original research vs review article

SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

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

Original Research:

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

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

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

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

Case Studies:

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

Methodologies or Methods

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

Back │ Next

"How Do I?" @JWULibrary

Sample Question

JWU-Providence Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

35 about the library
29 articles & journals
1 Borrowing
9 citing sources
17 company & industry
11 computers
1 copyright compliance
5 countries & travel
2 course registration
10 culinary
51 databases
3 education
2 Interlibrary loan
5 job search
7 libguides
9 market research
25 my library account
12 requests
26 research basics
21 research topics
2 study rooms
16 technology
7 textbooks
42 university
3 video tutorial
1 writing_help

Answered By: Sarah Naomi Campbell Last Updated: Sep 07, 2018 Views: 215106

Watch this short video to learn about types of scholarly articles, including research articles and literature reviews!

Not in the mood for a video? Read on!

What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

Research articles , sometimes referred to as empirical or primary sources , report on original research. They will typically include sections such as an introduction, methods, results, and discussion.

Here is a more detailed explanation of research articles .

Review articles , sometimes called literature reviews or secondary sources , synthesize or analyze research already conducted in primary sources. They generally summarize the current state of research on a given topic.

Here is a more detailed explanation of review articles .

The video above was created by the Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries .

The defintions, and the linked detailed explanations, are paraphrased from the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , 6th ed .

The linked explanations are provided by the Mohawk Valley Community College Libraries .

Links & Files

How do I find empirical articles in the library databases?
Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 63 No 19

Comments (0)

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.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What are the differences between these kinds of articles: original, review, letter, and short communication?

I am interested in knowing, what are the differences between Original Paper, Review Paper, Letter and Short/ Rapid/ Brief Communication paper?

Thanks to everyone for reading and taking the time for the great responses.

publications
terminology
review-articles

2 Bear in mind that this will vary heavily between specific journals. – Andrew is gone Commented Nov 29, 2015 at 13:20
2 Most respected journals have specific authors instructions which guide you in defining these types of manuscripts. In clinical medicine there are also explicit reporting guidelines: equator-network.org – Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai Commented Feb 2, 2017 at 13:35

5 Answers 5

This will vary pretty heavily depending on the journal in question. But generally speaking, in broad strokes:

"Original Paper" - This is a generic term for a full-length, original research finding paper that doesn't fall into another specialized category.
"Review Paper" - This is a paper summarizing the state of research on a topic. These can often be somewhat long, are often but not always by invitation only, and this category can include meta-analysis, but doesn't have to. This may also be the umbrella that commentaries fall under, but again, not always.
"Short/Rapid/Brief Communication" - A shorter version of "Original Paper", whose methods, findings, etc. don't justify a full length paper. They still contain original findings, but are general much more straightforward.
Letters - Possibly even shorter original findings, field reports, single observations, etc. This can also include arguments about previously published papers, which involve either opinion pieces or snippets of contradictory or supporting research.

1 Note that for Nature, a Brief Communication Arising is not a research paper but usually critical comments on a Nature paper, typically accompanied by a response from the authors of the criticized paper. This is in contrast to a Letter , which is simply a short research paper. – Bitwise Commented Feb 2, 2017 at 14:15

"Original paper" is any research paper not falling into below categories. "Review paper" is that reporting a critical overview of recent articles in the field, can be very long, say, 30-40 journal pages. "Letter" is a short research paper, ca. 4 journal pages. "Communication" is essentially the same as "Letter", sporadically can contain comments (there is a specific genre called "Comments" as well) on some recently published paper in this journal.

Original research articles are detailed studies reporting original research conducted by the author. They include hypothesis, background study, methods, results, interpretation of findings, and a discussion of possible implications.

Review articles give an overview of existing literature in a field, often identifying specific problems or issues and analysing information from available published work on the topic with a balanced perspective. Review articles can be of three types, broadly speaking: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Short communications are usually a concise format used to report significant improvements to existing methods, a new practical application, or a new tool or resource. These need to be reported quickly as the need to communicate such findings is very high.

Letters are usually short and flexible articles that express readers' opinion on previously published articles, or provide evidence to support/oppose an existing viewpoint.

Downvoter: why? – Andrew Commented May 29, 2018 at 18:30

Original papers are extracted from researches that are innovative enough and have new and important achievements. All of d etails are given in these papers. They also have high scientific value.

Original artical is under good headings ,all headings that must be present in every original paper but review sometime have some heading missed like materials and methods but not always happen this ,the main difference is that study is rational , different areas result collecting together .The size of review artical is longer than original one.the short communication have not headings properly but all aspects are clear properly it is much comprehensive.

1 I recommend you to expand your answer and provide some references... typically authors instructions of journals provide clear guidance on this issue. – Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai Commented Feb 2, 2017 at 13:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications terminology review-articles ..

Featured on Meta
Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

Is it possible for Mathematica to output the name of a matrix as opposed to its matrix form?
What is the difference between a group representation and an isomorphism to GL(n,R)?
Protocol Used by the \oldstylenums Command to Display Digits
Older Zipp 303 tubular questions
PostGIS ST_ClusterDBSCAN returns NULL
What happens if you don't appear for jury duty for legitimate reasons in the state of California?
Are state and Federal Grand Jury proceedings, testimony and deliberations secret in perpetuity?
Does every proof need an axiom saying it works?
Transactional Replication - how to set up alerts/notification to send alerts before transaction log space is full on publisher?
What is the meaning of this black/white (likely non-traffic) sign seen on German highways?
Why is "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" considered meaningless?
Am I getting scammed? (Linking accounts to send money to someone's daughter)
What was the title and author of this children's book of mazes?
How to filter WFS by intersecting polygon
Can the laser light, in principle, take any wavelength in the EM spectrum?
Did the NES CPU save die area by omitting BCD?
Bibliographic references: “[19,31-33]”, “[33,19,31,32]” or “[33], [19], [31], [32]”?
Who is the "Sir Oracle" being referenced in "Dracula"?
How to get a lower bound of the ground state energy?
Would you be able to look directly at the Sun if it were a red giant?
Do sus24 chords exist?
How to display \time in terms of hours and minutes?
Bound states between neutrinos using Schrödinger's equation?
Chain slipping in 8th gear only

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.

Home » Review Article vs Research Article

Review Article vs Research Article

Table of Contents

Review articles and Research Articles are two different types of scholarly publications that serve distinct purposes in the academic literature.

Research Articles

A Research Article is a primary source that presents original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis. These articles typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Research articles often include detailed descriptions of the research design, data collection and analysis procedures, and the results of statistical tests. These articles are typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet rigorous scientific standards before publication.

Review Articles

A Review Article is a secondary source that summarizes and analyzes existing research on a particular topic or research question. These articles provide an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic, including a critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of previous research. Review articles often include a meta-analysis of the existing literature, which involves combining and analyzing data from multiple studies to draw more general conclusions about the research question or topic. Review articles are also typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they are comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date.

Difference Between Review Article and Research Article

Here are some key differences between review articles and research articles:

Aspect	Research Article	Review Article
	Present original research findings based on a research question or hypothesis	Summarize and analyze existing research on a particular topic or research question
	Standard sections including an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion	Depends on the journal and topic, but typically includes an introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion
	Describe the research design, data collection and analysis procedures, and results of statistical tests	Describe the methodology used to identify and analyze the literature
	Statistical analysis of data	Meta-analysis or systematic review of existing literature
	Presents original data collected through research	Does not present original data, but rather synthesizes and analyzes existing data
	Based on the results of the research conducted	Based on the analysis of existing literature
	Peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet rigorous scientific standards before publication	Peer-reviewed to ensure that they are comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date

In summary, research articles and review articles serve different purposes in the academic literature. Research articles present original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis, while review articles summarize and analyze existing research on a particular topic or research question. Both types of articles are typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet high standards of scientific rigor and accuracy.

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Primary Vs Secondary Research

Descriptive Statistics vs Inferential Statistics

Descriptive vs Inferential Statistics – All Key...

Correlational Research Vs Experimental Research

Research Hypothesis Vs Null Hypothesis

Inductive Vs Deductive Research

Market Research Vs Marketing Research

SUNY Oswego, Penfield Library
Resource Guides

Biological Sciences Research Guide

Primary research vs review article.

Research Starters
Citing Sources
Open Educational Resources
Peer Review
How to Read a Scientific Article
Conducting a Literature Review
Interlibrary Loan

Quick Links

Penfield Library
Research Guides
A-Z List of Databases & Indexes

Characteristics of a Primary Research Article

Goal is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge
Sometimes referred to as an empirical research article
Typically organized into sections that include: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, and References.

Example of a Primary Research Article:

Flockhart, D.T.T., Fitz-gerald, B., Brower, L.P., Derbyshire, R., Altizer, S., Hobson, K.A., … Norris, D.R., (2017). Migration distance as a selective episode for wing morphology in a migratory insect. Movement Ecology , 5(1), 1-9. doi: doi.org/10.1186/s40462-017-0098-9

Characteristics of a Review Article

Goal is to summarize important research on a particular topic and to represent the current body of knowledge about that topic.
Not intended to provide original research but to help draw connections between research studies that have previously been published.
Help the reader understand how current understanding of a topic has developed over time and identify gaps or inconsistencies that need further exploration.

Example of a Review Article:

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.oswego.edu/science/article/pii/S0960982218302537

<< Previous: Plagiarism
Next: Peer Review >>

Maxwell Library | Bridgewater State University

Today's Hours:

Maxwell Library
Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines
Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Where Do I Start?
How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles?
How Do I Compare Periodical Types?
Where Can I find More Information?

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Scholarly or research articles are written for experts in their fields. They are often peer-reviewed or reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication. They often have terminology or jargon that is field specific. They are generally lengthy articles. Social science and science scholarly articles have similar structures as do arts and humanities scholarly articles. Not all items in a scholarly journal are peer reviewed. For example, an editorial opinion items can be published in a scholarly journal but the article itself is not scholarly. Scholarly journals may include book reviews or other content that have not been peer reviewed.

Empirical Study: (Original or Primary) based on observation, experimentation, or study. Clinical trials, clinical case studies, and most meta-analyses are empirical studies.

Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include symptoms and diagnosis.

Clinical trials ( Health Research): Th ese articles are often based on large groups of people. They often include methods and control studies. They tend to be lengthy articles.

Opinion Piece: An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best.

Book review: Recent review of books in the field. They may be several pages but tend to be fairly short.

Social Science and Science Research Articles

The majority of social science and physical science articles include

Journal Title and Author
Abstract
Introduction with a hypothesis or thesis
Literature Review
Methods/Methodology
Results/Findings

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

In the Arts and Humanities, scholarly articles tend to be less formatted than in the social sciences and sciences. In the humanities, scholars are not conducting the same kinds of research experiments, but they are still using evidence to draw logical conclusions. Common sections of these articles include:

an Introduction
Discussion/Conclusion
works cited/References/Bibliography

Research versus Review Articles

6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers
INFOGRAPHIC: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
Michigan State University. Empirical vs Review Articles
UC Merced Library. Empirical & Review Articles
<< Previous: Where Do I Start?
Next: How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? >>
Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 10:48 AM
URL: https://library.bridgew.edu/scholarly

Phone: 508.531.1392 Text: 508.425.4096 Email: [email protected]

Feedback/Comments

Website Accessibility

Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review Articles

First Online: 02 March 2024

Cite this chapter

Kimberly M. Rathbun 5

25 Accesses

Manuscripts are used to communicate the findings of your work with other researchers. Writing your first manuscript can be a challenge. Journals provide guidelines to authors which should be followed closely. The three major types of articles (original research, case reports, and review articles) all generally follow the IMRAD format with slight variations in content. With planning and thought, manuscript writing does not have to be a daunting task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Emergency Medicine, AU/UGA Medical Partnership, Athens, GA, USA

Kimberly M. Rathbun

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly M. Rathbun .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Emergency Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Robert P. Olympia

Elizabeth Barrall Werley

Jeffrey S. Lubin

MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA

Kahyun Yoon-Flannery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Rathbun, K.M. (2023). Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review Articles. In: Olympia, R.P., Werley, E.B., Lubin, J.S., Yoon-Flannery, K. (eds) An Emergency Physician’s Path. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47873-4_80

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47873-4_80

Published : 02 March 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-47872-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-47873-4

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Loyola University Chicago Libraries

School of environmental sustainability (ses).

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

Research Article and Reviews defined

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

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

<< Previous: Help
Last Updated: Sep 22, 2023 10:31 AM
URL: https://libguides.luc.edu/environmentalscience

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

HONORS 400: Research Seminar

Getting Started
The Scientific Method
How to Read Scientific Articles

Research Articles

Mixed methods research, review articles, systematic review articles.

Quantitative vs Qualitative Research
Books About Research Process
Lit Review & Research Question
Research Design
Research Instrument
Find Articles, Reports & Documents
How do I find a Quantitative article?
Find Statistics
Find Poll & Survey Results
Evaluate Your Sources
Cite Your Sources

A research article describes an original study that the author(s) conducted themselves.

It will include a brief literature review, but the main focus of the article is to describe the theoretical approach, methods, and results of the authors' own study.

Look at the abstract or full text of the journal article and look for the following:

Was data collected?
Were there surveys, questionnaires, interviews, interventions (as in a clinical trial)?
Is there a population?
Is there an outline of the methodology used?
Are there findings or results?
Are there conclusions and a discussion of the significance?

A research article has a hypothesis, a method for testing the hypothesis, a population on which the hypothesis was tested, results or findings, and a discussion or conclusion.

"Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the purpose of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration."

Before you select which design you want to use, make sure you consider the timeline of your study, and when you want your strands of qualitative and quantitative research to occur.

Concurrent : Qualitative and quantitative data collection happens at the same time.
Sequential: The researcher implements the strands in two distinct phases.
Multiphase: The researcher does both concurrent and sequential data collection and analysis over a longer period of time.

Mixed Methods Designs

Convergent Parallel: Quantitative data collection and analysis and qualitative data collection and analysis occur at the same time and are then compared after the completion of the study.
Explanatory Sequential : Quantitative data collection and analysis occurs first, followed by qualitative data collection and analysis.
Exploratory Sequential : Qualitative data collection and analysis occurs first, followed by quantitative data collection and analysis.
Embedded: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected and analyzed concurrently within a quantitative design (ie experimental) or qualitative design (ie ethnography).
Transformative : Qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis can occur concurrently or sequentially; a transformative design allows the researcher to work within a specific theoretical based framework (ie feminist theory).
Multiphase: Separate quantitative and qualitative studies are conducted to gather data before a mixed methods study is conducted.

Definition from: Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research , 1(2), 112-133.

Review articles summarize the current state of research on a subject by organizing, synthesizing, and critically evaluating the relevant literature. They tell what is currently known about an area under study and place what is known in context. This allows the researcher to see how their particular study fits into a larger picture. Review articles are NOT original research articles. Instead, they are a summary of many other original research articles. When your instructor tells you to obtain an "original research article" or to use a primary source, do not use an article that says review. Review articles may include a bibliography that will lead you back to the primary research reported in the article.

A systematic review is an appraisal and synthesis of primary research papers using a rigorous and clearly documented methodology in both the search strategy and the selection of studies. This minimises bias in the results. The clear documentation of the process and the decisions made allow the review to be reproduced and updated.

Characteristics of a Systematic Review

A clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
An explicit, reproducible methodology
A systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria
An assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies, for example through the assessment of risk of bias
A systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies.

<< Previous: How to Read Scientific Articles
Next: Quantitative vs Qualitative Research >>
Last Updated: Oct 27, 2023 11:09 AM
URL: https://libguides.mssu.edu/honors400

This site is maintained by the librarians of George A. Spiva Library . If you have a question or comment about the Library's LibGuides, please contact the site administrator .

PSYC 200 Lab in Experimental Methods (Atlanta)

Find Research Articles

Empirical vs. Review Articles

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

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

Psychology Librarian

Know the difference between empirical and review articles.

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

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

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

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

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

Characteristics of an Empirical Article:

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

Type of publications that publish empirical studies:

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

Examples of such publications include:

Computers in Human Behavior
Journal of Educational Psychology

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

Web of Science

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

Know the difference between scholarly and non-scholarly articles.

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

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

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


Written by , like academics, scientists, scholars, etc.	Written by , such as journalists, bloggers, etc.
Written in the field.	Written .
Written with language.	, or will define any specialized terms.
Will include a of the sources that are cited.	, or may not have any citations.
Published in	Published in a .
Are often .	Are .

Helpful Links and Guides

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

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

Introduction to Coinbase

Overall Rating

How Coinbase Works

Pros and Cons
Trustworthiness

Coinbase vs. Other Crypto Exchanges

Why You Should Trust Us

Coinbase Review 2024: In-Depth Look at the Popular Crypto Exchange

Paid non-client promotion: Affiliate links for the products on this page are from partners that compensate us (see our advertiser disclosure with our list of partners for more details). However, our opinions are our own. See how we rate investing products to write unbiased product reviews.

Coinbase is one of the largest U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchanges for trading hundreds of popular coins and tokens. Sophisticated crypto-traders can use Coinbase's user-friendly interface, secure wallet storage, and powerful trading tools. However, its fees are high and may be confusing for beginners.

0.50% spread for buy/sell transactions; transaction fee from $0.99 to $2.99; up to 0.60% for Coinbase Pro and Coinbase Advanced Trade

Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Buy, sell, or store more than 170 cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and dogecoin
Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Educational investment resources, mobile access, digital storage, and customer support
Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Low account minimums
Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Can earn rewards for certain cryptocurrencies
Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Coinbase card lets you spend crypto or USD anywhere and earn crypto rewards; can deposit your paycheck into your account and convert from USD to crypto with no fees
con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Pay more for lower balances
con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. High trading and transaction fees
con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Limited staking options

Coinbase is one of the best investment platforms for crypto trading, staking rewards, and crypto storage. The crypto exchange offering nearly 250 coins and tokens and is great for active real investors who can utilize Coinbase's services, account options, and investment tools.

Promotion: Get $5 of bitcoin when you join Coinbase; earn up to $200 when you set up a new account and make your first purchase
Features: Coinbase Earn rewards, Coinbase Pro advanced account, user-controlled storage, stablecoins, staking, and institutional trading tools.
App store rating: 4.7 iOS/ 4.1 Android; Coinbase Pro: 4.7 iOS/ 4.1 Android
Awards: Named Best Prime Broker in Hedgeweek's annual European Digital Assets Awards

Coinbase is a comprehensive digital trading platform and one of the best cryptocurrency exchanges for investors interested in buying, selling, and managing 200+ cryptocurrencies. It offers earning rewards, private client services, an advanced trading platform, and an NFT marketplace.

In an individual brokerage, business, or retirement savings account, you can explore Coinbase's selection of powerful analytical tools, such as real-time book orders and sophisticated charting capabilities. Staking is available on a handful of tokens, like ethereum, cosmos, and cardano (not available in all U.S. states).

A Coinbase Advanced or Coinbase One membership gives you access to even more offerings. The platform's self-custody crypto wallet provides users access to decentralized exchanges to earn yield, borrow crypto, and collect NFTs.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently investigating Coinbase on charges of breaking securities rules, which the company has denied.

Coinbase: Overall Rating

Feature	Insider rating (out of 5)
Fees	2.50
Investment selection	4.50
Security	4.00
Ethics	2.00
Access	3.00
Customer service	3.00
Overall score	3.20

A standard Coinbase brokerage account gets you access to over 200 popular cryptocurrencies , including bitcoin, ethereum, and dogecoin. It has a relatively straightforward interface for buying and trading digital assets. Plus, users get access to secure cold-wallet storage.

The learning rewards feature allows you to earn free crypto assets by learning about cryptocurrency topics. You'll watch short educational videos and take a short quiz on the context to earn crypto rewards. Earnings are deposited into your Coinbase wallet.

Coinbase additionally offers USD Coin (USDC) , a stablecoin backed by the US dollar with reward-earning potential.

Alto CryptoIRA

Coinbase is partnered with Alto, an alternative retirement platform, to offer a self-directed Roth CryptoIRA. Retirement-focused crypto traders can access tax-free growth, withdrawals, and Coinbase's entire crypto selection. Additionally, you don't have to report crypto trades on your annual taxes when you invest through an IRA.

However, you must open an account through Alto if you want to open a self-directed CryptoIRA with Coinbase's offerings.

Coinbase Advanced

Coinbase Advanced (formerly Coinbase Pro) is designed for sophisticated traders who want access to more advanced features, such as 550+ spot pairs, lower maker fees, crypto derivatives, and TradingView charts. Its maker and taker fees are lower.

Coinbase Advanced gets you access to an advanced API to help you automate trades and stop-limit orders, access real-time market data, increase reward opportunities, and more.

Coinbase One

Coinbase One is a subscription service offering lower trading fees, priority customer support, and a limited-time partner deal. Coinbase also helps you navigate tax season for your crypto assets with a pre-filled Form 8949, plus member-only sweepstakes and $1 million account protection.

Frequent crypto traders interested in zero trading fees on hundreds of digital assets and access to 24/7 priority customer support will get the most out of a Coinbase One membership.

Coinbase Wallet

Coinbase Wallet is a user-controlled web3 wallet for storing and managing various digital assets, such as crypto, NFTs, and other crypto wallets. It includes access to borrow and supply crypto through DeFi liquidity pools, trade assets on decentralized exchanges, and join a DAO.

The Coinbase Wallet also supports NFTs. Users can easily buy, sell, and create different NFTS, including Audio NFTs with custom playback controls.

You get a secure 12-word recovery phrase, or "seed," only you can use to access your Coinbase Wallet. Coinbase does not have access to this secret code. Additional security features include spam token management, token approval alerts, and transaction previews. Coinbase Wallet's browser extensions support Ledger hardware wallets, providing additional protection.

