You could write something like: "See Smith (2000) and references therein".

That sounds perfect; thanks!

OR say "see review in Smith (2000) to make it clear that you are citing a review.

from a research point of view, you may get conclusive output from the review but you should cite the original research article.

1. In case, if you citing a review article it is not justice, Because you are giving credit to the review article instead of main researcher.

2. If anybody has to use the same information then he/she must have to go for the review first and then to the original article.

Hi,

In an academic paper the citation must be to the original paper. A review paper includes additional information or impression that could be irrelevant to your paper.

If you're citing the work of the original researcher, then their paper deserves the recognition in lieu of the person that wrote the review article.  You can efficiently cite groups of articles from which your work is drawn.  Truth be told though ... I think we can see why review articles get cited so much.  The one case where I'd cite a review article would be when I wanted my reader to know that I found that review helpful and how so.

It depends on what you are doing. If you are citing the conclusions of the review, then you cite the review, e.g. "Ika (2009) reviewed the project management literature and identified three basic approaches to project success, “objectivist”, “situational” and “subjectivist” with different approaches and assumptions." If you are referring to the papers referenced in the review article, you have to cite them "For example, Ika (2009) cites Shenhar, Dvir, Guth, Lechler, Panatakul, and Poli, (2005) in reference to the second generation of the Ford Taurus car. This project was completed on time in 1995 but was not considered to be successful in the marketplace."

Hope this helps!

Dear ones, one should read the original article and if it is appropriate to your theme, then only you have to cite it. Chew it, taste it give it to others for further reading.Don't cite without reading any paper from review.  Prof.Sangam - UGC. Emeritus Fellow 

As a rule You have to read/cite the original text and then the Review if helpful.

Best wishes

It depends on whose ideas you are citing. Citing the ideas and insights of the reviewer? Then cite the review. Re-using ideas of papers being reviewed? Then cite those individual original papers. It's that easy. Of course as a service to your readers you can always (also) cite the review as "an good overview of recent discussions/research can be found in....".

Jeroen Bosman, Utrecht University Library

I agree with Michael, as the main contributor of knowledge should be credited.

 I agree with Dr.Avishag Gordon and Dr.George Stoica

If you are citing a rsch piece within a review, people can mention it (XYZ cited in ABC)

Perfect timing. I had to go online last week for the first time ever and I'm working on explaining to (distant) students (2nd year Uni) why it's not okay to cite research from a review article. Because my students have so little time to complete their essay, I allow them to "cite the citation" with the warning that, in the future, they'll have more time (in the professor's view) and they'll have to hunt down and read those primary articles.

Thank you for asking this question. I got some handy and exciting tips.

Do not cite the original paper if you did not read it.

I agree with Michael and Philip. Also be careful that the reviewr paper might give a wrong citation in some cases.

One time I used some data of an author A reported in a review written by B. Unfortunately I did not have access to the original paper so I used the formula "the data of A as reported by B".

The issue that if the litrature review is published in a recommended journal (approved by the university) but not the original sources!

Hi,

It is OK provided that you mention also the original citation, or, go back and cite only the original citation, this seems more appropriate.

It is more preferable to cite the primary source of data, nevertheless, if you must cite the review kindly still include the primary authors for example Author A, yyyy cited in Author B, yyyy.

It depends on what information you are using. The review may contain the reviewer's conclusions which can be helpful to cite, along with the original paper's data. Ensuring you cite the points you use is the key.

I spent many months writing a review paper on CRISPR-Cas methods which contained both original citations and my own examples, graphics and conclusions. I would hope both sources would be cited.

Article Mini review: genome and transcriptome editing using CRISPR-c...