In my opinion just bringing a new question and good recommendation for future is the key. It is understood, that for reviews its not always (most of the time) possible to bring something new no matter what you do.
A researchers duty is to put forward a new question than brining new knowledge.
For a review article, how can the author bring new piece of knowledge? Its review for a reason. I think its not always possible, what do you think?
A review article / article based on literature (research contents) reviewed can add value through analysis & synthesis of literature reviewed from certain point of views which can be beneficial to certain group of researchers that have the common research interest. Yes agreed review article might not bring forth new knowledge, new research question(s), new good recommendation etc. but literature review is a key part of the research process. Some researchers might completed their entire research i.e. covering research problem, literature review, methodology, result findings, discussion & conclusion sections etc. and try to break down & publish their research into several articles in which one of them can be a review article. In my personal opinion such review article is more beneficial than those published review article only for writing the literature review sake. E.g. the former category of review article might include the research problem, research objective(s), research question(s) or some times provide a glimpse of the conceptual framework besides the typical review article contents.
It seems to depend on the discipline. Philosophy journals that publish review articles would generally expect the review articles to not be merely expository but also to have critical content, which is where an author can offer new insights and criticisms for consideraton.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking