original article vs research article

SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

Hirsh Health Sciences
Webster Veterinary

Guide to Scholarly Articles

What is a Scholarly Article?
Scholarly vs. Popular vs. Trade Articles

Types of Scholarly Articles

Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods articles, why does this matter.

Anatomy of Scholarly Articles
Tips for Reading Scholarly Articles

Scholarly articles come in many different formats each with their own function in the scholarly conversation. The following are a few of the major types of scholarly articles you are likely to encounter as you become a part of the conversation. Identifying the different types of scholarly articles and knowing their function will help you become a better researcher.

Original/Empirical Studies

Note: Empirical studies can be subdivided into qualitative studies, quantitative studies, or mixed methods studies. See below for more information
Usefulness for research: Empirical studies are useful because they provide current original research on a topic which may contain a hypothesis or interpretation to advance or to disprove.

Literature Reviews

Distinguishing characteristic: Literature reviews survey and analyze a clearly delaminated body of scholarly literature.
Usefulness for research: Literature reviews are useful as a way to quickly get up to date on a particular topic of research.

Theoretical Articles

Distinguishing characteristic: Theoretical articles draw on existing scholarship to improve upon or offer a new theoretical perspective on a given topic.
Usefulness for research: Theoretical articles are useful because they provide a theoretical framework you can apply to your own research.

Methodological Articles

Distinguishing characteristic: Methodological articles draw on existing scholarship to improve or offer new methodologies for exploring a given topic.
Usefulness for research: Methodological articles are useful because they provide a methodologies you can apply to your own research.

Case Studies

Distinguishing characteristic: Case studies focus on individual examples or instances of a phenomenon to illustrate a research problem or a a solution to a research problem.
Usefulness for research: Case studies are useful because they provide information about a research problem or data for analysis.

Book Reviews

Distinguishing characteristic: Book reviews provide summaries and evaluations of individual books.
Usefulness for research: Book reviews are useful because they provide summaries and evaluations of individual books relevant to your research.

Adapted from the Publication manual of the American Psychological Association : the official guide to APA style. (Sixth edition.). (2013). American Psychological Association.

Qualitative articles ask "why" questions where as quantitative articles ask "how many/how much?" questions. These approaches are are not mutually exclusive. In fact, many articles combine the two in a mixed-methods approach.

We can think of these different kinds of scholarly articles as different tools designed for different tasks. What research task do you need to accomplish? Do you need to get up to date on a give topic? Find a literature review. Do you need to find a hypothesis to test or to extend? Find an empirical study. Do you need to explore methodologies? Find a methodological article.

<< Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular vs. Trade Articles
Next: Anatomy of Scholarly Articles >>
Last Updated: Aug 23, 2023 8:53 AM
URL: https://researchguides.library.tufts.edu/scholarly-articles

Main Library
Digital Fabrication Lab
Data Visualization Lab
Business Learning Center
Klai Juba Wald Architectural Studies Library
NDSU Nursing at Sanford Health Library
Research Assistance
Special Collections
Digital Collections
Collection Development Policy
Course Reserves
Request Library Instruction
Main Library Services
Alumni & Community
Academic Support Services in the Library
Libraries Resources for Employees
Book Equipment or Study Rooms
Librarians by Academic Subject
Germans from Russia Heritage Collection
NDSU Archives
Mission, Vision, and Strategic Plan 2022-2024
Staff Directory
Floor Plans
The Libraries Magazine
Accommodations for People with Disabilities
Annual Report
Donate to the Libraries
Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
Faculty Senate Library Committee
Undergraduate Research Award

What is an original research article?

An original research article is a report of research activity that is written by the researchers who conducted the research or experiment. Original research articles may also be referred to as: “primary research articles” or “primary scientific literature.” In science courses, instructors may also refer to these as “peer-reviewed articles” or “refereed articles.”

Original research articles in the sciences have a specific purpose, follow a scientific article format, are peer reviewed, and published in academic journals.

Identifying Original Research: What to Look For

An "original research article" is an article that is reporting original research about new data or theories that have not been previously published. That might be the results of new experiments, or newly derived models or simulations. The article will include a detailed description of the methods used to produce them, so that other researchers can verify them. This description is often found in a section called "methods" or "materials and methods" or similar. Similarly, the results will generally be described in great detail, often in a section called "results."

Since the original research article is reporting the results of new research, the authors should be the scientists who conducted that research. They will have expertise in the field, and will usually be employed by a university or research lab.

In comparison, a newspaper or magazine article (such as in The New York Times or National Geographic ) will usually be written by a journalist reporting on the actions of someone else.

An original research article will be written by and for scientists who study related topics. As such, the article should use precise, technical language to ensure that other researchers have an exact understanding of what was done, how to do it, and why it matters. There will be plentiful citations to previous work, helping place the research article in a broader context. The article will be published in an academic journal, follow a scientific format, and undergo peer-review.

Original research articles in the sciences follow the scientific format. ( This tutorial from North Carolina State University illustrates some of the key features of this format.)

Look for signs of this format in the subject headings or subsections of the article. You should see the following:

Scientific research that is published in academic journals undergoes a process called "peer review."

The peer review process goes like this:

A researcher writes a paper and sends it in to an academic journal, where it is read by an editor
The editor then sends the article to other scientists who study similar topics, who can best evaluate the article
The scientists/reviewers examine the article's research methodology, reasoning, originality, and sginificance
The scientists/reviewers then make suggestions and comments to impove the paper
The original author is then given these suggestions and comments, and makes changes as needed
This process repeats until everyone is satisfied and the article can be published within the academic journal

For more details about this process see the Peer Reviewed Publications guide.

This journal article is an example. It was published in the journal Royal Society Open Science in 2015. Clicking on the button that says "Review History" will show the comments by the editors, reviewers and the author as it went through the peer review process. The "About Us" menu provides details about this journal; "About the journal" under that tab includes the statement that the journal is peer reviewed.

Review articles

There are a variety of article types published in academic, peer-reviewed journals, but the two most common are original research articles and review articles . They can look very similar, but have different purposes and structures.

Like original research articles, review articles are aimed at scientists and undergo peer-review. Review articles often even have “abstract,” “introduction,” and “reference” sections. However, they will not (generally) have a “methods” or “results” section because they are not reporting new data or theories. Instead, they review the current state of knowledge on a topic.

Press releases, newspaper or magazine articles

These won't be in a formal scientific format or be peer reviewed. The author will usually be a journalist, and the audience will be the general public. Since most readers are not interested in the precise details of the research, the language will usually be nontechnical and broad. Citations will be rare or nonexistent.

Tips for Finding Original research Articles

Search for articles in one of the library databases recommend for your subject area . If you are using Google, try searching in Google Scholar instead and you will get results that are more likely to be original research articles than what will come up in a regular Google search!

For tips on using library databases to find articles, see our Library DIY guides .

Tips for Finding the Source of a News Report about Science

If you've seen or heard a report about a new scientific finding or claim, these tips can help you find the original source:

Often, the report will mention where the original research was published; look for sentences like "In an article published yesterday in the journal Nature ..." You can use this to find the issue of the journal where the research was published, and look at the table of contents to find the original article.
The report will often name the researchers involved. You can search relevant databases for their name and the topic of the report to find the original research that way.
Sometimes you may have to go through multiple articles to find the original source. For example, a video or blog post may be based on a newspaper article, which in turn is reporting on a scientific discovery published in another journal; be sure to find the original research article.
Don't be afraid to ask a librarian for help!

Search The Site

Find Your Librarian

Phone: Circulation: (701) 231-8888 Reference: (701) 231-8888 Administration: (701) 231-8753

Email: Administration InterLibrary Loan (ILL)

Online Services
Phone/Email Directory
Registration And Records
Government Information
Library DIY
Subject and Course Guides
Special Topics
Collection Highlights
Digital Horizons
NDSU Repository (IR)
Libraries Hours
News & Events

Identifying and Locating Empirical Articles

Types of scholarly articles.

Empirical Articles vs Review Articles
Locating Empirical Articles

The two main types of scholarly articles are empirical (also called original research) articles, and review articles. Understanding how and why these two types of articles are created will help you decide which ones might be the most important for your research.

<< Previous: Welcome
Next: Empirical Articles vs Review Articles >>
Last Updated: Sep 29, 2023 2:51 PM
URL: https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/identifying-locating-empirical-articles

Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review Articles

First Online: 02 March 2024

Cite this chapter

Kimberly M. Rathbun 5

14 Accesses

Manuscripts are used to communicate the findings of your work with other researchers. Writing your first manuscript can be a challenge. Journals provide guidelines to authors which should be followed closely. The three major types of articles (original research, case reports, and review articles) all generally follow the IMRAD format with slight variations in content. With planning and thought, manuscript writing does not have to be a daunting task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Emergency Medicine, AU/UGA Medical Partnership, Athens, GA, USA

Kimberly M. Rathbun

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly M. Rathbun .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Emergency Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Robert P. Olympia

Elizabeth Barrall Werley

Jeffrey S. Lubin

MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA

Kahyun Yoon-Flannery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Rathbun, K.M. (2023). Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review Articles. In: Olympia, R.P., Werley, E.B., Lubin, J.S., Yoon-Flannery, K. (eds) An Emergency Physician’s Path. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47873-4_80

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47873-4_80

Published : 02 March 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-47872-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-47873-4

