Nowadays, the rate of publishing review articles is increasing at a faster rate. It seems that researchers are leaning towards investing their time on reviewing published articles in their area of specializations than working on new research ideas. I don’t know if it’s because of its simplicity. However, I also see, on the other side, that review articles can also simplify the identification of research gaps. So, what’s your idea in this regard? What are the main benefits of review articles? Is there any situation where a review article has a comparative advantage of the original research articles? Where? And, how?
Some reviews have some novelty as well such as novel suggestions, arguments, and conclusions. In which, probably it will be more useful than research paper.
My view of review article is that it summarizes findings in a particular research area to identify gap and points out future research direction
@Samson, how about the number? I mean, do you support the increasing rate of publishing review articles, where some of them are even repeating the same idea?
Standard review articles should identify gap and chart direction for further research that could lead to improvements over previous studies in a particular area; the increasing number of review research is not a problem but the most important issue is the quality of the review. For repetition of review, that is very bad lost of originality and part of the problem is the standard and quality of the journal publisher. A good journal publisher aside peer reviews should conduct plagiarism test before publication.
Some reviews have some novelty as well such as novel suggestions, arguments, and conclusions. In which, probably it will be more useful than research paper.
Hi
Generally review articles contains collection of particular ideas in different perspectives. If some needs to know some ideas about a domain instead of research article review articles are more economical. By same payment one can get more information.
Best
Review papers are more likely to be accepted in the peer-reviewed scholary journals because such review papers increase citations (i.e. JIF). However, we should be mindful that nowdays many poor review papers are being published in literature:
The Milbank Quarterly (SCI, IF 4.375) - The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Retrieved from https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/mass-production-redundant-misleading-conflicted-systematic-reviews-meta-analyses/
Claire Su-Yeon Park That was my main concern. Thanks indeed. So, what do you think the solution for the the mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews is? This was actually what I wanted to say in my discussion question.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher