Daniel Petrovič Borut Peterlin what do you think about this?

i don't read review articles, because the number of citation is limited by publishers to a ridiculously small number. i have never seen a review article with ten thousand citations (which are needed, from my experience, to thoroughly cover a single topic).

Instead of climbing, blindfold, an apple tree in search of apples (= reading reviews and trying to trace the way back to the original sources of information), i shake the tree and let all apples fall to the ground where i put them into my basket (= i do a literature search by myself) and, as long as i am interested in apples, i revisit the tree regularly and i shake it (to collect newly grown apples).

@martin klvana I appreciate your opinion, but I think that in certain areas, for example, genetics is very important to have a good overview of the previous work (on genes, SNPs etc.).

Emin, i agree that "it is very important to have a good overview of the previous work," but i am skeptical about a review article being effective in providing a good overview, if the review article exists at all (and that's another problem):

If one's topic is very specific and spanning various disciplines, it is very unlikely there is any review written on that topic (and that any review will ever be written, unless i write it myself). Instead of being at the mercy of others, i do a literature search for myself---now, today, if i want; without any middlemen, such as reviewers, editors---with keywords that exactly map the area i want to explore: it's fun, it's dynamic, and i learn more than i would by reading a static review article (which, unlike my library of papers, will not be updated on daily/weekly basis, if ever).

Thank you Martin Klvana for your opinion.

• Mesmo em artigos originais é necessário apresentar o problema investigado a partir de uma revisão teórica, porque todo conhecimento é resultado de um processo. No campo das ciências humanas e sociais o artigo de revisão é fundamental, mas é preciso critérios em relação a quem os publica e quem os escreve.

I agree with you Marcos Antonio da Silva . How then to popularize and raise the value of review articles? How to improve standards for such articles?

Publishers have the right to publish anything and writers have the right to write anything. The idea of "criteria [being] needed in relation to who publishes [review articles] and who writes them" (viz. a comment above by Marcos Antonio da Silva) is tantamount to an idea of censorship.

A review paper is a secondary publication, containing a survey of primary literature indicating the developments and trends. The strategy is to compile and annotate the papers published on a particular subject during a defined period. Reading good reviews strengthens one’s broad areas of interest. An exhaustive list of references at the end of review serves as a good bibliography on the topic. A review covers up to date work in a new perspective.

Certain journals concentrate on publishing review articles covering up to date information in a new perspective, and these are usually identifiable from their titles such as “Advances in ….” Yearbook of…”, and Annual Review of …” Examples include “Advances in Agronomy”; “Advances in Soil Science”; and “Annual Review of Plant Physiology”. Occasionally, one or two review articles may appear in primary journals too. A thesis will also contain a comprehensive review on the researchable topic (as a chapter) indicating the past and present status of the problem.

Visar a qualidade do que vai ser publicado é condição metodológica e científica, não ideológica, caro Martin Klvana@.

Reviews are publications in their own right. Of course you might shake the apple tree and take whatever comes down, but a review helps you to maneuver and find your way through the plantation. You might not want Braeburn, or Delicious, you might want to have a go for French Pink Lady because you are stylish and willing to spend the money. There is nothing wrong with taking a look at reviews first to not end up with a tree that does not hold the apples you are looking for.

Also, you have to have a precise idea of what apples you are looking for. Sometimes you don't. Your workload too might be an obstacle. You fail to find the proper time to be up to date when it comes to recent publications. Checking the latest reviews concerning publications of your field of study helps you with that. They do not substitute for thorough reading, but you know whats on the market, what type of subtopics are being dealt with and when you finally need some secondary literature on a research topic you might remember how you have read about a recent publication. Bibliographies might contain lists of many more publications but they are notoriously behind publications. Checking monthly publications or quarterly helps tremendously and I realized how it sometimes sparks an idea for your current project.

Reviews therefor are a tool that should be used by teaching personnel and researchers. It does not come with the reputation of a unique essay on one's research, because it is no research in itself but sums up the research of other people, basically sums up a book and if it is a good review it provides some insight into it's quality and it's standing as compared to all the other books on the topic. This might be one reason for the rather low reputation. The other one would be that many a researcher uses reviews as quick way to maximise annual output and increase the number of publications the easy way. How often have you read a review that gave off the impression that the author had not read much more than introduction, conclusion and maybe one chapter on his favourite topic?

PS: I am getting the impression that I am turning into the to-go member when it comes to the posts that require some reading time ...