foundational insights are accessible and reliable for ongoing scholarship. Beyond synthesis, review articles are instrumental in identifying research gaps and unanswered questions, which directly shape future agendas and influence such as grant funding. Through systematic evaluation of the , they highlight inconsistencies, understudied areas, and emerging needs, guiding funding organizations like the NIH in prioritizing research gaps to address unmet priorities. For instance, by mapping knowledge voids, reviews inform the development of national research agendas, as seen in guidelines where identified gaps from literature syntheses drive stakeholder-driven funding decisions. This gap-bridging function extends to policy formulation, where reviews provide evidence-based recommendations that steer public and private investments toward high-impact areas. In educational contexts, review articles hold significant value as core components of academic curricula, theses, and policy briefs, offering students and early-career scholars a structured pathway to engage with complex topics. They serve as authoritative starting points for literature reviews, helping learners evaluate theories and build conceptual models essential for advanced study. Instructors frequently incorporate them into syllabi to contextualize disciplinary debates, fostering and interdisciplinary awareness among undergraduates and graduates alike. Their synthesized format makes dense scholarship approachable, enhancing pedagogical efficiency in resource-constrained environments. Review articles often exhibit distinct citation patterns, functioning as central hubs in scholarly networks and accumulating citations at rates significantly higher than many original research papers—sometimes up to tenfold in certain fields due to their integrative authority. Analyses of millions of publications reveal that , especially those from prestigious series like Annual Reviews, draw subsequent citations toward themselves, consolidating influence within citation ecosystems while occasionally reducing visibility for some originals. This hub-like role amplifies their impact, as they are repeatedly referenced in subsequent works, reinforcing their status as pivotal nodes that connect disparate studies. Since the , review articles have evolved to play an increasingly vital role in interdisciplinary , bridging disciplinary amid rising demands for integrative approaches to complex problems. The surge in interdisciplinary citations during this period, coupled with policy pushes for cross-field collaboration, has elevated reviews as tools for synthesizing insights from multiple domains, such as in where they now routinely incorporate bibliometric methods to span fields. This evolution reflects broader trends in research funding and academic incentives favoring holistic perspectives, enabling reviews to address multifaceted challenges like that transcend traditional boundaries.

Impact Metrics and Influence

The influence of review articles is commonly assessed through citation-based metrics, which quantify their reach and impact within the scholarly community. For authors, the —a metric introduced by Hirsch in 2005 that finds the largest number h such that the author has h publications each cited at least h times—often benefits from review articles, as these works tend to accumulate citations at higher rates than original research due to their synthetic nature. For journals, the journal impact factor (JIF), calculated as the average number of citations received in a given year to articles published in the previous two years, is notably high for those specializing in reviews; for instance, Reviews of Modern Physics has a JIF of 45.9 as of the 2023 (released 2024). Altmetrics complement citation metrics by capturing non-traditional indicators of influence, such as shares, downloads, and mentions in documents. These are tracked by platforms like PlumX, which aggregates data from sources including , , blogs, and news outlets to provide a multifaceted view of a review article's and public engagement. For example, highly influential reviews in fields like climate science may garner thousands of scores through citations, reflecting their role in informing decision-making beyond academia. Review articles exert long-term influence by synthesizing knowledge and shaping scientific paradigms, often guiding future research directions for decades. More recent reviews, such as those on genomic editing technologies, similarly redefine fields by integrating emerging data and proposing conceptual frameworks. Despite their value, measuring impact through citations faces challenges, including toward positive findings, where studies with statistically significant or favorable results receive more citations than null or negative ones. Citation has been documented across biomedical literature, potentially skewing perceptions of evidence strength. To address such issues, initiatives like the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC), launched in 2017, promote unrestricted access to citation data, enabling more transparent and comprehensive analyses of influence without proprietary barriers. Quantitatively, in , review articles account for a disproportionate share of total citations compared to original research, often receiving about three times more citations per article in comparable fields (based on analyses up to ). Recent studies () indicate that while exact proportions vary, review articles remain a small but highly cited portion of biomedical output, with mislabeling rates around 1.9% in .

Applications in Disciplines

Natural and Physical Sciences

In the natural and physical sciences, review articles serve as critical syntheses of rapidly evolving , integrating theoretical frameworks, experimental , and methodological advancements to provide researchers with a cohesive of complex fields. These articles often emphasize the consolidation of interdisciplinary insights, enabling scientists to identify gaps, replicate protocols, and pivot toward novel hypotheses without sifting through thousands of primary publications. Unlike more narrative-driven reviews in other disciplines, those in STEM prioritize precision and , frequently drawing on quantitative models and empirical benchmarks to substantiate trends. In physics and chemistry, review articles frequently focus on theoretical syntheses that bridge fundamental principles with practical applications, such as the development of . For instance, publications in Chemical Reviews have synthesized progress in , detailing their synthesis routes, structural properties, and potential in and , as seen in comprehensive overviews of chemistry that highlight controlled fabrication techniques and their theoretical underpinnings. These reviews often integrate calculations to predict material behaviors, aiding chemists in designing experiments that align with computational predictions. Similarly, in physics, journals like Advances in Physics publish authoritative critiques on topics such as , consolidating theoretical models with observational data to forecast material innovations. Biology and earth sciences leverage review articles to emphasize experimental trends, particularly in synthesizing vast datasets from high-throughput technologies. In , journals such as Trends in Ecology & compile genomic data to trace evolutionary patterns, as exemplified by reviews on that analyze microbial and population-level adaptations under controlled conditions, revealing polygenic bases for traits like thermal tolerance. In earth sciences, these articles synthesize paleogenomic and climatic records to model responses, such as how genomic insights inform conservation strategies amid . This approach highlights replicable experimental protocols, from sequencing pipelines to field sampling, to guide large-scale studies. Review articles in these fields adopt a highly technical style, incorporating equations sparingly to clarify core concepts, such as Schrödinger equations in quantum mechanics overviews or logistic growth models in ecological syntheses, while prioritizing visual aids like phase diagrams and phylogenetic trees for clarity. Annual updates are common in dedicated series, such as the Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, which provides yearly snapshots of breakthroughs in solid-state phenomena, ensuring researchers stay abreast of incremental advances without annual exhaustive searches. This structured periodicity contrasts with ad-hoc reviews, fostering a rhythmic knowledge dissemination that supports grant proposals and curriculum development. A unique role of these review articles lies in guiding experimental design by consolidating protocols and highlighting scalable methodologies, thereby influencing hardware and infrastructure development. For example, reviews on have shaped hardware innovations by summarizing error-correction schemes and stability protocols, as detailed in analyses of superconducting and trapped-ion systems that informed scalable architectures at institutions like Princeton. Such syntheses reduce trial-and-error in labs, with consolidated benchmarks—such as coherence times exceeding 1 (as of 2025)—directly impacting prototype fabrication. Recent breakthroughs, including Princeton's 2025 development of a superconducting with three times longer coherence than prior bests, underscore how these reviews accelerate progress toward fault-tolerant systems. Post-2010, amid the , review articles have increasingly summarized computational modeling advancements, integrating with physical simulations to accelerate discoveries in natural sciences. This trend is evident in physics and chemistry, where neural network-based models now predict , as reviewed in bibliometric studies showing a surge in AI adoption across 333 research fields since 2010, with over 20% annual growth in hybrid physics-ML applications. In , these summaries address genomic modeling challenges, while earth sciences reviews incorporate AI-driven projections, emphasizing ethical to mitigate biases in predictive tools.

Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences

In the social, behavioral, and health sciences, review articles often serve as interpretive tools that synthesize diverse theoretical perspectives and empirical findings, emphasizing critiques rather than purely quantitative aggregation. Unlike more experimental disciplines, these fields adapt review methodologies to integrate qualitative data, stakeholder experiences, and contextual nuances, fostering interdisciplinary on and societal dynamics. In and , review articles frequently critique and evolve theories through narrative synthesis, highlighting evolving societal influences on mental and social processes. For instance, a 2020 review in the Annual Review of Psychology examined social media elements, ecologies, and effects, critiquing theories like social comparison and displacement while integrating studies to argue for nuanced impacts on , including among adolescents. Similarly, sociological reviews in journals like the Annual Review of Sociology have narratively dissected theories of inequality, such as those on racial dynamics, by weaving qualitative ethnographies with quantitative trends to challenge monolithic frameworks. In health sciences, review articles prioritize evidence synthesis to inform clinical and guidelines, often blending epidemiological data with behavioral insights for practical application. Overviews published in synthesize global evidence to recommend integrated strategies for non-communicable diseases, underscoring the role of reviews in bridging research and policy. These syntheses typically emphasize patient-centered outcomes, incorporating meta-narratives from diverse healthcare settings to guide evidence-based protocols. Review articles in these domains exhibit distinct stylistic emphases, placing greater weight on qualitative integration—such as of lived experiences—and ethical implications, including equity in research representation. Interdisciplinary approaches are common, drawing from fields like or to holistically address behavioral determinants; for example, reviews often incorporate ethical discussions on in vulnerable populations. Unique challenges in crafting these reviews include navigating cultural biases embedded in global literature, where Western-centric studies may overshadow indigenous perspectives, requiring authors to employ decolonial frameworks for balanced synthesis. Post-2020, there has been a surge in pandemic-related reviews, such as those analyzing behavioral responses to in behavioral science journals, which integrate to explore resilience and disparities across cultures. A notable impact of such reviews is their influence on policy formulation; for example, reviews since 2008, including seminal syntheses on in outlets like the Journal of Economic Perspectives, have shaped applications in , such as designing incentives for healthier behaviors in national health campaigns.

References

  1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359413346_What_Is_a_Review_Article_and_What_Are_Its_Purpose_Attributes_and_Goals
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4548566/
  3. https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/research-process/writing-a-good-review-article/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4695935/
  5. https://www.springernature.com/gp/librarians/products/journals/nature-research-journals/nature-reviews
  6. https://www.annualreviews.org/journal/psych
  7. https://laneguides.stanford.edu/types-of-reviews
  8. https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/sysreview/types
  9. https://subjectguides.uwaterloo.ca/c.php?g=695509&p=4933476
  10. https://karger.com/pps/article/91/3/152/826565/What-Is-a-Review-Article-and-What-Are-Its-Purpose
  11. https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/febs.16565
  12. https://www.nature.com/nature/history-of-nature
  13. https://royalsociety.org/journals/publishing-activities/publishing350/
  14. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4
  15. https://ojs.bonviewpress.com/index.php/jdsis/about/submissions
  16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
  17. https://unmc.libguides.com/literaturereviews/types
  18. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20530196251372128
  19. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_2-200506211-00006
  20. https://guides.hshsl.umaryland.edu/c.php?g=1426754&p=10584350
  21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
  22. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-024-00256-4
  23. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/writing-your-paper/how-to-write-review-article/
  24. https://einsteinmed.edu/uploadedFiles/education/student-affairs/Registrar/Format%20for%20a%20review%20paper%20%28attach%20to%20F204%29.pdf
  25. https://www.covidence.org/blog/how-to-write-the-methods-section-of-a-systematic-review/
  26. https://ebn.bmj.com/content/24/2/32
  27. https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/nursinglitreview/table
  28. https://www.prisma-statement.org/
  29. https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/literature-reviews/prisma-lr
  30. https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/citation-bias-questionable-research-practice-or-scientific-misconduct/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6013132/
  32. https://www.editage.com/insights/ethical-declarations-that-authors-should-provide-at-the-journal-submission-stage
  33. https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6157527/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5037943/
  36. https://laneguides.stanford.edu/LitSearch/step4
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6044655/
  38. https://musc.libguides.com/systematicreviews/eligibilitycriteria
  39. https://library.hmsom.edu/SystematicReviews/Screening
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9161508/
  41. https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i4919
  42. https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/risk-bias-non-randomized-studies-interventions
  43. https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-flow-diagram
  44. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15893056/
  46. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10807936/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3715443/
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4212376/
  50. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/give-your-academic-paper-its-best-chance-being-accepted
  51. https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amr.2022.0331
  52. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7055491/
  54. https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies/peer-review-policy-process
  55. https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ARN0151_Excellence-in-Peer-Review-review-checklist_final.pdf
  56. https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html
  57. https://www.editage.com/insights/how-many-peer-reviews-to-expect-before-publishing-how-long-do-they-take
  58. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/peer-review-appeals-and-complaints/
  59. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/submission-peer-review/peer-review.html
  60. https://www.editage.com/insights/what-are-the-chances-of-acceptance-of-a-review-article-that-has-not-been-requested-by-the-editor
  61. https://www.annualreviews.org/
  62. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/bul
  63. https://library.csi.cuny.edu/openaccess/APCs
  64. https://doaj.org/apply/why-index/
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_difference_between_conference_paper_journal_paper_and_book_chapter
  66. https://medium.com/@lennart.dde/peer-review-conferences-vs-journal-submissions-choosing-the-right-path-for-your-scientific-work-d2c0a5f626a5
  67. https://help.researchgate.net/hc/en-us/articles/14293104044177-Preprints
  68. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/
  69. https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/scholarly-publishing/creative-commons-licenses/
  70. https://andrewpwheeler.com/2018/05/09/the-length-it-takes-from-submission-to-publication/
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7283407/
  72. https://www.editage.com/insights/what-is-the-difference-between-a-research-paper-and-a-review-paper
  73. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/writing-your-paper/different-types-of-research-articles/
  74. https://library.bridgew.edu/c.php?g=339313&p=8235288
  75. https://libguides.umn.edu/StructureResearchPaper
  76. https://blog.wordvice.com/how-many-references-to-include-in-a-research-paper/
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389923002416
  78. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14135
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2647067/
  80. https://mcgill.libanswers.com/health-sciences/faq/211884
  81. https://www.cochrane.org/learn/courses-and-resources/cochrane-methodology/grade
  82. https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-024-02531-2
  83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
  84. https://doi.org/10.21467/exr.1.1.4293
  85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00729-1
  86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122421996323
  87. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/4/1/105/114565/Citation-metrics-covary-with-researchers
  88. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
  89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.297
  90. https://journals.aps.org/rmp/about
  91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.004
  92. https://i4oc.org/
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11474939/
  94. https://pubs.acs.org/journal/chreay
  95. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00566
  96. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.2c12759
  97. https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/tadp20/about-this-journal
  98. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/73/12/885/7424410
  99. https://academic.oup.com/evlett/article/4/1/4/6697503
  100. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/conmatphys/browse
  101. https://nanoconvergencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40580-024-00418-5
  102. https://research.princeton.edu/news/materials-advances-are-key-development-quantum-hardware
  103. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2025/11/05/princeton-puts-quantum-computing-fast-track-new-qubit
  104. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03644-x
  105. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.09145
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733322001275
  107. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02988-6
  108. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050944
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.