Home › Sections & scope

Review articles versus original research

Journals publish more than one kind of article, and the two most common are original research and review articles. Both contribute to the literature, but they do different jobs and are judged by different standards. Confusing the two is a frequent reason for a manuscript to be redirected or declined. This page explains how they differ in purpose, structure and evidence, and what you should confirm on the journal's official pages.

What original research is for

An original research article reports new data and the conclusions the authors draw from them. Its value lies in what it adds to the evidence: a new measurement, a new experiment, a new analysis of previously unexamined material. The reader expects to see the method in enough detail to judge the result.

The strength of such a paper rests on its design, its data and the honesty with which limits are reported. Novelty helps, but soundness matters more, and a well-conducted study of a modest question can be more useful than a poorly supported claim about a large one.

What a review article is for

A review article surveys and synthesises existing work on a topic. Its contribution is the synthesis itself: organising scattered findings, comparing methods, identifying agreement and disagreement, and pointing out where the gaps are. It does not normally present new experimental data.

A good review is more than a summary. It applies judgement, weighs the quality of the evidence, and produces an overview that a reader could not easily assemble alone. A weak review merely lists papers in sequence without drawing them together.

How the structure differs

Original research usually follows a fixed sequence of introduction, methods, results and discussion. A review organises the text around themes or questions, and its discussion is woven throughout. Methods, where present, describe how the literature was selected rather than how an experiment was performed.

This difference affects how each is read. In original research, a reader looks for the data; in a review, a reader looks for the argument and the balance of the evidence.

How the evidence differs

Original research offers primary evidence, produced by the authors and open to scrutiny. A review offers secondary evidence, built on the work of others, and its quality depends on how carefully that work was assessed. A review that treats all sources as equally reliable is not doing its job.

This is why reviewers of a review ask different questions. They want to know whether the selection of sources was reasonable, whether the assessment was fair and whether the conclusions are supported by the body of work as a whole.

The two types compared

The table below sets out the main differences. Journals may publish additional types, such as short communications or case reports, each with its own conventions.

Systematic and narrative reviews

Reviews vary in how strictly they are conducted. A systematic review follows a defined and reported method for finding and selecting studies, which makes it reproducible. A narrative review is more selective and interpretative, guided by the author's judgement. Both can be valuable, provided the approach is stated and applied honestly.

Whichever you write, describe how sources were chosen. A reader who cannot tell how the literature was assembled cannot judge how balanced the review is.

Choosing the right type

The choice should follow from what you have. If you have generated data, an original research article is the natural form. If your contribution is to organise and assess what others have found, a review is appropriate. Trying to stretch one into the other usually weakens both.

• Do you have new data, or a new synthesis of existing work?
• Does the journal publish the article type you have in mind?
• If a review, is your selection of sources defined and explained?
• If original research, does your design answer the question asked?
• Are your conclusions proportionate to the evidence you present?

Both types in one journal

A journal that publishes both original research and reviews serves readers who need new evidence and readers who need orientation in a growing field. The two types complement each other, and a healthy journal carries a balance of both. What unites them is the requirement that claims be supported, whether by data or by a careful reading of the literature.

Because accepted article types, their formats and their requirements are set by the publisher, confirm what the journal currently publishes before you write. The instructions and the article-type list on the journal's official pages are the authoritative guide.

Original research reports new data, while a review synthesises existing work; each is judged by different standards and structured differently. Choosing the right type for what you actually have prevents avoidable problems at review. The accepted article types and their formats are set by the publisher, so confirm them on the journal's official pages.

Read next