Private Client

Coinbase's Private Client services are available for high-net-worth individuals and family offices wanting professional advice and guidance from crypto experts. A dedicated account manager provides personalized support and tailored execution strategies for trusts and other personal investment vehicles.

You can also access institutional research, integrated custody for segregated cold wallet storage, multi-user access and controls, and enhanced security measures.

Coinbase Prime

Coinbase also gives businesses and institutions various investment options, including the Prime trading platform. Coinbase Prime is a full-service prime brokerage that executes large-scale crypto trades, deploys institutional trading strategies through financing solutions, and provides access to both hot and cold wallet storage.

Asset Hub lets businesses and issuers list crypto assets across the Coinbase platform to gain growth and exposure. Coinbase's commerce offerings help crypto-oriented businesses set up hosted checkout pages, invoices, payment buttons, and more. The venture's feature allows new companies to raise money for expansion.

Coinbase Fees

Coinbase charges trading fees that vary depending on the asset, payment method, and transaction size. However, Coinbase is not transparent about its fee structure before making a transaction. Users receive information regarding their fees after a transaction is filled. Transaction fees tend to range from $0.99 to $2.99.

Coinbase Advanced is more transparent about its fee offering, with maker fees ranging from 0% to 0.4% and taker fees ranging from 0.05% to 0.6% based on a 30-day trading volume. A Coinbase One subscription costs $29.99 per month. Credit transactions cost a flat 2% on some orders.

Pros and Cons Coinbase

Pros	Cons

Coinbase Trustworthiness

Coinbase has received a B+ rating from the Better Business Bureau . The BBB gives businesses a numerical rating from A+ to F, depending on how well a business interacts with its clients. A B+ rating indicates that Coinbase has overall good interactions with its clients.

The BBB considers several factors when evaluating companies. These include time in business (and type of business), customer complaint history, licensing, government actions, and more. The bureau also says that its ratings don't guarantee that a company will perform well or exhibit trustworthiness.

On June 6, 2023, the SEC opened an investigation into Coinbase , claiming that the company has allowed sales on its crypto asset staking-as-a-service program and offered crypto trading on its unregistered national securities exchange, broker, and clearing agency. The SEC is currently investigating Coinbase on this matter. Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, has denied the SEC's claims.

Coinbase vs. Crypto.com

Coinbase and Kraken are comprehensive exchanges offering large cryptocurrency selections and similar services and fees.

Kraken may be better suited for beginners and intermediate investors interested in learning the ropes. Its interface is more intuitive and beginner-friendly than Coinbase's. Plus, it offers strong customer support across the entire platform (with Coinbase, you need a One membership for priority support). However, Kraken's beginner platform charges higher fees than its pro trading platform.

Coinbase offers more cryptocurrencies than Kraken and more advanced trading products and features. Coinbase offers an Advanced trading platform and a Coinbase One membership for lower trading fees and greater earning opportunities. Moreover, private clients can get curated services, dedicated support, and enhanced security.

Kraken review

Crypto.com is another reputable crypto exchange with similar offerings to Coinbase. Both exchanges offer hundreds of cryptocurrencies, digital wallet storage, advanced trading tools, and an NFT trading platform. Similar to Kraken, Crypto.com and Coinbase offer almost identical features and services.

U.S.-based investors are best off with Coinbase, as Crypto.com limits them to its mobile app, which doesn't include margin trading, staking, or advanced trading features and tools. Coinbase does offer margin trading. Sophisticated investors can unlock customizable charts, market orders, and more with Coinbase Advanced and Private Client services.

On the other hand, Crypto.com offers a wider selection of cryptocurrencies (350+), so investors who prioritize having access to many different coins and tokens may prefer Crypto.com over Coinbase.

Crypto.com review

Coinbase FAQs

Coinbase is regarded as a safe online cryptocurrency exchange with industry-standard security features and data encryption. However, the SEC is currently investigating Coinbase on charges of offering and selling unregistered securities through its staking program.

Coinbase's maker/taker fee structure varies based on asset type, payment method, and transaction size. In general, Coinbase is not transparent about its fees. Its Advanced trading platform offers lower maker/taker fees based on a user's 30-day trading volume.

Coinbase offers various staking and rewards opportunities. Staking is only available on a handful of tokens, like ethereum, cosmos, and cardano (not available in all U.S. states). However, you can still earn rewards through Coinbase's learning rewards program, Visa debit card, and member-exclusive events.

Why You Should Trust Us: How We Reviewed Coinbase

We examined Coinbase using Business Insider's rating methodology for investing platforms to compare pricing, account flexibility, ethics, security, and overall customer experience when reviewing investing platforms. Platforms are given a rating between 0 and 5.

Cryptocurrency exchanges offer multiple assets, trading tools, fees, and other resources. Some exchanges are better for more advanced or active investors, while others may better suit beginner investors and passive investors. Coinbase was evaluated with a focus on how it performed in each category.

Credit cards
Investing apps
Retirement savings
Cryptocurrency
The stock market
Retail investing

Check out: Personal Finance Insider's review of Coinbase.

Main content

Brunette girl in tracksuit looking at mirror satisfied with body shape after workout in gym,

Narcissism: why it’s less obvious in women than in men – but can be just as dangerous

Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, City, University of London

Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Southampton

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

City, University of London provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

University of Southampton provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

The term narcissism may conjure up images of chest-pumping, arrogant, male self-promoters. The personality trait – with its hallmark features of overt grandiosity, assertiveness and superiority – is, in fact, more commonly observed in men.

That is because these central features align closely with traditional masculine traits. In fact, up to 75% of people diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder are men.

But in reality, narcissism is a modern epidemic that afflicts men and women alike. Our new research, published in Sex Roles , shows how narcissism manifests itself differently in women – but reveals that narcissistic women can be as dangerous and violent as their male counterparts.

Our research reveals that women with high traits of narcissism tend to be more vulnerable and insecure than their male peers. That means it can sometimes be missed by clinical professionals, for example, misdiagnosed as borderline personality disorder .

Narcissism is a complex personality trait. While full-blown narcissistic personality disorder isn’t too common, affecting about 1-2% of the population , we all have narcissism to varying degrees.

Narcissistic personality traits can be expressed in two forms: grandiose and vulnerable . People who exhibit more grandiose features are self-assured and socially dominant. People who exhibit more vulnerable features are introverted and have lower self-esteem. Both forms share an antagonistic core, demonstrated by high levels of entitlement and a willingness to exploit others.

In the context of intimate relationships, narcissism has similarly been associated with men’s perpetration of violence. Threats to their self-esteem can evoke feelings of shame, humiliation and wounded pride, leading to aggressive behaviour.

Although women are less likely to display stereotypical manifestations of narcissism, it does not mean that narcissism is not as common in women. For instance, consider the numerous reality TV stars who are notorious for their self-centredness and vanity – traits often associated with narcissism.

Yet narcissism in women extends beyond self-absorption. Vulnerable narcissism involves traits such as emotional vulnerability, low self-esteem and inhibition. These traits overlap with traditional notions of femininity. Such gender differences in narcissism may stem from gender-specific stereotypes of masculinity and femininity ingrained from childhood.

Consequently, the tendency for men to display more grandiose features and women to display more vulnerable traits may partly originate from parenting styles aimed at making boys more assertive and girls more nurturing.

However, there is a danger of interpreting women’s narcissism as less harmful due to their initial presentation as more soft-spoken, nurturing, passive and vulnerable than men. Beneath this persona, they may be devoid of empathy and harbour high levels of entitlement and a willingness to exploit others.

This suggests that men and women may be aggressive or violent in different ways . Narcissistic women may be more likely to manipulate people, spread rumours or be passive aggressive than narcissistic men, for example.

Our recent research tested this for the first time. In a study of 328 adults (176 women and 152 men), we examined the complex dynamics between childhood experiences, narcissism and the perpetration of intimate partner violence in men and women.

Participants completed an online survey and were asked questions about their personality traits. This captured both grandiose and vulnerable features of narcissism using the Pathological Narcissism Inventory . Participants were also asked to indicate any conflicts that may have arisen during their past or present intimate relationships.

Men scored higher on grandiose narcissism while women scored higher on vulnerable narcissism. Despite these marked gender differences, it is important to remember that narcissism exists along a spectrum. Men can exhibit vulnerable features and women can exhibit grandiose features, too.

Grandiose narcissism in men was associated with greater perpetration of psychological partner violence such as being controlling, bullying or manipulative.

Somewhat surprisingly, grandiose narcissism in men was not associated with the perpetration of physical violence. That clashes with some previous research that measured narcissism using different methods. But overall, men are more likely than women to perpetrate violence, so a proportion of narcissistic men are likely to be violent.

More surprisingly, vulnerable narcissism in women was linked with greater perpetration of physical, sexual and psychological partner violence. It is important to note here that not every woman with vulnerable narcissistic traits is violent.

Instead, specific features of vulnerable narcissism such as devaluing others (assigning exaggerated negative qualities about them) and having entitlement rage (lashing out when you don’t get what you think you deserve) are associated with violent behaviour.

Women who exhibit these features to a higher extent are more likely to be shamefully dependent on others to provide admiration. As a result, they are more likely to respond violently in an attempt to regulate their self-esteem and gain positions of power .

For women, recalling having a caring mother during childhood was associated with reduced levels of vulnerable narcissism and subsequent perpetration of violence toward their partner. This suggests there may be buffers that can be acknowledged and integrated into intervention programmes.

Spotting narcissistic women

Despite longstanding evidence portraying narcissistic men as more violent than women, our research shows that narcissistic women are not only verbally aggressive, as commonly portrayed in studies , but also physically violent towards their partner.

Despite this, the manner in which narcissistic women abuse others may not be recognised as stereotypically narcissistic. Instead, they may use their feminine identity to leverage societal expectations of women as being nurturing and passive.

This might include exploiting their perceived victimhood to gain positions of power and control. Insidious tactics may include making threats of (false) allegations of abuse, withholding intimacy and affection, exploiting their motherhood to turn their children against their partner, and physically assaulting their partner and blaming it on self-defence to gain sympathy from legal authorities.

Our research challenges the stereotype that women are always the victims in abusive relationships. This balanced understanding promotes a more nuanced view of relational dynamics and gender roles in intimate relationships. By investigating features of narcissism in women, we can better recognise and unmask their true nature.

Intimate partner violence
Give me perspective

Social Media Producer

Student Recruitment & Enquiries Officer

Dean (Head of School), Indigenous Knowledges

Senior Research Fellow - Curtin Institute for Energy Transition (CIET)

Laboratory Head - RNA Biology

Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

Primary Sources & Original Research vs. Review Articles
Major & Minor
Literature Review
Find Articles
Getting Started in Biological Research
Finding Empirical & Scholarly Articles
Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
General Biology
Environmental Biology
Zoology & Botany
Biotechnology
Cellular & Molecular Biology
Microbiology
Health & Medicine
Anatomy & Physiology

Primary Vs. Secondary Vs. Tertiary Sources


Original research or materials that have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation by a secondary party. Reports of scientific discoveries, experiments, or clinical trials. These are factual and not interpretive.	Sources that contain commentary on or a discussion about a primary source. Analyzes and interprets research results or scientific discoveries.	Information which is distillation of primary AND secondary sources
Conference papers, dissertations, interviews, laboratory notebooks, patents, a study reported in a journal article, technical reports, and diaries	Review articles, magazine articles, books, laws and legislation, public opinion, and social policy.	Books
-Published results research studies, clinical studies, or scientific experiments -Proceedings of conferences or meetings	-Publications the significance of research or experiments. -Analysis of a clinical trial -Review of the results of experiments or trials	Almanacs, Bibliographies, Chronologies, Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, Fact Books, Guidebooks, Manuals, and Textbooks.
-Einstein’s diary -Article in a scholarly journal reporting research and methodology	-Books about Einstein’s life -Articles or books analyzing and commenting on the results of original research	-Dictionary on the Theory of Relativity -Bibliography of resources in a particular field

Primary and Secondary Sources for Science

In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system.


	Original materials that have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation by a second party.	Sources that contain commentary on or a discussion about a primary source.
	Primary sources tend to come first in the publication cycle.	Secondary sources tend to come second in the publication cycle.
--depends on the kind of analysis being conducted.	Conference papers, dissertations, interviews, laboratory notebooks, patents, a study reported in a journal article, a survey reported in a journal article, and technical reports.	Review articles, magazine articles, and books
Example: Scientists studying Genetically Modified Foods.	Article in scholarly journal reporting research and methodology.	Articles analyzing and commenting on the results of original research; books doing the same

EXAMPLES OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES

What is a Primary Source?

"Primary sources are 'fundamental, authoritative documents relating to a subject, ...e.g., original records, contemporary documents, etc.' (Young, Heartsill, ed. The ALA Glossary of Library and Information Science. Chicago: American Library Association, 1983, p.176). Primary source documents are first-hand accounts by a direct participant or observer and may include letters, diaries, interviews, photographs, films, maps, government documents, and more.

For the arts, history, and humanities, original primary source documents usually are housed in museums, archives, restricted library collections, and government offices. Reproductions of primary source documents often can be found in online digital collections, microform collections, books, and other secondary works."

For the sciences, primary sources usually refer to original accounts of a research study. Find a fuller explanation in the SUNY Albany resource below.

(Used with permission of the Alfred R. Neumann Library Staff at the University of Houston

Original Research vs. Review Articles. How can I tell the Difference?

Research vs Review Articles

It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: " Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a specific topic, field, or problem. They are not primary sources since they review previously published material. They can be of great value for identifying potentially good primary sources, but they aren't primary themselves. Primary research articles can be identified by a commonly used format. If an article contains the following elements, you can count on it being a primary research article. Look for sections titled:

Methods (sometimes with variations, such as Materials and Methods) Results (usually followed with charts and statistical tables) Discussion

You can also read the abstract to get a good sense of the kind of article that is being presented.

If it is a review article instead of a research article, the abstract should make that pretty clear. If there is no abstract at all, that in itself may be a sign that it is not a primary resource. Short research articles, such as those found in Science and similar scientific publications that mix news, editorials, and forums with research reports, however, may not include any of those elements. In those cases look at the words the authors use, phrases such as "we tested" and "in our study, we measured" will tell you that the article is reporting on original research."*

*Taken from Ithica College Libraries

<< Previous: Literature Review
Next: Find Articles >>
Last Updated: Dec 19, 2023 11:10 AM
URL: https://otterbein.libguides.com/bmb

Webull vs Fidelity: What Are the Differences?

