Dear Charif

Often, short communications report an interesting finding or technique that is of broad interest and should be published quickly. Sometimes, they also document a correction that may be important for fellow researchers to know.

In contrast, a full-length article is a much more thorough, in-depth study that could stand on its own. Major findings are reported and verified by orthogonal techniques.

There is also a grey line between these definitions. A short communication in a high profile journal might be considered a full study in a journal of lesser impact.

Hi Dehchar Short communication is the precise and concise version of research paper (in brief) respecting the journal's word limit that is credited with some unique, finding/breakthrough/significant improvement and requires immediate/quick communication for drawing attention to the scientific/ research community at the earliest. Where An "original" research article is a detailed account of research activity written by the scientists who did the research--not by someone else who is reporting on the research; it is a primary resource. Some instructors may refer to these as "scientific research" articles or as "empirical" research.

The purpose of a review paper is to succinctly review recent progress in a particular topic. Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic. It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers. And A book review is a form of literary criticism in which a book is analyzed based on content, style, and merit. A book review may be a primary source, opinion piece, summary review or scholarly review. ... A book review's length may vary from a single paragraph to a substantial essay.

I would personally prefer An Original Research Article to Review regardlles how much time it takes. As it gives me insight of the Research Question, Methods, Methodology, Observation, Discussion, Results, Conclusion in Detail rather than a Helicopter View.

Regards

Thank you so much Ahsan Siddiqui for your valuable contribution.

Most journals have a section for ‘short notes’ or ‘short communications’. Obviously, a short communication fetches lower value than a full length research paper, as it is 'short'. It is suitable for reporting isolated observations, which do not require lengthy comments. It can be considered as a concise, but complete, description of an investigation of limited scope, for example, the report of the discovery of a pest of crop. The text is usually given in a narrative form following IMRAD but without the usual headings and sub-headings. If tables are included, often it is confined to one or two only. References are limited to a maximum of two to three or without references.

Thank you very much C George Thomas.

There's no such things that one type of article is better than the other; it all depends on the subject of interest and the available evidence, the need for evidence and the journals interests on a particular subject.

Thank you so much for all of you.

Dear Charif

Often, short communications report an interesting finding or technique that is of broad interest and should be published quickly. Sometimes, they also document a correction that may be important for fellow researchers to know.

In contrast, a full-length article is a much more thorough, in-depth study that could stand on its own. Major findings are reported and verified by orthogonal techniques.

There is also a grey line between these definitions. A short communication in a high profile journal might be considered a full study in a journal of lesser impact.