As we know that the critical review articles (I am not mentioning articles having bibliometric analysis) are a critical synthesis of existing literature/research in a specific research area and that critical synthesis is very much original. There is widespread confusion about the status of such critical review articles. There is widespread discussion in the scientific forums about this and many people believe that the critical reviews cannot be considered as original research articles due to lack of experimentation in the first place. Expert's comments are solicited. Thanks.
Hi. I hope the following link might help:
https://guides.lib.uoguelph.ca/WriteCriticalReview
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.
Critical review generally summarizes the current state of research on a given topic, it synthesizes or analyzes research already conducted in primary sources.
A critical review, no matter how exceptional it might be, will always be a review. It is meant to comment, analyze, and present an evaluation of a published manuscript or a book!
They are clearly not the same but sometimes SCOPUS indexes reviews as articles
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Comment