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Study resources
Calendar - Graduate
Calendar - Undergraduate
Class schedules
Class cancellations
Course registration
Important academic dates
More academic resources
Campus services
IT services
Job opportunities
Safety & prevention
Mental health support
Student Service Centre (Birks)
All campus services
Calendar of events
Latest news
Media Relations
Faculties, Schools & Colleges
Arts and Science
Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science
John Molson School of Business
School of Graduate Studies
All Schools, Colleges & Departments.
Directories
My Library account Renew books and more
Book a study room or scanner Reserve a space for your group online
Interlibrary loans (Colombo) Request books from external libraries
Zotero (formerly RefWorks) Manage your citations and create bibliographies
Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver Request a PDF of an article/chapter we have in our physical collection
Contactless Book Pickup Request books, DVDs and more from our physical collection while the Library is closed
WebPrint Upload documents to print on campus
Course reserves Online course readings
Spectrum Deposit a thesis or article
Sofia Discovery tool
Databases by subject
Course Reserves
E-journals via Browzine
E-journals via Sofia
Article/chapter scan
Intercampus delivery of bound periodicals/microforms
Interlibrary loans
Spectrum Research Repository
Special Collections
Additional resources & services
Subject & course guides
Open Educational Resources Guide
Borrowing & renewing
General guides for users
Evaluating...
Ask a librarian
Research Skills Tutorial
Bibliometrics & research impact guide
Concordia University Press
Copyright guide
Copyright guide for thesis preparation
Digital scholarship
Digital preservation
Open Access
ORCiD at Concordia
Research data management guide
Scholarship of Teaching & Learning
Systematic Reviews
Borrow (laptops, tablets, equipment)
Connect (netname, Wi-Fi, guest accounts)
Desktop computers, software & availability maps
Group study, presentation practice & classrooms
Printers, copiers & scanners
Technology Sandbox
Visualization Studio
Webster Library
Vanier Library
Grey Nuns Reading Room
Study spaces
Floor plans
Book a group study room/scanner
Room booking for academic events
Exhibitions
Librarians & staff
Work with us
Memberships & collaborations
Indigenous Student Librarian program
Wikipedian in residence
Researcher in residence
Feedback & improvement
Annual reports & fast facts
Strategic Plan 2016/21
Library Services Fund
Giving to the Library
Policies & Code of Conduct
My Library account
Book a study room or scanner
Interlibrary loans (Colombo)
Zotero (formerly RefWorks)
Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver
Contactless Book Pickup
Course reserves

Review vs. Research Articles

How can you tell if you are looking at a research paper, review paper or a systematic review examples and article characteristics are provided below to help you figure it out., research papers.

A research article describes a study that was performed by the article’s author(s). It explains the methodology of the study, such as how data was collected and analyzed, and clarifies what the results mean. Each step of the study is reported in detail so that other researchers can repeat the experiment.

To determine if a paper is a research article, examine its wording. Research articles describe actions taken by the researcher(s) during the experimental process. Look for statements like “we tested,” “I measured,” or “we investigated.” Research articles also describe the outcomes of studies. Check for phrases like “the study found” or “the results indicate.” Next, look closely at the formatting of the article. Research papers are divided into sections that occur in a particular order: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references.

Let's take a closer look at this research paper by Bacon et al. published in the International Journal of Hypertension :

Review Papers

Review articles do not describe original research conducted by the author(s). Instead, they give an overview of a specific subject by examining previously published studies on the topic. The author searches for and selects studies on the subject and then tries to make sense of their findings. In particular, review articles look at whether the outcomes of the chosen studies are similar, and if they are not, attempt to explain the conflicting results. By interpreting the findings of previous studies, review articles are able to present the current knowledge and understanding of a specific topic.

Since review articles summarize the research on a particular topic, students should read them for background information before consulting detailed, technical research articles. Furthermore, review articles are a useful starting point for a research project because their reference lists can be used to find additional articles on the subject.

Let's take a closer look at this review paper by Bacon et al. published in Sports Medicine :

Systematic Review Papers

A systematic review is a type of review article that tries to limit the occurrence of bias. Traditional, non-systematic reviews can be biased because they do not include all of the available papers on the review’s topic; only certain studies are discussed by the author. No formal process is used to decide which articles to include in the review. Consequently, unpublished articles, older papers, works in foreign languages, manuscripts published in small journals, and studies that conflict with the author’s beliefs can be overlooked or excluded. Since traditional reviews do not have to explain the techniques used to select the studies, it can be difficult to determine if the author’s bias affected the review’s findings.

Systematic reviews were developed to address the problem of bias. Unlike traditional reviews, which cover a broad topic, systematic reviews focus on a single question, such as if a particular intervention successfully treats a medical condition. Systematic reviews then track down all of the available studies that address the question, choose some to include in the review, and critique them using predetermined criteria. The studies are found, selected, and evaluated using a formal, scientific methodology in order to minimize the effect of the author’s bias. The methodology is clearly explained in the systematic review so that readers can form opinions about the quality of the review.

Let's take a closer look this systematic review paper by Vigano et al. published in Lancet Oncology :

Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed

Many databases have special features that allow the searcher to restrict results to articles that match specific criteria. In other words, only articles of a certain type will be displayed in the search results. These “limiters” can be useful when searching for research or review articles. PubMed has a limiter for article type, which is located on the left sidebar of the search results page. This limiter can filter the search results to show only review articles.

Home » Review Article vs Research Article

Review Article vs Research Article

Table of Contents

Review articles and Research Articles are two different types of scholarly publications that serve distinct purposes in the academic literature.

Research Articles

A Research Article is a primary source that presents original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis. These articles typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Research articles often include detailed descriptions of the research design, data collection and analysis procedures, and the results of statistical tests. These articles are typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet rigorous scientific standards before publication.

Review Articles

A Review Article is a secondary source that summarizes and analyzes existing research on a particular topic or research question. These articles provide an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic, including a critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of previous research. Review articles often include a meta-analysis of the existing literature, which involves combining and analyzing data from multiple studies to draw more general conclusions about the research question or topic. Review articles are also typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they are comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date.

Difference Between Review Article and Research Article

Here are some key differences between review articles and research articles:

In summary, research articles and review articles serve different purposes in the academic literature. Research articles present original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis, while review articles summarize and analyze existing research on a particular topic or research question. Both types of articles are typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet high standards of scientific rigor and accuracy.

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Inductive Vs Deductive Research

Exploratory Vs Explanatory Research

Basic Vs Applied Research

Generative Vs Evaluative Research

Reliability Vs Validity

Longitudinal Vs Cross-Sectional Research

PSYC 200 Lab in Experimental Methods (Atlanta)

Find Research Articles

Empirical vs. Review Articles

How to recognize empirical journal articles, scholarly vs. non-scholarly sources.

Cite Sources
Find Tests & Measures
Find Research Methods Materials
Post-Library Lab Activity on Finding Tests and Measures
Find Books, E-books, and Films

Psychology Librarian

Know the difference between empirical and review articles.

Empirical article An empirical (research) article reports methods and findings of an original research study conducted by the authors of the article.

Literature Review article A review article or "literature review" discusses past research studies on a given topic.

Definition of an empirical study: An empirical research article reports the results of a study that uses data derived from actual observation or experimentation. Empirical research articles are examples of primary research.

Parts of a standard empirical research article: (articles will not necessary use the exact terms listed below.)

Abstract ... A paragraph length description of what the study includes.
Introduction ...Includes a statement of the hypotheses for the research and a review of other research on the topic.
Who are participants
Design of the study
What the participants did
What measures were used
Results ...Describes the outcomes of the measures of the study.
Discussion ...Contains the interpretations and implications of the study.
References ...Contains citation information on the material cited in the report. (also called bibliography or works cited)

Characteristics of an Empirical Article:

Empirical articles will include charts, graphs, or statistical analysis.
Empirical research articles are usually substantial, maybe from 8-30 pages long.
There is always a bibliography found at the end of the article.

Type of publications that publish empirical studies:

Empirical research articles are published in scholarly or academic journals
These journals are also called “peer-reviewed,” or “refereed” publications.

Examples of such publications include:

Computers in Human Behavior
Journal of Educational Psychology

Examples of databases that contain empirical research: (selected list only)

Web of Science

This page is adapted from the Sociology Research Guide: Identify Empirical Articles page at Cal State Fullerton Pollak Library.

Know the difference between scholarly and non-scholarly articles.

"Scholarly" journal = "Peer-Reviewed" journal = "Refereed" journal

When researching your topic, you may come across many different types of sources and articles. When evaluating these sources, it is important to think about:

Who is the author?
Who is the audience or why was this written?
Where was this published?
Is this relevant to your research?
When was this written? Has it been updated?
Are there any citations? Who do they cite?

Helpful Links and Guides

Here are helpful links and guides to check out for more information on scholarly sources:

This database contains data on different types of serials and can be used to determine whether a periodical is peer-reviewed or not: Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
The UC Berkeley Library published this useful guide on evaluating resources, including the differences between scholarly and popular sources, as well as how to find primary sources: UC Berkeley's Evaluating Resources LibGuide
<< Previous: Quick Poll
Next: Cite Sources >>
Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 3:32 PM
URL: https://guides.libraries.emory.edu/main/psyc200

Healey Library
Research Guides

Scholarly Articles and Journals

Original Research
Popular vs. Scholarly

Original Research Articles

Q. What's the difference between a research article (or research study) and a review article?

Course-Specific
Textbooks & Course Materials
Tutoring & Classroom Help
Writing & Citing
44 Articles & Journals
3 Artificial Intelligence
11 Capstone/Thesis/Dissertation Research
37 Databases
56 Information Literacy
9 Interlibrary Loan
9 Need help getting started?
22 Technical Help

Answered By: Priscilla Coulter Last Updated: Jul 29, 2022 Views: 232155

A research paper is a primary source ...that is, it reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors . The kind of study may vary (it could have been an experiment, survey, interview, etc.), but in all cases, raw data have been collected and analyzed by the authors , and conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.

Research papers follow a particular format. Look for:

A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study. This is important because it demonstrates that the authors are aware of existing studies, and are planning to contribute to this existing body of research in a meaningful way (that is, they're not just doing what others have already done).
A methods section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data. Statistical analyses are included. This section is quite detailed, as it's important that other researchers be able to verify and/or replicate these methods.
A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis. Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included.
In the discussion , authors will explain their interpretation of their results and theorize on their importance to existing and future research.
References or works cited are always included. These are the articles and books that the authors drew upon to plan their study and to support their discussion.

You can use the library's article databases to search for research articles:

A research article will nearly always be published in a peer-reviewed journal; click here for instructions on limiting your searches to peer-reviewed articles.
If you have a particular type of study in mind, you can include keywords to describe it in your search . For instance, if you would like to see studies that used surveys to collect data, you can add "survey" to your topic in the database's search box. See this example search in our EBSCO databases: " bullying and survey ".
Several of our databases have special limiting options that allow you to select specific methodologies. See, for instance, the " Methodology " box in ProQuest's PsycARTICLES Advanced Search (scroll down a bit to see it). It includes options like "Empirical Study" and "Qualitative Study", among many others.

A review article is a secondary source ...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own. Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among exising research studies. For student researchers, review articles provide a great overview of the existing literature on a topic. If you find a literature review that fits your topic, take a look at its references/works cited list for leads on other relevant articles and books!

You can use the library's article databases to find literature reviews as well! Click here for tips.

Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 7 No 0

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Where Do I Start?
How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles?
How Do I Compare Periodical Types?
Where Can I find More Information?

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Scholarly or research articles are written for experts in their fields. They are often peer-reviewed or reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication. They often have terminology or jargon that is field specific. They are generally lengthy articles. Social science and science scholarly articles have similar structures as do arts and humanities scholarly articles. Not all items in a scholarly journal are peer reviewed. For example, an editorial opinion items can be published in a scholarly journal but the article itself is not scholarly. Scholarly journals may include book reviews or other content that have not been peer reviewed.

Empirical Study: (Original or Primary) based on observation, experimentation, or study. Clinical trials, clinical case studies, and most meta-analyses are empirical studies.

Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include symptoms and diagnosis.

Clinical trials ( Health Research): Th ese articles are often based on large groups of people. They often include methods and control studies. They tend to be lengthy articles.

Opinion Piece: An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best.

Book review: Recent review of books in the field. They may be several pages but tend to be fairly short.

Social Science and Science Research Articles

The majority of social science and physical science articles include

Journal Title and Author
Abstract
Introduction with a hypothesis or thesis
Literature Review
Methods/Methodology
Results/Findings

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

In the Arts and Humanities, scholarly articles tend to be less formatted than in the social sciences and sciences. In the humanities, scholars are not conducting the same kinds of research experiments, but they are still using evidence to draw logical conclusions. Common sections of these articles include:

an Introduction
Discussion/Conclusion
works cited/References/Bibliography

Research versus Review Articles

6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers
INFOGRAPHIC: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
Michigan State University. Empirical vs Review Articles
UC Merced Library. Empirical & Review Articles
<< Previous: Where Do I Start?
Next: How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? >>
Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 10:48 AM
URL: https://library.bridgew.edu/scholarly

Phone: 508.531.1392 Text: 508.425.4096 Email: [email protected]

Feedback/Comments

Website Accessibility

"How Do I?" @JWULibrary

Sample Question

JWU-Providence Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

35 about the library
29 articles & journals
1 Borrowing
9 citing sources
17 company & industry
11 computers
1 copyright compliance
5 countries & travel
2 course registration
10 culinary
51 databases
3 education
2 Interlibrary loan
5 job search
6 libguides
9 market research
25 my library account
12 requests
26 research basics
20 research topics
2 study rooms
16 technology
7 textbooks
42 university
3 video tutorial
1 writing_help

Answered By: Sarah Naomi Campbell Last Updated: Sep 07, 2018 Views: 214550

Watch this short video to learn about types of scholarly articles, including research articles and literature reviews!

Not in the mood for a video? Read on!

What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

Research articles , sometimes referred to as empirical or primary sources , report on original research. They will typically include sections such as an introduction, methods, results, and discussion.

Here is a more detailed explanation of research articles .

Review articles , sometimes called literature reviews or secondary sources , synthesize or analyze research already conducted in primary sources. They generally summarize the current state of research on a given topic.

Here is a more detailed explanation of review articles .

The video above was created by the Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries .

The defintions, and the linked detailed explanations, are paraphrased from the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , 6th ed .

The linked explanations are provided by the Mohawk Valley Community College Libraries .

Links & Files

How do I find empirical articles in the library databases?
Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 63 No 19

Comments (0)

Biological Sciences Research Guide

Primary research vs review article.

Research Starters
Citing Sources
Open Educational Resources
Peer Review
How to Read a Scientific Article
Conducting a Literature Review
Interlibrary Loan

Quick Links

Penfield Library
Research Guides
A-Z List of Databases & Indexes

Characteristics of a Primary Research Article

Goal is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge
Sometimes referred to as an empirical research article
Typically organized into sections that include: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, and References.

Example of a Primary Research Article:

Flockhart, D.T.T., Fitz-gerald, B., Brower, L.P., Derbyshire, R., Altizer, S., Hobson, K.A., … Norris, D.R., (2017). Migration distance as a selective episode for wing morphology in a migratory insect. Movement Ecology , 5(1), 1-9. doi: doi.org/10.1186/s40462-017-0098-9

Characteristics of a Review Article

Goal is to summarize important research on a particular topic and to represent the current body of knowledge about that topic.
Not intended to provide original research but to help draw connections between research studies that have previously been published.
Help the reader understand how current understanding of a topic has developed over time and identify gaps or inconsistencies that need further exploration.

Example of a Review Article:

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.oswego.edu/science/article/pii/S0960982218302537

<< Previous: Plagiarism
Next: Peer Review >>

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
PMC10306213

Content and form of original research articles in general major medical journals

Nicole heßler.

1 Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik (IMBS), Universität zu Lübeck, Universitätsklinikum-Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

Andreas Ziegler

2 Cardio-CARE, Medizincampus Davos, Davos, Switzerland

3 School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

4 Department of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

5 Centre for Population Health Innovation (POINT), University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

6 Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Lausanne, Switzerland

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

The title of an article is the main entrance for reading the full article. The aim of our work therefore is to examine differences of title content and form between original research articles and its changes over time. Using PubMed we examined title properties of 500 randomly chosen original research articles published in the general major medical journals BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM and PLOS Medicine between 2011 and 2020. Articles were manually evaluated with two independent raters. To analyze differences between journals and changes over time, we performed random effect meta-analyses and logistic regression models. Mentioning of results, providing any quantitative or semi-quantitative information, using a declarative title, a dash or a question mark were rarely used in the title in all considered journals. The use of a subtitle, methods-related items, such as mentioning of methods, clinical context or treatment increased over time (all p < 0.05), while the use of phrasal tiles decreased over time (p = 0.044). Not a single NEJM title contained a study name, while the Lancet had the highest usage of it (45%). The use of study names increased over time (per year odds ratio: 1.13 (95% CI: [1.03‒1.24]), p = 0.008). Investigating title content and form was time-consuming because some criteria could only be adequately evaluated by hand. Title content changed over time and differed substantially between the five major medical journals. Authors are advised to carefully study titles of journal articles in their target journal prior to manuscript submission.

Introduction

Researchers have the duty to make the results of their research on human subjects publicly available according to the declaration of Helsinki [ 1 ], and many recommendations for the reporting of studies have been developed. An overview on these reporting guidelines is provided by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network, which aims to tackle the problems of poor reporting [ 2 ]. One consequence of systematic reporting is that many scientific articles are organized in the same way [ 3 , 4 ], and they generally follow the IMRAD structure, which stands for Introduction, Methods, Results, And Discussion. The IMRAD structure is also standard for the writing of abstracts. It is therefore of interest to researchers how they can individualize their reports to increase the citation counts, which is one important measure for career advancement [ 5 ].

Approximately 30 factors affecting citation frequency have already been identified [ 6 – 9 ]. While journal- and author related factors are generally not modifiable, some article-specific factors are subject to active modification by the authors. Especially the title has been proposed as a modifiable component of a research article [ 9 – 11 ]. Researchers should use titles that accurately reflect the content of their work and allow others easily to find and re-use their research [ 12 ]. Most research has focused on the form of article titles because these analyses could be performed automatically and are not very time-consuming [ 9 , 13 , 14 ].

While the article content has been studied well both in features, such as tense, voice and personal pronouns, and in the IMRAD sections between different research disciplines, title content has received less attention, and the main focus was title length [ 15 , 16 ]. One reason could be the lack of automated internet searches until approximately 25 years ago. For example, PubMed was first released in 1996, Web of Science is online since 1997 and Google Scholar started not earlier than in 2004. With the advent of automated internet-based searches the importance of the title has changed, and it is now the “billboard” of a research article [ 17 ]. Another reason could be that these evaluations have to be made manually, and they are thus time-consuming [ 18 ]. An additional time-consuming factor could be that guidelines such as the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement [ 19 ] strongly recommend that at least two observers should do an independent evaluation where applicable.

Most articles investigating the form of the title compared whether the title was a full sentence [ 20 ], descriptive, indicative, or a question [ 18 , 21 ], or whether the title included non-alphanumeric characters, such as a colon or dash [ 22 ]. Very few publications looked at other title components of a research article. Specifically, Kerans, Marshall [ 23 ] compared the frequency of Methods mentioning or Results mentioning for the general major medical journals, specifically the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and the Lancet by analyzing the first approximately 60 articles published either in 2015 or 2017 in each of the journals. Both articles investigated only a few months from a single publication year per journal. The development of title content over time was thus not considered.

The aim of our work therefore was to examine properties of title content for original research articles published in one of the five major clinical journals (BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM, and PLOS Medicine (PLOS)) over the 10-year period from 2011 until 2020. Specifically, we aimed at identifying differences between the five journals and changes over time regarding title content and title form. We also compared our findings to those of Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ].

Materials and methods

Search in medline and web of science.

The search strategy has been described in detail elsewhere [ 9 ]. In brief, we first extracted all original research articles finally published between 2011 and 2020 in the five major clinical journals BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM, and PLOS. The restriction to the publication year 2011 allows for proper comparisons between journals because PLOS was reshaped in 2009 [ 24 ].

The variables PubMed identifier (PMID), journal name, article title, author names, publication year, citation, PubMed Central identifier (PMCID) and digital object identifier (DOI) were extracted from the Medline search. From the Web of Science, we reduced available information to journal name, article title, PMID, abstract for the identification of original research articles, DOI and publication date. Both PMID and DOI were used to merge articles identified in Medline (n = 8396) and the Web of Science (n = 10267). Articles being listed with an abstract remained in the data set, while articles only listed in the Web of Science were excluded. Articles being only downloaded in the Medline files were checked whether they were indeed original research articles. If not, they were excluded as well. After data cleaning, a set of 8096 articles was available.

Evaluation of title content and form

To investigate title content and form, we randomly selected 500 original articles from the years 2011 to 2020. The random selection was done with stratification by journal and year so that ten original articles per year (100 articles per journal) were randomly chosen. To avoid a priori information on the specific journal article, only the title and the PMID were presented in the database. In addition, the order of the 500 articles was randomized prior to evaluation. All article titles were evaluated manually by two raters/authors. Both raters performed a training and independently evaluated 25 randomly selected journal articles—five per journal—prior to the evaluation of the 500 articles. These training articles were excluded from the main evaluation. Conflicts in ratings were solved by agreement.

Items for title content and form are displayed in Table 1 and were inspired by other works [ 15 , 25 , 26 ]. One reviewer asked for the discoverability in each of the title items, therefore, we provided two examples of article titles with the result of our evaluation in Table 1 .

The first block of Table 1 reports results on title content. Title content was divided into the topics Methods and Results. The former is concerned with the mentioning of methods in the title, such as the study design or a novel technique used in the paper [ 15 ]. Other elements from the methods concern the mentioning of a patient population, the geography, the clinical context, an intervention, and the use of study names in the title. The latter examines results mentioned in the manuscript. The first question was whether results were stated in the title at all. More detailed were the questions whether quantitative information or semiquantitative or ordinal information was provided [ 26 ]. It was also noted whether the title reported on a relation between two or more variables [ 26 ].

The second block of Table 1 is related to the form of a title divided into the topics Methods, and Conclusion/Discussion. The use of abbreviations, dashes and subtitles was investigated for the Methods. The three single items for Conclusion/Discussion were whether the title was declarative, phrasal, or formulated as a question.

Recently, we performed an analysis after an automatic search for country and city mentioning in the title by the use of the R package maps [ 9 ], and we did not expect substantial differences to our hand search.

Sample size considerations

The main aim of our work was to investigate trends over time by a regression model. In general, regression models have a sufficient sample for a single independent variable, such as time, if n ≈ 50 [ 27 , 28 ]. Specifically, for a weak effect size of R 2 = 0.14 [ 29 ], the required sample size is 51. In case of a weak effect size of Cohen’s f [ 29 ] with f 2 = R 2 / (1 –R 2 ) = 0.14, the required sample size is 403 to achieve a power of 80%. A sample size of 500 as used in our work yields a power of 87.75% at a significance level of 5%.

Descriptive statistics for the specified title properties, i.e., absolute and relative frequencies were reported for each journal over time, refraining of descriptive p-values for investigating journal differences. Fisher’s exact tests were performed at a significance level of 5% to compare the findings of this study with those of Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ] regarding methods mentioning, patient population, geography, clinical context, and treatment. Corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were provided. Furthermore, overall tests were performed to compare frequencies of these items between all journals. Bias-corrected Cramérs V effect measures were estimated with corresponding parametric bootstrapped CIs. The DerSimonian and Laird [ 30 ] (DSL) approach was used to perform random effect (RE) meta-analyses, which allows for variability in the variables of interest properties between journals and over time. The logit transformation was used for estimating the pooled proportions [ 31 ], and standard errors were not back-transformed.

The effect of time regarding the specific title properties was investigated by logistic regression models, if appropriate. Post hoc comparisons for the identification of homogeneous subgroups were performed using Tukey’s HSD. Associations between title properties and the journals were analyzed using likelihood ratio tests. Effect estimates, i.e., odds ratios and corresponding 95% CI were reported for all analyses, and the journal BMJ was used as reference category. An odds ratio of x.x being greater than 1 indicates an x.x fold increased chance containing the specific item for an one-year difference adjusted for the variable journal.

Data and R code for all analyses are provided in S1 and S2 Files , respectively.

A total of 500 randomly selected original research articles from 5 medical journals were analyzed regarding the selected title items (see Table 1 ) . In Table 2 , the descriptive statistics, i.e., absolute and relative frequencies for all title properties over the years are shown, respectively for each journal. Results of the meta-analyses are provided in detail in S3 File , sections 4 and 5 .

Absolute and relative frequencies (parenthesis) are shown.

JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, NEJM: The New England Journal of Medicine, PLOS: PLOS Medicine.

Items–Content

In terms of the title content topic methods, the NEJM deviated from the other journals regarding the methods mentioning. While methods were mentioned in at least 93% of the article titles in BMJ, Lancet and PLOS, about the half (47%) was in JAMA and 11% in NEJM article titles. Similar results were reported by Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ] for BMJ, JAMA and Lancet, but proportions differed between Lancet titles ( Table 3 ). The mentioning of methods increased over time (OR: 1.12 (95% CI: [1.01‒1.24]), p = 0.025, Fig 1 and S3 File , section 6.1.1 ), i.e., methods were mentioned more frequently in the article titles more recently.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0287677.g001.jpg

Displayed are odds ratios (square) per increase by one year, corresponding 95% confidence intervals (whisker) and p-values (numbers).

Corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) are shown in brackets. Results of PLOS Medicine are missing because Kerans et al. did not examine article titles of this journal.

JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, NEJM: The New England Journal of Medicine. 1 p-values from Fisher exact test; frequencies were compared within a journal for the respective variable. 2 Cramérs V (bias-corrected); CIs calculated by bootstrapping (normal approximation, 100 replications), 3 p-values from Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test; frequencies were compared between all journals within the respective study

Lowest and highest numbers for the mentioning of the patient population were in the BMJ (62%) and the NEJM (78%), respectively. For the mentioning of the patient population, neither an increase over time (OR: 1.06 (95% CI: [0.99‒1.13]), p = 0.100, Fig 1 ) nor substantial differences between the journals ( S3 File , section 6.1.2 ) could be observed.

About half of the PLOS titles (52%) contained any geographic information, but only 31% of the BMJ titles (see Table 2 ). Frequencies were only 16% and 17% for JAMA and Lancet, respectively, and 9% for NEJM titles. These findings are in line with Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ], except for the BMJ, where Kerans et al. observed that 15.8% of the articles mentioned geographic information ( Table 3 ). Mentioning of geographic information varied over time both within each journal ( S3 File , section 4.1.3.1) and over the journals ( S3 File , section 4.1.3.2 ). This is consistent with the results from the logistic regression analysis (OR: 1.07 (95% CI: [0.99‒1.16]), p = 0.072, Fig 1 and S3 File , section 6.1.3 ).

The clinical context was mentioned in 73% of BMJ titles, while it was mentioned at least 80% in the other four journals. This is in line with Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ] ( Table 3 ). Additionally, we observed an increase of clinical context mentioning over time (OR: 1.10 (95% CI: [1.01‒1.19]), p = 0.025, Fig 1 and S3 File , section 6.1.4 ).

Only 27% in PLOS and 30% in BMJ provided some treatment information in the title, while for the other three journals at least 50% of the article titles mentioned a treatment. Our results did not show any differences from those of Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ] ( Table 3 ). Over time the naming of treatments in the title increased (OR: 1.08 (95% CI: [1.02‒1.16]), p = 0.015, Fig 1 and S3 File , section 6.1.5 ).

There was no NEJM title containing a study name while Lancet had the highest usage of it (45%). The analysis over time showed a trend over time (OR: 1.13 (95% CI: [1.03‒1.24]), p = 0.008) and substantial differences between the journals ( S3 File , section 6.1.6 ).

Regarding the title topic results, only 6 out of the total of 500 articles mentioned results in their titles. This is in line with the findings of Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ], who reported that 1.9% of NEJM titles mentioned results. No article provided any quantitative information in its title, and only 4 of 500 articles provided semi-quantitative information in their title. Because of very low numbers, no further analyses were performed for these criteria.

A relation between variables was used least frequently in the NEJM (23%), followed by the Lancet (35%). The other three journals mentioned a relation in more than half of the articles ( Table 2 ). These differences between journals were confirmed in regression analysis ( S3 File , section 6.2.4 ). However, an increase over time could not be observed (p = 0.858, Fig 1 ).

Items–Form

In terms of the title form topic methods, abbreviations were less used in NEJM titles and most used in Lancet titles, 24% and 55 respectively (see Table 2 ). An increase use over time was observed (OR: 1.13 (95% CI: [1.05‒1.20]), p < 0.001, Fig 1 ) as well as differences between journals ( S3 File , section 7.1.1) .

Dashes were rarely used. Only three articles in BMJ and two articles in NEJM used a dash ( Table 2 ). Further analyses were not performed because of these low frequencies.

A subtitle was used in at least 98% of the articles in BMJ, Lancet, and PLOS, while only 41% of JAMA titles and only 2% of NEJM titles used subtitles. These clear differences between the journals were confirmed with the regression analysis ( S3 File , section 7.1.2 ). Moreover, the usage of subtitles increased over time (OR: 1.22 (95% CI: [1.07‒1.38]), p < 0.003 , Fig 1 ).

