Which one is more valuable for one's CV - primary research or literature review?
Of course primary research, though literature review give insights to your research.
Agreed! But publishing a primary research is really hard as you need alot of fundings for your experiments.
It depends on what you want to do.
Reviews are much more journalistic related, but as a researcher, it can allow you to think through the implications of existing knowledge. It also allows you to publicly join the research conversation -it points to your own centers of interest.
It also allows others to know that you are available to cruch data and publish the finding - i.e. your own research. Like any other field it is getting known and noticed that gets you to the available means: reviews, articles and conferences are what get you known in the field.
Definitely. Some good reviews are actually published by renowned experts in that particular field. I once read a very comprehensive pharmacological review that has 600 + references and 20 authors.
My point of view that Primary research has more value and support for ine’s value regardless how hard to achieve it, but much valuable and supportive.
My answer is that primary research is more important for one's Curriculum Vitae if the objective leans more toward research, and concomitantly, literature review is more important for one's CV if its purpose is more purely academic, i.e., if the aim is to obtain an academic position, whether in primary research or in a position that requires broad based general and specific knowledge in the field of specialization. Furthermore, publications of one's research usually requires knowledge of both past contributions to, and current developments in, the areas of specialization. I think that it always a good idea to place primary research into context, which means including a literature review in an article, no matter how brief, and therefore, it would be advisable to have teaching, laboratory and research publications that demonstrate accomplishments and skills that suggest a well-rounded background that shows the ability to perform well in both types of professional activities, primary research AND literature review. Best wishes.
Michael Halim
Dear Researcher,
It depends on the nature of the job that you are applying for. If you are applying for a faculty job then usually I have seen that the interviewers are most interested in the number of primary researches that you have pursued. If you are applying for a researcher's job in a particular discipline, then the number of reviews that you have pursued in that area or related areas, matters a lot.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Anamitra.
Thank you for your clarification on the importance of primary research and review respectively.
Both are important for a researcher but the main focus should be given on primary research.
Agreed! Primary research is the main. Other types of publications are more like icing on the cake in my point of view, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily inferior, as in the end it all depends on your field of research and your employer.
Both are important, even if they are intended for different publics. For one's CV the primary research is more important.
To write a review on any topic, one has to be an expert in that area. So, if an early researcher writes a review article without an expert name on it, it would be considered less important in evaluations. A well planned research article, even if the researcher is not first name in the article, will make a better impression.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India