Beautiful confident asian business woman working with laptop Hands typing keyboard. Professional investor working new start up project. business planning in office. Technology business.

Webull is an online broker that stands out for its advanced research tools and intuitive mobile investing experience.

Both offer access to commission-free stock and ETF trading. But which is right for you? Let’s take a closer look.

Fidelity overview

Fidelity can trace its roots back to 1946, and currently serves more than 44 million customers. The firm is known as a leader in low-cost investing. For instance, it offers access to a line of zero-expense-ratio mutual funds. Expense ratios are fees charged by fund management companies and these can really eat away at your returns over time. But Fidelity Zero funds charge no expense ratios and invest in a variety of companies across domestic and international markets. This makes it easy to build a low-cost and well-diversified portfolio with Fidelity.

Plus, the Fidelity GO robo-advisor charges no advisory fee on balances of less than $25,000. Robo-advisors are automated platforms that recommend and manage a portfolio based on your financial goals, risk tolerance, and other personal indicators. The Fidelity GO platform builds portfolios with its zero-expense-ratio mutual funds.

The firm also offers the award-winning research platform Fidelity Active Trader Pro , an advanced research and analytics platform.

Webull overview

Webull is a relatively new company having been established in 2017. But it has since come a long way.

Today, Webull offers its services to more than 20 million registered users. It offers access to various securities like stocks, ETFs, options, and futures contracts.

Webull stands out for its intuitive desktop and mobile investing platforms, as well as advanced research tools that could appeal to the tech-savvy investor.

For instance, its desktop trading platform offers more than 50 fully customizable indicators and 60 technical signals including classic pattern, and candlestick pattern, and technical indicator

Users on the Webull mobile app can use its advanced version offering access to advanced market insights and technical resources. But they can also switch back and forth from Webull Light, which is designed for beginners. Newcomers could also make use of its paper trading feature, which allows you to test rades with virtual cash.

Hands-off investors may be interested in its robo-advisor platform called Webull Smart Advisor. Currently, new Smart Advisor customers get a 6-month free trial. Afterward, fees are calculated daily based on the account balance at an annualized rate of 0.2%. These fees are deducted monthly. However, keep in mind it requires a $100 minimum investment.

Fidelity vs Webull: Which is better?

Crypto trader investor analyst broker using pc computer analyzing digital cryptocurrency exchange stock market charts graphs thinking of investing funds risks in trading platform global analytics.

When it comes to choosing between Fidelity and Webull, it may come down to what type of relationship you want with the firm.

Fidelity is a well-established and full-service broker that can help investors meet various goals like investing, retirement planning, paying for healthcare, and more. So it may be the right place for you if you want all your money management done in one place.

Fidelity simply has more in terms of offerings than Webull. At the moment, Webull doesn’t offer access to common securities like mutual funds and bonds or account types like health savings accounts (HSA).

But here’s some of what you can find at Fidelity.

Mutual funds
Precious metals like gold, silver, platinum, and palladium
Direct access to Bitcoin and Ethereum
Fidelity Rewards Visa Signature Credit Card
Fidelity HSA
529 college savings plans

But that’s not to say Webull falls short when it comes to quality, especially for its target base.

Overall, Webull could satisfy the digital-first active trader who wants low-cost access to basic securities like stocks and ETFs with the backing of advanced research tools and analytical capabilities.

And although Webull no longer offers direct access to crypto, you can get cryptocurrency through its Webull Pay app.

Why we covered this

Fidelity and Webull are both standout brokerages, but they may not be one-size fits all for investors. Fidelity is a large low-fee broker that offers access to a long line of products like stocks, ETFs and alternative investments, along with several accounts like Roth IRAs and HSAs. Fidelity also allows you to work with human financial advisors. Webull may work best for online-only active traders who want sophisticated research tools and platforms.

If you want to learn more about Fidelity, check out our regularly-updated list of Fidelity Investments guides, news and coverage .

ALERT: Take This Retirement Quiz Now (Sponsored)

Take the quiz below to get matched with a financial advisor today.

Each advisor has been vetted by SmartAsset and is held to a fiduciary standard to act in your best interests.

Here’s how it works: 1. Answer SmartAsset advisor match quiz 2. Review your pre-screened matches at your leisure. Check out the advisors’ profiles. 3. Speak with advisors at no cost to you. Have an introductory call on the phone or introduction in person and choose whom to work with in the future

Take the retirement quiz right here .

Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us? Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team .

Editors' Picks

5 Sizzling Cathie Wood ARK Investment Stocks Trade Under $10 and Have Huge...

4 'Strong Buy' Stocks With Big Upside Potential Have Expected Dividend Hikes...

Tuesday's Top Wall Street Analyst Upgrades and Downgrades: ConocoPhillips,...

5 Damaged Dow Jones Industrial Dividend Leaders Have Huge 2024 Comeback...

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Why Cofounder Partnerships Fail — and How to Make Them Last

Travis Howell,
Steven Gray,
Esther Sackett

Nearly half of startup founders ultimately buy out their cofounder due to interpersonal rifts and power struggles.

Up to 43% of startup founders ultimately buy out their cofounder due to interpersonal rifts and power struggles. To understand why so many cofounder partnerships end in failure, the authors conducted research on lead founders seeking cofounders, finding that lead founders tend to prioritize skillsets and execution while potential cofounders prioritize interpersonal compatibility. This mismatch in priorities is the root of so many cofounder splits. To overcome this, the authors offer three recommendations for lead founders and cofounders alike: 1) Put yourself in the other person’s shoes, 2) Don’t neglect the interpersonal aspect in initial conversations, and 3) Consider co-creating the idea with a partner.

Choosing a cofounder can be a make-or-break decision for startups. On one hand, cofounders can bring needed skillsets and other resources that an individual founder may lack. On the other hand, however, cofounder relationships can be a source of immense conflict that can prove fatal for a startup. For example, recent evidence suggests that up to 43% of founders are ultimately forced to buy out their cofounder due to interpersonal rifts and power struggles.

TH Travis Howell is an Assistant Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.
SG Steven Gray is an Assistant Professor of Management at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin.
ES Esther Sackett is an Assistant Professor of Management at the Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University.

Partner Center

AI is poised to drive 160% increase in data center power demand

On average, a ChatGPT query needs nearly 10 times as much electricity to process as a Google search. In that difference lies a coming sea change in how the US, Europe, and the world at large will consume power — and how much that will cost.

For years, data centers displayed a remarkably stable appetite for power, even as their workloads mounted. Now, as the pace of efficiency gains in electricity use slows and the AI revolution gathers steam, Goldman Sachs Research estimates that data center power demand will grow 160% by 2030.

At present, data centers worldwide consume 1-2% of overall power, but this percentage will likely rise to 3-4% by the end of the decade. In the US and Europe, this increased demand will help drive the kind of electricity growth that hasn’t been seen in a generation. Along the way, the carbon dioxide emissions of data centers may more than double between 2022 and 2030.

How much power do data centers consume?

In a series of three reports, Goldman Sachs Research analysts lay out the US , European , and global implications of this spike in electricity demand. It isn’t that our demand for data has been meager in the recent past. In fact, data center workloads nearly tripled between 2015 and 2019. Through that period, though, data centers’ demand for power remained flattish, at about 200 terawatt-hours per year. In part, this was because data centers kept growing more efficient in how they used the power they drew, according to the Goldman Sachs Research reports, led by Carly Davenport, Alberto Gandolfi, and Brian Singer.

But since 2020, the efficiency gains appear to have dwindled, and the power consumed by data centers has risen. Some AI innovations will boost computing speed faster than they ramp up their electricity use, but the widening use of AI will still imply an increase in the technology’s consumption of power. A single ChatGPT query requires 2.9 watt-hours of electricity, compared with 0.3 watt-hours for a Google search, according to the International Energy Agency. Goldman Sachs Research estimates the overall increase in data center power consumption from AI to be on the order of 200 terawatt-hours per year between 2023 and 2030. By 2028, our analysts expect AI to represent about 19% of data center power demand.

In tandem, the expected rise of data center carbon dioxide emissions will represent a “social cost” of $125-140 billion (at present value), our analysts believe. “Conversations with technology companies indicate continued confidence in driving down energy intensity but less confidence in meeting absolute emissions forecasts on account of rising demand,” they write. They expect substantial investments by tech firms to underwrite new renewables and commercialize emerging nuclear generation capabilities. And AI may also provide benefits by accelerating innovation — for example, in health care, agriculture, education, or in emissions-reducing energy efficiencies.

US electricity demand is set to surge

Over the last decade, US power demand growth has been roughly zero, even though the population and its economic activity have increased. Efficiencies have helped; one example is the LED light, which drives lower power use. But that is set to change. Between 2022 and 2030, the demand for power will rise roughly 2.4%, Goldman Sachs Research estimates — and around 0.9 percent points of that figure will be tied to data centers.

That kind of spike in power demand hasn’t been seen in the US since the early years of this century. It will be stoked partly by electrification and industrial reshoring, but also by AI . Data centers will use 8% of US power by 2030, compared with 3% in 2022.

US utilities will need to invest around $50 billion in new generation capacity just to support data centers alone. In addition, our analysts expect incremental data center power consumption in the US will drive around 3.3 billion cubic feet per day of new natural gas demand by 2030, which will require new pipeline capacity to be built.

Europe needs $1 trillion-plus to prepare its power grid for AI

Over the past 15 years, Europe's power demand has been severely hit by a sequence of shocks: the global financial crisis, the covid pandemic, and the energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine. But it has also suffered due to a slower-than-expected pick up in electrification and the ongoing de-industrialization of the European economy. As a result, since a 2008 peak, electricity demand has cumulatively declined by nearly 10%.

Going forward, between 2023 and 2033, thanks to both the expansion of data centers and an acceleration of electrification, Europe’s power demand could grow by 40% and perhaps even 50%, according to Goldman Sachs Research. At the moment, around 15% of the world’s data centers are located in Europe. By 2030, the power needs of these data centers will match the current total consumption of Portugal, Greece, and the Netherlands combined.

Data center power demand will rise in two kinds of European countries, our analysts write. The first sort is those with cheap and abundant power from nuclear, hydro, wind, or solar sources, such as the Nordic nations, Spain and France. The second kind will include countries with large financial services and tech companies, which offer tax breaks or other incentives to attract data centers. The latter category includes Germany, the UK, and Ireland.

Europe has the oldest power grid in the world, so keeping new data centers electrified will require more investment. Our analysts expect nearly €800 billion ($861 billion) in spending on transmission and distribution over the coming decade, as well as nearly €850 billion in investment on solar, onshore wind, and offshore wind energy.

This article is being provided for educational purposes only. The information contained in this article does not constitute a recommendation from any Goldman Sachs entity to the recipient, and Goldman Sachs is not providing any financial, economic, legal, investment, accounting, or tax advice through this article or to its recipient. Neither Goldman Sachs nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or any information contained in this article and any liability therefore (including in respect of direct, indirect, or consequential loss or damage) is expressly disclaimed.

Explore More Insights

Thank you for subscribing to BRIEFINGS: a newsletter from Goldman Sachs about trends shaping markets, industries and the global economy.

Some error occurred. Please refresh the page and try again.

Invalid input parameters. Please refresh the page and try again.

Connect With Us

Share full article

Supported by

U.S. Considers Expanded Nuclear Arsenal, a Reversal of Decades of Cuts

China’s expansion and Russia’s threats of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine and in space have changed a U.S. drive to reduce nuclear weapons.

By Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger

Reporting from Washington

A senior Biden administration official warned on Friday that “absent a change” in nuclear strategy by China and Russia, the United States may be forced to expand its nuclear arsenal, after decades of cutting back through now largely abandoned arms control agreements.

The comments on Friday from Pranay Vaddi, a senior director of the National Security Council, were the most explicit public warning yet that the United States was prepared to shift from simply modernizing its arsenal to expanding it. They were also a warning to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia about the likely U.S. reaction if the last major nuclear arms control agreement, called New START, expires in February 2026 with no replacement.

Mr. Vaddi, speaking at the annual meeting of the Arms Control Association, a group that advocates limits on nuclear weapons, confirmed what officials have been saying in private conversations and closed congressional testimony for more than a year. It is the inevitable outgrowth, they have argued, of China’s rapid nuclear expansion and Russia’s repeated threats to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

But it would be an epochal shift, and one fraught with dangers that many Americans thought they had left behind at the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Fifteen years ago, President Barack Obama outlined a vision of moving toward a world without nuclear weapons, and he took steps to reduce their role in American strategy and defenses. While the nation’s nuclear complexes were improved and made safer, and old weapons were swapped out for more reliable or updated versions, the United States insisted it was only “modernizing” its arsenal, not expanding it.

As vice president in the Obama administration, President Biden became the spokesman for this strategy .

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

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

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Kinesiology Research Guide

Original Research vs. Review Articles
Find Articles

Original Research vs. Review Articles. How can I tell the Difference?

Research vs review articles.

It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a specific topic, field, or problem. They are not primary sources since they review previously published material. They can be of great value for identifying potentially good primary sources, but they aren't primary themselves. Primary research articles can be identified by a commonly used format. If an article contains the following elements, you can count on it being a primary research article. Look for sections titled:

Methods (sometimes with variations, such as Materials and Methods) Results (usually followed with charts and statistical tables) Discussion

You can also read the abstract to get a good sense of the kind of article that is being presented.

*Taken from Ithca College Libraries

Primary and Secondary Sources for Science


	Original materials that have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation by a second party.	Sources that contain commentary on or a discussion about a primary source.
	Primary sources tend to come first in the publication cycle.	Secondary sources tend to come second in the publication cycle.
--depends on the kind of analysis being conducted.	Conference papers, dissertations, interviews, laboratory notebooks, patents, a study reported in a journal article, a survey reported in a journal article, and technical reports.	Review articles, magazine articles, and books
Example: Scientists studying Genetically Modified Foods.	Article in scholarly journal reporting research and methodology.	Articles analyzing and commenting on the results of original research; books doing the same

EXAMPLES OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES

Source: The Evolution of Scientific Information (from Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science , vol. 26).

Primary Vs. Secondary Vs. Tertiary Sources


Original research or materials that have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation by a secondary party. Reports of scientific discoveries, experiments, or clinical trials. These are factual and not interpretive.	Sources that contain commentary on or a discussion about a primary source. Analyzes and interprets research results or scientific discoveries.	Information which is distillation of primary AND secondary sources
Conference papers, dissertations, interviews, laboratory notebooks, patents, a study reported in a journal article, technical reports, and diaries	Review articles, magazine articles, books, laws and legislation, public opinion, and social policy.	Books
-Published results research studies, clinical studies, or scientific experiments -Proceedings of conferences or meetings	-Publications the significance of research or experiments. -Analysis of a clinical trial -Review of the results of experiments or trials	Almanacs, Bibliographies, Chronologies, Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, Fact Books, Guidebooks, Manuals, and Textbooks.
-Einstein’s diary -Article in a scholarly journal reporting research and methodology	-Books about Einstein’s life -Articles or books analyzing and commenting on the results of original research	-Dictionary on the Theory of Relativity -Bibliography of resources in a particular field

<< Previous: Home
Next: Find Articles >>
Last Updated: Nov 16, 2023 1:54 PM
URL: https://andersonuniversity.libguides.com/kinesiologyresearch

Thrift Library | (864) 231-2050 | [email protected] | Anderson University 316 Boulevard Anderson, SC 29621

IMAGES

Review Article vs Research Article: An in-depth exploration of the differences in 2 papers!
Difference between Research and review article and how to search for
Research Article vs Review Article
Review Article vs Research Article
Research Paper vs. Review: 5 Main Differences
Difference between review article and research article .Ways to publish

VIDEO

Research, Educational research
Conceptual Review
المحاضرة السادسة : Research VS Review
Difference between Survey paper Vs Review Article Vs Research Paper
Difference between book chapter and review article
Research Vs. Review Paper

COMMENTS

Types of journal articles
It may be called an Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. ... Review Articles: Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the ...
5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
Infographic: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper. There are different types of scholarly literature. Some of these require researchers to conduct an original study, whereas others can be based on previously published research. Understanding each of these types and also how they differ from one another can be rather ...
Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles
Research vs Review Articles. It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a ...
What's the difference between a research article and a review article
Research articles, sometimes referred to as empirical or primary sources, report on original research. They will typically include sections such as an introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Here is a more detailed explanation of research articles. Review articles, sometimes called literature reviews or secondary sources, synthesize or ...
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.
What are the differences between these kinds of articles: original
Original research articles are detailed studies reporting original research conducted by the author. They include hypothesis, background study, methods, results, interpretation of findings, and a discussion of possible implications. Review articles give an overview of existing literature in a field, often identifying specific problems or issues ...
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.
Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for
According to Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero , 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 ...
Review Article vs Research Article
Here are some key differences between review articles and research articles: In summary, research articles and review articles serve different purposes in the academic literature. Research articles present original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis, while review articles summarize and analyze existing ...
Types of research article
Registered report. A Registered Report consists of two different kinds of articles: a study protocol and an original research article. This is because the review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers assess study protocols before data is collected.
Research Articles vs Review Articles
Research articles follow a particular format. Look for: A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study.; A methods section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data.Statistical analysis are included. A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis.
Original Research VS. Review Articles
A review article is a critical, constructive analysis of the literature in a specific field. The article summarizes, classifies, analyze, and compares the various literature. A review article relies on using previously published literature or data. New data from the author's experiments are not presented (with exceptions: some reviews contain ...
Primary Research vs Review Article
Characteristics of a Primary Research Article. Goal is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge; Sometimes referred to as an empirical research article; Typically organized into sections that include: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, and References.
Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles
Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include ...
Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review
Journals provide guidelines to authors which should be followed closely. The three major types of articles (original research, case reports, and review articles) all generally follow the IMRAD format with slight variations in content. With planning and thought, manuscript writing does not have to be a daunting task. Download chapter PDF.
Primary Sources & Original Research vs. Review Articles
Research vs Review Articles. It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating ...
Research vs Review Articles
Instead, they are a summary of many other original research articles. When your instructor tells you to obtain an "original research article" or to use a primary source, do not use an article that says review. Review articles may include a bibliography that will lead you back to the primary research reported in the article.
Research Articles vs. Review Articles
A review article is a secondary source...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own. Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among existing research studies.
Research vs Review Articles
A research article describes an original study that the author(s) conducted themselves. It will include a brief literature review, but the main focus of the article is to describe the theoretical approach, methods, and results of the authors' own study. Look at the abstract or full text of the journal article and look for the following:
Original Research VS. Review Articles
A review article is a critical, constructive analysis of the literature in a specific field. The article summarizes, classifies, analyze, and compares the various literature. A review article relies on using previously published literature or data. New data from the author's experiments are not presented (with exceptions: some reviews contain ...
PSYC 200 Lab in Experimental Methods (Atlanta)
Know the difference between empirical and review articles. Empirical article An empirical (research) article reports methods and findings of an original research study conducted by the authors of the article. Literature Review article A review article or "literature review" discusses past research studies on a given topic.
Coinbase Review 2024: Is It Right for You?
Product Details Promotion: Get $5 of bitcoin when you join Coinbase; earn up to $200 when you set up a new account and make your first purchase
Narcissism: why it's less obvious in women than in men
Our new research, published in Sex Roles, shows how narcissism manifests itself differently in women - but reveals that narcissistic women can be as dangerous and violent as their male counterparts.
The AI-Augmented Leader
Summary. Humans are good at inventing tools, but not as good at adapting to the change these tools can cause. While there has been much focus on the technical impacts and potential dark side of AI ...
Primary Sources & Original Research vs. Review Articles
Research vs Review Articles. It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating ...
Webull vs Fidelity: What Are the Differences?
Webull is a popular investing app offering advanced research tools. Webull is a relatively new company having been established in 2017. But it has since come a long way.
Why Cofounder Partnerships Fail
Up to 43% of startup founders ultimately buy out their cofounder due to interpersonal rifts and power struggles. To understand why so many cofounder partnerships end in failure, the authors ...
AI is poised to drive 160% increase in data center power demand
A single ChatGPT query requires 2.9 watt-hours of electricity, compared with 0.3 watt-hours for a Google search, according to the International Energy Agency. Goldman Sachs Research estimates the overall increase in data center power consumption from AI to be on the order of 200 terawatt-hours per year between 2023 and 2030.
U.S. Considers Expanded Nuclear Arsenal, a Reversal of Decades of Cuts
China's expansion and Russia's threats of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine and in space have changed a U.S. drive to reduce nuclear weapons. By Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger Reporting ...
Original Research vs. Review Articles
Research vs Review Articles. It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a ...

Types of journal articles

"How Do I?" @JWULibrary

Sample Question

Q. What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

Answered By: Sarah Naomi Campbell Last Updated: Sep 07, 2018 Views: 215106

Links & Files

Comments (0)

Review vs. Research Articles

Review Papers

Systematic Review Papers

Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed

Stack Exchange Network

What are the differences between these kinds of articles: original, review, letter, and short communication?

5 Answers 5

You must log in to answer this question.

Hot Network Questions

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

Review Article vs Research Article

Difference Between Review Article and Research Article

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

Primary Vs Secondary Research

Descriptive vs Inferential Statistics – All Key...

Correlational Research Vs Experimental Research

Research Hypothesis Vs Null Hypothesis

Inductive Vs Deductive Research

Market Research Vs Marketing Research

Biological Sciences Research Guide

Quick Links

Characteristics of a Primary Research Article

Characteristics of a Review Article

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Social Science and Science Research Articles

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

Research versus Review Articles

Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review Articles

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Suggested Readings

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Loyola University Chicago Libraries

Research Article and Reviews defined

HONORS 400: Research Seminar

Research Articles

PSYC 200 Lab in Experimental Methods (Atlanta)

Empirical vs. Review Articles

Psychology Librarian