Review article
[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.
Survey articles are however considered tertiary sources, since they do not provide additional analysis and synthesis of new conclusions.
Review articles teach about: A meta-study summarizes a large number of already published experimental or epidemiological studies and provides statistical analysis of their result.
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.
Common methods used to analyse selected research articles include text mining, citation, co-citation analysis, and topic modelling.
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.
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.
The discussion section of the article presents multiple perspectives, stating limitations and potential extensions of the study being reviewed.
[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.
"[11] Reference management software such as Papers, EndNote, and Zotero are useful for when it comes to actually structuring and writing your review article.
[12] They were born out of the necessity to categorise and make sense of the ongoing plethora of research publications being released annually.
[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.
[15] Review articles in academic journals analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results.
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.
[3] There are currently no studies commenting on the effect of review articles on the impactfullness of journals that usually only publish research papers.
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.
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] 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).
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.
