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!

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 have the opportunity to read the original article, then it is nice to cite in your article. It is the ethical and desired gesture. The real acknowledgement and credit should go to the real contributor.  You can also cite the review paper it is useful for you in creating the overall idea of your research paper.