Primary vs. Review Articles in Scientific Literature

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main body
Conclusion
References

Introduction

To begin with, a primary article is an original scientific report in which the author outlines new research findings. Review papers and meta-analyses are not included in this category because they summarize previous studies (Cornell University Library, 2021). In most cases, the usual sections found in a primary article involve an abstract and introduction, methods, results (or findings), and discussion, as well as references. Primary studies should be peer-reviewed, or in other words, checked and verified by experts in the field.

Main body

Further, review articles, in turn, aim at collecting previously performed studies, reviewing and summarizing literature, finding gaps or correlations, and presenting interpretations. Review articles are considered secondary sources that critically analyze the results from primary papers (Cornell University Library, 2021). They are useful and effective because they contain insightful conclusions, summarize numerous articles, and have reference lists containing primary studies.

Next, it is essential to describe how the scientific peer review process is performed. According to researchers from the Cornell University Library (2021), peer review is the most significant quality test performed by experts working in the same scientific field as the article’s author. They receive the draft and ask questions to assess the research’s quality and importance, evaluating elements such as the originality of findings and logic of conclusions. In their recommendation to the editor, peers either approve or reject the paper for publication. They may also recommend specific revisions for the author to make.

Conclusion

Finally, one may say that the paper by Shin et al. (2016) is a primary article, while the writing by Jimenez-Sanchez et al. (2017) is a secondary review. Shin et al. (2016) conducted their research, analyzed the received data, and drew conclusions primarily about their experiment, thus bringing new information to the field. In contrast, Jimenez-Sanchez et al. (2017) summarize and interpret what is already known about the topic.

References

Cornell University Library. (2021). Tutorial: Scholarly literature types. Web.

Jimenez-Sanchez, M., Licitra, F., Underwood, B. R., & Rubinsztein, D. C. (2017). Huntington’s disease: Mechanisms of pathogenesis and therapeutic strategies. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 7(7), 1-22. Web.

Shin, J. W., Kim, K. H., Chao, M. J., Atwal, R. S., Gillis, T., MacDonald, M. E., Gusella, J. F., & Lee, J. M. (2016). Permanent inactivation of Huntington’s disease mutation by personalized allele-specific CRISPR/Cas9. Human Molecular Genetics, 25(20), 4566–4576. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Primary vs. Review Articles in Scientific Literature

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)