Finally, regarding the title form topic discussion, not a single article had a declarative title in our analyses ( Table 2 ). Phrasal titles were present in 3% of JAMA, 7% of NEJM, 11% of BMJ, 12% of Lancet, and 15% of PLOS titles. Significant differences between journals could not be observed ( S3 File , section 7.2.2 ). A decrease of phrasal titles over time was observed in the regression analysis (OR: 0.90 (95% CI: [0.81‒1.00]), p < 0.044, Fig 1 and S3 File , section 7.2.2 ).

Only three of 500 article titles were written as a question ( Table 2 ). Kerans et al. [ 15 , 23 ] observed similar low frequencies; and they reported 3.9% for the BMJ and 1.3% for Lancet articles with a question symbol, and none for both JAMA and NEJM ( Table 3 ).

Geographic information–Manual versus automated search with the maps package

The comparison of our hand search on the mentioning of geographic information revealed substantial differences to the automated search with the R package maps [ 9 ].

In detail, respectively, 31% vs. 13% for BMJ, 16% vs. 3% for JAMA, 17% vs. 9% for the Lancet, 9% vs. 3% for the NEJM and 52% vs. 29% for PLOS articles contained any geographical information in their titles for the hand and automatic search. The automated search thus led to fewer titles with any geographic information.

Title content properties varied substantially between original research articles published in the general major medical journals. Furthermore, title content and form changed over time. Differences between journals were specifically observed in the use of subtitles. While almost all articles from the BMJ and PLOS had subtitles, only two of the NEJM articles had a subtitle. Previously, we and others showed that the colon was most used in titles to split a title into multiple parts rather than any other separator [ 9 , 15 , 23 ]. Here, we furthermore showed that the proportion of paper with subtitles increased over time.

Substantial differences between journals were also observed for the mentioning of methods, the patient population, the geography, the interventional treatment, and the use of an abbreviation in the title. In addition, there were substantial differences in the use of a study name in the title. For example, while no article published in the NEJM used a study name, almost half (45%) of the studies in the Lancet used one. Some content criteria were mainly not or rarely used in all considered journals, such as a dash, mentioning of results, using a declarative title, or a question mark. This was in contrast to Paiva, Lima [ 32 ] who showed for PLOS and BMC journals that approximately 40% of the articles mentioned the results, and such articles were more frequently cited than work mentioning methods. In our study, only 6 articles out of 500 mentioned results in the title, while 344 out of the 500 articles mentioned of methods. Our findings are in line with general guidelines that declamatory titles, i.e., titles that give study results should be avoided [ 33 ]; see, e.g., instructions to authors for the Lancet. Authors should thus avoid providing quantitative or semi-quantitative information in the title. In fact, since the title is a one-line summary, the conclusions could be spread out into the world without reading at least the abstract or the full text of the article. Aleixandre-Benavent and colleagues go a step further and provide recommendations what a title should contain, and how it should not be constructed [ 16 ].

Our work focused on the general major medical journals plus the online only journal PLOS. Between the printed journals, there were substantial differences regarding the content of article titles [ 9 ]. One of the reasons could be in the instructions for authors, which differ in the provided information on the construction of a title. Specifically, the NEJM title had the lowest number of frequencies for a couple of criteria, such as the subtitle, methods mentioning, geography, abbreviations, and relation. No NEJM title contained a study name. However, the clinical context and the patient population was most frequently described in NEJM article titles. Differences between printed and online journals were obvious using geographic information in the title or usage of a phrasal title occurring more often in the online journal PLOS.

Subtitles are now more frequently used than a decade ago. Furthermore, the mentioning of methods increased in the 10 years from 2011 to 2020. This change in the title may be caused by the increased use of reporting guidelines, such as the CONSORT statement [ 34 ], which states that a randomized controlled trial should be identifiable as randomized in the title. The instructions for authors of all considered journals state that subtitles should be used for reporting the study design and/or authors should follow the respective reporting guidelines of their study. In fact, authors should look out a copy of the target journal and identify its preferences [ 35 ].

Our results are in line with the recommendations from the journal-specific instructions for authors, except NEJM. The NEJM does not follow the CONSORT statement using subtitles for randomized controlled trials, see also [ 1 ]. For the other four journals, the mentioning of the study design or the type of analysis is almost always done using subtitles as recommended. Furthermore, our results for JAMA using no declarative titles, no results mentioning or using questions in the title match with its recommendations.

Research has so far concentrated on the form of article titles rather than its content. While some authors investigated title content in BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and NEJM for a specific time, generally a single year [ 15 , 23 , 36 ], the development of title content over time has rarely been studied [ 37 ]. A strength of our work thus is the availability of all original articles over a time span of 10 years [ 9 ]. From this database, we randomly selected a subset of articles for manual assessment. These articles were evaluated by two raters according to a pre-specified coding plan with examples and training. Title evaluations were then done blinded by year and journal.

We did not expect different journal-specific frequencies regarding the geographic information in the title compared to our recent work [ 9 ], in which we performed an automatic search for country and city mentioning in the title by the use of the R package maps [ 9 ]. However, frequencies differed substantially. The automated search led to fewer titles with any geographic information. For example, the maps package did not contain countries, such as ‘England’, continents, abbreviation, such as ‘U.S.’, or terms, such as ‘English’. The main reasons for the discrepancies were for the use of country-specific abbreviations and additional country-specific terms. However, other tools or packages might have been more appropriate for the geographical query than the maps package.

One limitation of our study is that we relied on the quality of the data provided by the PubMed database [ 38 ]. Another limitation of our work is that additional variables could have been considered, e.g., more complex title content [ 12 , 16 , 22 ].

A further limitation is the sample size of 500 articles, i.e., 10 articles per journal and year. With a sample size substantially larger than 1000 articles we would have been able to study the association of title characteristics with citation counts. For example, the total sample size of our previous study, which was based on an automated search was 8096 articles [ 9 ]. With 500 articles, 95% confidence intervals are approximately 4 times larger (√8096 / √500 = 4.02), and many results, such as the association between the number of citations would not have been significant. The sample size used in this study is approximately twice that of [ 15 , 23 ], and this study with 500 articles was powered to reliably detect trends over time.

In future research, it would be of interest to analyze the effect of title content properties on citation frequencies. It would also be interesting to compare specific journals with general medical journals.

In conclusion, title content differed substantially between the five major medical journals BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM and PLOS. Furthermore, title content changed over time. We recommend that authors study titles of articles recently published in their target journal when formulating the manuscript title. Analyses of title content may generally require manual time-consuming inspections.

Supporting information

Funding statement.

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

PLoS One. 2023; 18(6): e0287677.

Decision Letter 0

10 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-07021Title Content and Form of Original Research Articles in High-Ranked Medical JournalsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ziegler,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Boyen Huang, DDS, MHA, PhD

Academic Editor

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. AZ is a licensed Tim Albert trainer and has held several courses in the past based on Albert’s concept."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests ). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability .

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories . Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions . Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

The major concerns from the reviewers include the sample size, sample selection, and writing style.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: No

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This article analyses the titles of articles published in a series of medical journals over time. It is interesting for a consideration of how naming practices affect discoverability and use of research material.

There are, though, a few aspects that need revision:

First, the title of this paper makes reference to “high ranked” medical journals, but there is no definition anywhere of how this ranking is constructed or to what ranking you are referring.

Second, the sample size of 500 is relatively small and limits the general applicability of the findings, as the paper notes. I am unclear as to whether this is too small to be useful/generalizable.

Third, some of the limitations could have been overcome with different computational methods. For example, on page 14 you state that the maps package that you used was not able correctly to identify many locations in article headings. However, other named-entity recognition tools would certainly do a better job of this. For instance, Amazon Comprehend or SageMaker could be appropriate tools here.

Fourth, the language needs careful checking throughout. For instance: “can only adequately [be] measured”; “articles meaning no sentence and no question”; “we did neither observe” → “we observed neither”; “almost the half” → “almost half”.

Fifth, and perhaps most significantly, it would be helpful for the conclusions of this paper to interpret the findings more closely. Why have these changes that you find occurred? What does it mean that subtitles are now more common? How does discoverability work in each of the title types to which you refer?

Finally, you open by stating that the prime driver of picking a good title is so that you can pick up citations and have career progression. This seems a very cynical way of thinking about how to title articles. Scientists and medics should use titles that accurately reflect the content of the work and allow others easily to find and re-use their research. I would suggest amending this opening to incorporate such a stance.

Reviewer #2: The paper titled “Title Content and Form of Original Research Articles in High-Ranked Medical Journals” investigates the differences of title content and form between papers in the medical field and their changes over time. Overall, the paper is well-written and well-argued. The methodology is adequate, and there are an overall coherence and relation to the scope of publication in the Plos One journal. In addition, this manuscript addresses a very interesting issue about the analysis of titles and does so in a very competent technical way. It Is worth mentioning that data and R code are shared.

I do however have a major issue (which in fact, is a minor one). The authors did a huge effort in sharing all the data; however, the results section sometimes it's difficult to follow (the reader should go back and forth checking the tables). I think some (introductory) sentences in some parts of the manuscript will benefit the readability of the text (see my suggestions below).

I will go slightly more into detail with them in the position-specific comments below.

I think the paper would benefit by including some keywords related to the titles (e.g. research article titles or titles). I have reservations about the use of ‘impact’ (I think the authors are not analysing the impact of the papers, e.g. citation impact).

The introduction and background is ok, providing the necessary information leading to the purpose of the study. However, I think the authors could expand a bit more (there are more studies on the topic). See my suggestions below.

P10|Line 56. Indicate that the EQUATOR Network is referred to the reporting health research (e.g. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network).

P10|Line 33 (and P11|Line 83). “content has rarely been investigated beyond title length”. I slightly disagree with this statement. From a bibliometric perspective, there are many articles that analyse impact (e.g. effect on citations, downloads), sentence types (e.g. informative), the information the author wants to include, and in which order, among others. I would like to suggest the following papers (not included by the authors):

• Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Montalt-Resurecció, V., & Valderrama-Zurián, J. C. (2014). A descriptive study of inaccuracy in article titles on bibliometrics published in biomedical journals. Scientometrics, 101(1), 781–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1296-5 .

• Ball, R. (2009). Scholarly communication in transition: The use of question marks in the titles of scientific articles in medicine, life sciences and physics 1966–2005. Scientometrics, 79(3), 667–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1984-5 .

• Busch-Lauer, I.-A. (2000). Titles of English and German research papers in medicine and linguistics theses and research articles. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Analysing professional genres (pp. 77–94). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.74.08bus

• Buter, R. K., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Non-alphanumeric characters in titles of scientific publications: An analysis of their occurrence and correlation with citation impact. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 608–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.008 .

• Haggan, M. (2004). Research paper titles in literature, linguistics and science: Dimensions of attraction. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166 (03)00090-0

• Nagano, R. L. (2015). Research article titles and disciplinary conventions: A corpus study of eight disciplines. Journal of Academic Writing, 5(1), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v5i1.168

• Pearson, W. S. (2021). Quoted speech in linguistics research article titles: patterns of use and effects on citations. Scientometrics, 126(4), 3421-3442.

P10|Line 75. Worth mentioning the Web of Science (1997) which includes the title field tag.

P11|Line 79. Indicate the acronym (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD)). When the authors mention ‘at least two observers should do an independent evaluation where applicable”. Are referring to the article title? (not clear)

P11|Line 84. Correct typo “(2020)compared”.

P12|106-108. The authors mention “Articles being listed with an abstract remained in the data set, while articles only listed in the Web of Science were excluded.”. I suggest indicating the number of papers. Was the abstract used for any purpose?

P12|111. Indicate in this section that ten original articles per year (100 articles per journal) were randomly chosen.

There is a lot of information in this section (Tables and supplementary material), which allows the reproducibility of the findings. However, I think some introductory sentences will benefit the readability of the text (see my suggestions below).

P14|159-160. Although the information is in the Supplementary Material, I suggest introducing a few words (just one or two sentences) about Table 2 (or Descriptive Statistics).

In Table 3, the Plos Medicine journal information is missing in the table.

P14|159-160 “About half of the PLOS titles (52%) contained any geographic information”: missing this information in Table 3 (or indicate the Supplementary table in which this information is displayed).

P16|203. Correct typo ‘ofKerans’.

P16|207. Here, the authors mention the Results/Relation (and not the previous ones, i.e. Results mention, Quantitative information or Semi-quantitative information). I suggest an introductory sentence indicating that ‘In terms of results, etc’. And also pointing out that the other previous items were rarely used.

P16|214. Regarding this information (24%), indicate in brackets Table 2 (or 3.2. Supplementary Table)

P16|224. Indicate that refers to the discussion/conclusion part.

Discussion/Conclusions

Line 19|278-279. Another aspect that should be considered is the title length allowed by each journal (number maximum of words). Also there is of interest the recommendations from the journals (e.g. in the author guidelines). In some journals there is some criteria such as ‘Specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field’ (Plos One), whereas in others it is suggested to include a subtitle (e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/pages/instructions-for-authors ).

Line 20 |321. Another limitation is the variables considered (e.g. some other studies analyse other non-alphanumeric elements such as exclamations, other criteria for the content, etc.)

Line21|333. A sentence about further research could be included.

Reviewer #3: • There was a desire to look at characteristics within journals over time but use of only 10 articles per year seems subject to selection bias for this research question. What was the power consideration here?

• It is not clear how the titles were evaluated. Was it an automated program or each one manually? The samples size is small enough that manual adjudication is possible.

• Line 115. This is confusing. Results are not given for harmonization of classification of various title attributes.

• Reporting of ORs is confusing. For example on line 170, what is the OR for? The proportion listing method per year? Similar in line 188 – you say the rate varied over time, but you used logistic regression assuming an increase over time?

• The results section includes discussion points (like line 202).

• Were any findings linked back to author instructions for each journal? These often dictate title content.

• Linking the metrics assessed to citation counts would add an important dimension to the significance of this research.

• There is too much repetition of p values in the Discussion. I assume these were not presenting new analyses not shown in the results. It is not appropriate. Line 312 – they do report new analyses. It should be part of the study of not (unless published elsewhere).

• The Discussion is too long.

• The recommendation near the end that authors study titles in their target journals before submission is unfounded. Title is often dictated by author guidelines or changed during peer review. They did not study this particular question – in other words, they did not study title of rejected compared to accepted articles.

Reviewer #4: This study applies what are in my opinion very sound methodologies to analyze the titles of prestigious, general medical journals. The paper is well-written, and its significance lays on going beyond other studies in investigating titles’ form & content and the development of title content over time. To do so, they had to select a representative sample of articles over a period of 10 years. Having two (trained) raters made the methodology strong, as it was the methodology followed in the “Evaluation of title content and form” section. (I have to admit, however, that I lack the expertise to say that the statistical analyses have been performed appropriately and rigorously. So in the following I assume these have been done correctly.) By following this well-crafted methodology, and providing all the relevant data, the code to analyze it, and in detail results in the supplementary materials, the conclusions arrived at are well supported (see some comments below, though) and could be replicated by others.

I do have some specific concerns or comments that I would like the authors to address:

1. I think the authors should stick to the wording “general major medical journals” instead of “highly ranked” as they don’t define which “rank” that is or where it can be found or calculated.

2. Mentioning of guidelines for authors writing the papers in the journals analyzed was not mentioned at all ---even as it is mentioned in the literature they quote. I think this is important as to it may be determining why authors use a particular way to phrase the title. The reader is left to assume that no guidance was provided by the journal that could have biased title wording. I think this to be particularly important for the use or avoidance of abbreviations, dashes, and/or subtitles.

3. The authors recommendation “We recommend that authors study titles of articles recently published in their target journal when formulating the manuscript title” does not seem supported other than by their results implying this is what you find in them already. So, why should you follow the same? Would that make it more likely to be published? The paper’s introduction makes reference to increasing citation frequency in databases, and so does at least one of the authors’ previous papers, yet it’s never mentioned explicitly as a possible outcome of choosing title according to the journal to submit.

4. Regarding their recommendation “In our opinion, authors should avoid providing quantitative or semi-quantitative information in the title. In fact, since the title is a one-line summary, the conclusions could be spread out into the world without reading at least the abstract or the full text of the article. ”I think this argument should expand as to what the consequences are in following this behavior e.g. propagation of misinformation.

5. In their statement “Another limitation of our study is that we relied on the quality of the data provided by the database of PubMed. Specifically, we may have missed some original articles in our database search. And we have previously identified a couple of errors in the database (Heßler and Ziegler, 2022).” One shouldn’t expect the reader to go their paper for finding out what was wrong with those hits/articles.

6. Finally, author AZ declares, in the competing interests field, that he's a "licensed Tim Albert trainer and has held several courses in the past based on Albert’s concept." Please consider adding the statement that (at least some of the) Tim Albert trainings deal with advising people how to write medical papers.

P.S. There are a few typos, like missing words and letters, that need to be corrected throughout the manuscript.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

22 May 2023

See separate document

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_V01.pdf

Decision Letter 1

12 Jun 2023

Title Content and Form of Original Research Articles in General Major Medical Journals

PONE-D-23-07021R1

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: I have read the second revision of this manuscript and, in my opinion, the authors have addressed the main issues and provided a satisfactory answer in their response.

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Acceptance letter

15 Jun 2023

Dear Dr. Ziegler:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Boyen Huang

Become Involved |
Give to the Library |
Staff Directory |
UNF Library
Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Original Research

How can i tell if the article is original research.

Glossary of Terms
What are Peer Reviewed/Refereed Articles?

Chat With Us Text Us (904) 507-4122 Email Us Schedule a Research Consultation

Visit us on social media!

What is Original Research?

Original research is considered a primary source.

An article is considered original research if...

it is the report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study.
the researchers describe their hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.
the researchers detail their research methods.
the results of the research are reported.
the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications.

There is no one way to easily tell if an article is a research article like there is for peer-reviewed articles in the Ulrich's database. The only way to be sure is to read the article to verify that it is written by the researchers and that they have explained all of their findings, in addition to listing their methodologies, results, and any conclusions based on the evidence collected.

All that being said, there are a few key indicators that will help you to quickly decide whether or not your article is based on original research.

Literature Review or Background
Conclusions
Read through the abstract (summary) before you attempt to find the full-text PDF. The abstract of the article usually contains those subdivision headings where each of the key sections are summarized individually.
Use the checkbox with CINAHL's advanced search to only see articles that have been tagged as research articles.
Next: Glossary of Terms >>
Last Updated: Feb 7, 2022 11:44 AM
URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/originalresearch

Supported by

Putin’s China Visit Highlights Military Ties That Worry the West

The Russian leader visited an institute in Harbin known for defense research. President Xi Jinping saw him off with a rare and seemingly deliberate embrace for the cameras.

Share full article

By David Pierson

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia attended a trade fair on Friday in a northeastern Chinese city and toured a state-backed university famous for its cutting-edge defense research, highlighting how economic and military ties between the countries have grown despite, or perhaps because of, Western pressure.

Mr. Putin’s visit to Harbin, a Chinese city with a Russian past, is part of a trip aimed at demonstrating that he has powerful friends even as his war against Ukraine — a campaign that he is escalating — has isolated him from the West. The visit followed a day of talks between him and President Xi Jinping of China that seemed orchestrated to convey not only the strategic alignment of the two powerful, autocratic leaders against the West, but a personal connection.

State media showed Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi, neckties off after formal talks on Thursday, strolling under willow trees and sipping tea at a traditional pavilion on the sprawling grounds of Zhongnanhai, the walled leadership compound in Beijing, with only their interpreters. As Mr. Xi saw Mr. Putin off in the evening, he even initiated a hug — a rare expression of affection for the Chinese leader.

Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, both seated at a table, gazing in the same direction as two men sit behind them. All four are wearing dark suits and white shirts.

“Xi’s very deliberate embrace of Putin for the cameras wasn’t just to emphasize the closeness of the political relationship between the two countries and their leaders,” said Richard McGregor, a senior fellow for East Asia at the Lowy Institute in Sydney. “There was also a touch of disdain directed at Washington, which has been pressuring Beijing to withdraw support from Moscow. That clearly isn’t going to happen in any substantive fashion.”

The show of camaraderie was the final touch in talks that culminated in a joint statement that took aim at the United States, which Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi have accused of seeking to suppress their countries. The statement pledged that Russia and China would work more closely in critical sectors like energy, space and the military.

The large size of Russia’s delegation, which included Mr. Putin’s top security and energy officials, as well the length of the bilateral meetings, implied the seriousness with which both sides have approached the negotiations, said Alexander Gabuev, a China expert at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin.

“It’s like an iceberg,” he said. “The public documents are symbolic and largely meaningless. But there’s an underwater part, which is likely to be much more significant.”

Still, Mr. Putin’s visit also showed the limits of the countries alliance. In China, Mr. Xi rolled out the red carpet for Mr. Putin, but the visit did not produce any public commitments to concrete new projects or investments between the two countries.

Specifically, Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi have not publicly reported any progress on a planned new gas pipeline from China into Russia, known as Power of Siberia 2. Russia urgently needs the pipeline to redirect the flow of its gas exports from the rapidly declining market in Europe.

Mr. Putin had no news to share about the pipeline’s progress when he was asked about it in a brief news conference at the end of his trip on Friday.

“I am not prepared to discuss any technical details, but the interest of both sides in realizing these projects has been confirmed,” Mr. Putin said, referring to Power of Siberia 2.

He also deflected a question about reports that Chinese banks are reducing transactions with Russian clients out of fear of Western sanctions, turning the conversation from China to the shortcomings of the U.S. financial system.

The growing security ties between the two nuclear-armed powers was a focal point of Mr. Putin’s visit to Harbin, and the Harbin Institute of Technology.

While China and Russia are not formal allies committed to defend each other with military support, their armed forces have worked together more closely in recent years. Their air forces and navies have held joint military exercises, including near Alaska and Taiwan, the de facto independent island claimed by Beijing. On Thursday, the two leaders issued words of support for their separate claims to Taiwan and Ukraine.

And while China has vowed not to provide Russia with lethal weapons, it has been the top supplier of components like semiconductors and machine tools that have both civilian and military uses.

While that is helpful, Mr. Putin still seeks access to more sophisticated tools. The Harbin institute is best known for its research of rockets, missiles and space technology — expertise that Russia would greatly benefit from as the war in Ukraine has revived its need for a more robust military-industrial complex. The institute also trained North Korean scientists who worked on Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program, according to The Wall Street Journal and South Korean media.

Mr. Putin’s tour of the institute was steeped in symbolism. The 103-year-old institution recently opened a joint campus with St. Petersburg State University, Mr. Putin’s alma mater. And in something of a snub to Washington, the school belongs on the United States’ so-called entity list, barring it from accessing American technology and taking part in educational exchanges because of its links to the People’s Liberation Army.

“We should be less concerned about what particular technologies China might be sharing with Russia from Harbin or elsewhere, than the larger pattern and signal that this visit represents,” said Markus Garlauskas, a security expert at the Atlantic Council.

“China did not need to host Putin at Harbin in order to transfer technologies from there to Russia,” he added. “That this visit took place so openly is a visible and symbolic sign of Beijing being willing to provide directly military-applicable technology to support Russia’s war against Ukraine.”

Song Zhongping, a commentator in Beijing who is a former military officer, defended Mr. Putin’s visit to the institute, pointing to the school’s cooperation with Russia in education.

“Communication at the university level between China and Russia is consistent with the academic exchange and national interests of both countries,” Mr. Song said.

Mr. Garlauskas said the tour of the institute had echoes of when Mr. Putin hosted Kim Jong-un, the North Korean dictator, at a Russian spaceport last year before Pyongyang began supplying Moscow with ballistic missiles and other munitions to use in Ukraine.

“What China shares with Russia, Russia could easily then turn around and share with North Korea,” Mr. Garlauskas said.

Not long ago, it was China that drew greater benefits from access to Russian military technology. Starting in the 1990s, and peaking in the early 2000s, Beijing was a major buyer of Russian arms. Sales then began to slow after Moscow grew concerned about China reverse-engineering Russian weapons, said Elizabeth Wishnick, a senior research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses in Virginia.

It wasn’t until about a decade ago that cooperation between the two sides returned, leading to China’s acquisition of more Russian jet engine technology and surface-to-air missile systems. Still, in a sign that there are limits to its cooperation with China, Russia is holding out sharing its silent submarine technology, a feature that makes the vessels especially hard to detect, Ms. Wishnick said.

Mr. Putin is also using his visit to Harbin, where he attended a trade fair, to promote the flow of goods between the countries.

China has given Russia an economic lifeline by buying huge amounts of Russian oil to circumvent the effects of its financial isolation from the West. Not only that, with many foreign consumer brands also leaving Russia, Chinese companies have stepped in to fill a vacuum for the likes of automobiles , smartphones and televisions. That contributed to a record $240 billion in two-way trade between the China and Russia in 2023, up from $190 billion in 2022, according to Chinese customs data.

Maintaining that growth in trade is a major focus in both countries, analysts said, now that Western pressure on Chinese banks to scale back transactions with Russian firms is believed to have led to the first year-on-year decline in trade in more than two years in March.

One solution would be to increase the amount of transactions settled in local currencies rather than dollars to avoid the risk of sanctions. Mr. Putin said on Thursday that more than 90 percent of commercial transactions conducted between Russia and China were now being cleared in rubles or renminbi.

“Protecting the financial assets of big banks in China is the top crucial interest of China,” said Shi Yinhong, an international relations professor at Renmin University in Beijing. He said China was trying to reduce its exposure to the dollar beyond just in Russia, but that the room to do so was “limited.”

Olivia Wang and Anatoly Kurmanaev contributed reporting.

David Pierson covers Chinese foreign policy and China’s economic and cultural engagement with the world. He has been a journalist for more than two decades. More about David Pierson

Our Coverage of the War in Ukraine

News and Analysis

As Russia’s war effort in Ukraine intensifies, it is increasingly clear that efforts by the West to squeeze Moscow’s oil revenues are faltering .

The United States and Europe are coalescing around a plan to use interest earned on frozen Russian central bank assets to provide Ukraine with a loan to be used for military and economic assistance .

The Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s talks with President Vladimir Putin of Russia were a show of solidarity between two autocrats battling Western pressure.

Europe’s Defense Industry: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine jolted Europe out of complacency about military spending. But the challenges are about more than just money .

Putin’s Victory Narrative: The Russian leader’s message to his country appears to be taking hold : that Russia is fighting against the whole Western world — and winning.

A Boxing Win Offers Hope: The Ukrainian boxer Oleksandr Usyk became the world’s undisputed heavyweight champion, a victory that has lifted morale in a country struggling to contain Russian advances.

How We Verify Our Reporting

Our team of visual journalists analyzes satellite images, photographs , videos and radio transmissions to independently confirm troop movements and other details.

We monitor and authenticate reports on social media, corroborating these with eyewitness accounts and interviews. Read more about our reporting efforts .

Kinesiology Research Guide

Original Research vs. Review Articles
Find Articles

Original Research vs. Review Articles. How can I tell the Difference?

Research vs review articles.

It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a specific topic, field, or problem. They are not primary sources since they review previously published material. They can be of great value for identifying potentially good primary sources, but they aren't primary themselves. Primary research articles can be identified by a commonly used format. If an article contains the following elements, you can count on it being a primary research article. Look for sections titled:

Methods (sometimes with variations, such as Materials and Methods) Results (usually followed with charts and statistical tables) Discussion

You can also read the abstract to get a good sense of the kind of article that is being presented.

If it is a review article instead of a research article, the abstract should make that pretty clear. If there is no abstract at all, that in itself may be a sign that it is not a primary resource. Short research articles, such as those found in Science and similar scientific publications that mix news, editorials, and forums with research reports, however, may not include any of those elements. In those cases look at the words the authors use, phrases such as "we tested" and "in our study, we measured" will tell you that the article is reporting on original research."*

*Taken from Ithca College Libraries

Primary and Secondary Sources for Science

In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system.

EXAMPLES OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES

Source: The Evolution of Scientific Information (from Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science , vol. 26).

Primary Vs. Secondary Vs. Tertiary Sources

<< Previous: Home
Next: Find Articles >>
Last Updated: Nov 16, 2023 1:54 PM
URL: https://andersonuniversity.libguides.com/kinesiologyresearch

Thrift Library | (864) 231-2050 | [email protected] | Anderson University 316 Boulevard Anderson, SC 29621

Black hole singularities defy physics. New research could finally do away with them.

Black hole singularities defy the laws of physics. New research presents a bold solution to this puzzle: Black holes may actually be a theoretical type of star called a 'gravastar,' filled with universe-expanding dark energy.

Black holes are some of the most enigmatic objects in the universe, capable of deforming the fabric of space around them so violently that not even light can escape their gravitational grip. But it turns out, much of what scientists know about these mysterious objects could be wrong.

According to new research, published in April in the journal Physical Review D , black holes could actually be entirely different celestial entities known as gravastars.

"Gravastars are hypothetical astronomical objects that were introduced [in 2001] as alternatives to black holes," study co-author João Luís Rosa , a professor of physics at the University of Gdańsk in Poland, told Live Science in an email. "They can be interpreted as stars made of vacuum energy or dark energy : the same type of energy that propels the accelerated expansion of the universe."

Resolving black hole paradoxes with gravastars

Karl Schwarzschild, a German physicist and astronomer, first predicted black holes in 1915, based on calculations using Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity .

Over the years, astronomical observations have seemingly confirmed the existence of objects resembling black holes. However, Schwarzschild's description of these space bodies has some shortcomings.

In particular, the center of a black hole is predicted to be a point of infinitely high density, called a singularity, where all the mass of the black hole is concentrated, but fundamental physics teaches us that infinities do not exist, and their appearance in any theory signals its inaccuracy or incompleteness.

"These problems indicate that something is either wrong or incomplete in the black hole model, and that the development of alternative models is necessary," Rosa said. "The gravastar is one of many alternative models proposed. The main advantage of gravastars is that they do not have singularities."

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Related: Newfound 'glitch' in Einstein's relativity could rewrite the rules of the universe, study suggests

Captured by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope’s Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), this scene shows PGC 83677, a lenticular galaxy — a galaxy type that sits between the more familiar elliptical and spiral varieties.

Like ordinary black holes, gravastars should arise at the final stage of the evolution of massive stars, when the energy released during thermonuclear combustion of the matter inside them is no longer enough to overcome the force of gravity, and the star collapses into a much denser object. But in contrast to black holes, gravastars are not expected to have any singularities and are thought to be thin spheres of matter whose stability is maintained by the dark energy contained within them.

To find out if gravastars are viable alternatives to singular black holes, Rosa and his colleagues examined the interaction of particles and radiation with these hypothetical objects.

Using Einstein 's theory, the authors examined how the huge masses of hot matter that surround supermassive black holes would appear if these black holes were actually gravastars. They also scrutinized the properties of " hot spots " — gigantic gas bubbles orbiting black holes at near-light speeds.

Their findings revealed striking similarities between the matter emissions of gravastars and black holes, suggesting that gravastars don't contradict scientists' experimental observations of the universe. Moreover, the team discovered that a gravastar itself should appear almost like a singular black hole, creating a visible shadow.

"This shadow is not caused by the trapping of light in the event horizon, but by a slightly different phenomenon called the 'gravitational redshift,' causing light to lose energy when it moves through a region with a strong gravitational field," Rosa said. "Indeed, when the light emitted from regions close to these alternative objects reach[es] our telescopes, most of its energy would have been lost to the gravitational field, causing the appearance of this shadow."

— Scientists discover bizarre region around black holes that proves Einstein right yet again

— James Webb telescope spots 2 monster black holes merging at the dawn of time, challenging our understanding of the universe

— After 2 years in space, the James Webb telescope has broken cosmology. Can it be fixed?

The striking resemblances between Schwarzschild's black hole model and gravastars highlight the latter's potential as a realistic alternative, free from the theoretical pitfalls of singularities.

However, this theory needs to be backed up with experiments and observations, which the study authors believe may soon be carried out. While gravastars and singular black holes might behave similarly in many respects, subtle differences in emitted light could potentially distinguish them.

"To test our results experimentally, we are counting on the next generation of observational experiments in gravitational physics," Rosa said, referring to the black hole-hunting Event Horizon Telescope and the GRAVITY+ instrument being added to the Very Large Telescope in Chile. "These two experiments aim to observe closely what happens near the center of galaxies, in particular, our own Milky Way ."

Andrey got his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in elementary particle physics from Novosibirsk State University in Russia, and a Ph.D. in string theory from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. He works as a science writer, specializing in physics, space, and technology. His articles have been published in Elements , N+1 , and AdvancedScienceNews .

Largest 3D map of our universe could 'turn cosmology upside down'

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

No two are alike: The colossal stone heads of Olmec in Mexico

Most Popular

2 Some of the oldest stars in the universe found hiding near the Milky Way's edge — and they may not be alone
3 Newfound 'glitch' in Einstein's relativity could rewrite the rules of the universe, study suggests
4 James Webb telescope spots 2 monster black holes merging at the dawn of time, challenging our understanding of the universe
5 Does the Milky Way orbit anything?
2 Creepy Deep-Sea Anglerfish Captured in Rare Video
3 Can a commercial airplane do a barrel roll?
4 Mysterious L-shaped structure found near Egyptian pyramids of Giza baffles scientists
5 In a 1st, HIV vaccine triggers rare and elusive antibodies in human patients

COMMENTS

Types of journal articles
Original Research: This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies.
Types of research article
Registered report. A Registered Report consists of two different kinds of articles: a study protocol and an original research article. This is because the review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers assess study protocols before data is collected.
Types of Scholarly Articles
Theoretical Articles. Distinguishing characteristic: Theoretical articles draw on existing scholarship to improve upon or offer a new theoretical perspective on a given topic. Usefulness for research: Theoretical articles are useful because they provide a theoretical framework you can apply to your own research.
Finding and Identifying Original Research Articles in the Sciences
An original research article is a report of research activity that is written by the researchers who conducted the research or experiment. Original research articles may also be referred to as: "primary research articles" or "primary scientific literature." In science courses, instructors may also refer to these as "peer-reviewed ...
Q: Are 'journal article' and 'research article' the same?
Any article that is published in a journal can be referred to as a "journal article." However, journals publish different types of articles, some of which require original research, while others do not. A "research article" however, refers to only those article types that require original research. Typically, empirical studies or original ...
Identifying and Locating Empirical Articles
The two main types of scholarly articles are empirical (also called original research) articles, and review articles. Understanding how and why these two types of articles are created will help you decide which ones might be the most important for your research. Click the Next button to continue. << Previous: Welcome; Next: ...
Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles
Research vs Review Articles. It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a ...
Research Articles vs Review Articles
Research articles follow a particular format. Look for: A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study.; A methods section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data.Statistical analysis are included. A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis.
Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review
Journals provide guidelines to authors which should be followed closely. The three major types of articles (original research, case reports, and review articles) all generally follow the IMRAD format with slight variations in content. With planning and thought, manuscript writing does not have to be a daunting task. Download chapter PDF.
Review vs. research articles
Review articles do not describe original research conducted by the author(s). Instead, they give an overview of a specific subject by examining previously published studies on the topic. The author searches for and selects studies on the subject and then tries to make sense of their findings. In particular, review articles look at whether the ...
Review Article vs Research Article
Here are some key differences between review articles and research articles: In summary, research articles and review articles serve different purposes in the academic literature. Research articles present original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis, while review articles summarize and analyze existing ...
Finding original (or "scientific") research articles: Definition and
Original research articles are primary sources: An "original" research article is a detailed account of research activity written by the scientists who did the research--not by someone else who is reporting on the research; it is a primary resource.Some instructors may refer to these as "scientific research" articles or as "empirical" research.
PSYC 200 Lab in Experimental Methods (Atlanta)
Know the difference between empirical and review articles. Empirical article An empirical (research) article reports methods and findings of an original research study conducted by the authors of the article. Literature Review article A review article or "literature review" discusses past research studies on a given topic.
Original Research
Research articles, empirical, research primary research, are based on original research. If you need to limit your sources to research articles, you must be able to tell the difference. Most research articles will contain the following: Abstract. A summary of the article. (Note: Abstracts appear in reviews or secondary articles as well.) Methods
What's the difference between a research article (or research study
A review article is a secondary source...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own. Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among exising research studies.
What are the differences between these kinds of articles: original
"Original paper" is any research paper not falling into below categories. "Review paper" is that reporting a critical overview of recent articles in the field, can be very long, say, 30-40 journal pages. "Letter" is a short research paper, ca. 4 journal pages. "Communication" is essentially the same as "Letter", sporadically can contain ...
Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles
Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include ...
What's the difference between a research article and a review article
Research articles, sometimes referred to as empirical or primary sources, report on original research. They will typically include sections such as an introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Here is a more detailed explanation of research articles. Review articles, sometimes called literature reviews or secondary sources, synthesize or ...
Primary Research vs Review Article
Characteristics of a Primary Research Article. Goal is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge; Sometimes referred to as an empirical research article; Typically organized into sections that include: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, and References.
Content and form of original research articles in general major medical
Reviewer #2: The paper titled "Title Content and Form of Original Research Articles in High-Ranked Medical Journals" investigates the differences of title content and form between papers in the medical field and their changes over time. Overall, the paper is well-written and well-argued.
Home
it is the report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study. the researchers describe their hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study. the researchers detail their research methods. the results of the research are reported. the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications.
Putin's China Visit Highlights Military Ties That Worry the West
Song Zhongping, a commentator in Beijing who is a former military officer, defended Mr. Putin's visit to the institute, pointing to the school's cooperation with Russia in education ...
OpenAI unveils newest AI model, GPT-4o
New YorkCNN —. ChatGPT is about to become a lot more useful. OpenAI on Monday announced its latest artificial intelligence large language model that it says will make ChatGPT smarter and easier ...
Original Research vs. Review Articles
Research vs Review Articles. It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a ...
Black hole singularities defy physics. New research could finally do
published 18 May 2024. Black hole singularities defy the laws of physics. New research presents a bold solution to this puzzle: Black holes may actually be a theoretical type of star called a ...
Readout Newsletter: PTC, Dyne, Rapport, Cytokinetics news
Here's one: A stealth Boston-area startup called Progentos Therapeutics has raised an impressive $68.6 million. The CEO on file is Christopher Loose, a Yale entrepreneurship lecturer. Notably ...