what is a review article in research

• Research Process

Writing a good review article

• 3 minute read
• 71.4K views

Table of Contents

As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.

Types of review articles

Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.

A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more.

A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings.

Tips for writing a good review article

Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:

• Define your question: Take your time to identify the research question and carefully articulate the topic of your review paper. A good review should also add something new to the field in terms of a hypothesis, inference, or conclusion. A carefully defined scientific question will give you more clarity in determining the novelty of your inferences.
• Identify credible sources: Identify relevant as well as credible studies that you can base your review on, with the help of multiple databases or search engines. It is also a good idea to conduct another search once you have finished your article to avoid missing relevant studies published during the course of your writing.
• Take notes: A literature search involves extensive reading, which can make it difficult to recall relevant information subsequently. Therefore, make notes while conducting the literature search and note down the source references. This will ensure that you have sufficient information to start with when you finally get to writing.
• Describe the title, abstract, and introduction: A good starting point to begin structuring your review is by drafting the title, abstract, and introduction. Explicitly writing down what your review aims to address in the field will help shape the rest of your article.
• Be unbiased and critical: Evaluate every piece of evidence in a critical but unbiased manner. This will help you present a proper assessment and a critical discussion in your article.
• Include a good summary: End by stating the take-home message and identify the limitations of existing studies that need to be addressed through future studies.
• Ask for feedback: Ask a colleague to provide feedback on both the content and the language or tone of your article before you submit it.
• Check your journal’s guidelines: Some journals only publish reviews, while some only publish research articles. Further, all journals clearly indicate their aims and scope. Therefore, make sure to check the appropriateness of a journal before submitting your article.

Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!

• Manuscript Preparation

What are Implications in Research?

How to write the results section of a research paper

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

How to Write a Review Article

• Types of Review Articles
• Before Writing a Review Article
• Determining Where to Publish
• Searching the Literature
• Citation Management
• Reading a Review Article

What is a Review Article?

The purpose of writing a review article is for knowledge updating concerning a topic.

A review article aims to highlight:

• What has been done?
• What has been found?
• What issues have not been addressed?
• What issues remain to be debated?
• What new issues have been raised?
• What will be the future direction of research?

Similarities and Differences to Original Research Articles

Differences Between Original Research Articles and Review Articles

• An original research article aims to: Provides background information (Intro.) on prior research, Reasons for present study, Issues to be investigated by the present study, Written for experts. Authors describe: Research methods & materials, Data acquisition/analysis tools, Results, Discussion of results.
• Both are Peer-reviewed for: Accuracy, Quality, Biases, Conflict of interest.
• A review article aims to: Extensive survey of published research articles about a specific topic, Critical appraising of research findings, summarize up-to-date research findings, Identify critical issues to be addressed, Written for experts and general audiences, Be a source of original research.

Figure by Zhiyong Han, PhD

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Types of Review Articles >>

• The Interprofessional Health Sciences Library
• 123 Metro Boulevard
• Nutley, NJ 07110
• [email protected]
• Visiting Campus
• News and Events
• Parents and Families
• Web Accessibility
• Career Center
• Public Safety
• Accountability
• Privacy Statements
• Report a Problem
• Login to LibApps

• 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.

© Concordia University

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

• Published: 02 October 2017
• Volume 46 , pages 1–5, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Robert W. Palmatier 1 ,
• Mark B. Houston 2 &
• John Hulland 3  

227k Accesses

429 Citations

62 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ).

In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ).

Purpose of review papers

In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS.

The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to

Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic.

Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge.

Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).

Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.

Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.

Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions.

Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate.

The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas.

This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization.

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.

As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target.

Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS .

The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published.

Domain-based review papers

Domain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings.

Theory-based review papers

Theory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory.

Method-based review papers

Method-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective.

Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal.

Process and structure for review papers

In this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here.

Systematic literature review process

Some review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact.

In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review.

Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work.

Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan.

Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2.

Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing.

Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice.

A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis.

Structure of systematic review papers

There is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute.

Depth and rigor

Systematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention.

Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant).

Replicability

Processes for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail.

We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field.

Helpful format

Because such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table.

In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers.

Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.

Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615.

Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y .

Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.

Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.

Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217.

Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

Robert W. Palmatier

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Mark B. Houston

Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

John Hulland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Palmatier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2017

Issue Date : January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Share this article

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

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

Publication types

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

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

You may also like

Inductive Vs Deductive Research

Exploratory Vs Explanatory Research

Basic Vs Applied Research

Generative Vs Evaluative Research

Reliability Vs Validity

Longitudinal Vs Cross-Sectional Research

NFS 4021 Contemporary Topics in Nutrition: Research Articles vs Review Articles

• Research Articles vs Review Articles
• Citation Help

Agriculture Support Librarian

Research Articles and Review Articles Defined Review

"A  research article  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.

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 existing 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!"

From  https://apus.libanswers.com/faq/2324 , "What's the difference between a research and a review article?"

• Example of a RESEARCH Article Lin CL, Huang LC, Chang YT, Chen RY, Yang SH. Effectiveness of Health Coaching in Diabetes Control and Lifestyle Improvement: A Randomized-Controlled Trial. Nutrients. 2021 Oct 29;13(11):3878.
• Example of a REVIEW Article Ojo O, Ojo OO, Adebowale F, Wang XH. The Effect of Dietary Glycaemic Index on Glycaemia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2018 Mar 19;10(3):373.

Difference between Reviews and Research Articles

Research Article Break Down Review

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.  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.
• << Previous: Welcome
• Next: Databases >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 11:14 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.lsu.edu/NFS4021

Provide Website Feedback Accessibility Statement

"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
• 28 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
• 24 research basics
• 18 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: 213208

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)

Related topics.

• about the library
• articles & journals
• citing sources
• company & industry
• copyright compliance
• countries & travel
• course registration
• Interlibrary loan
• market research
• my library account
• research basics
• research topics
• study rooms
• video tutorial
• writing_help

Downcity Library:

111 Dorrance Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903

401-598-1121

Harborside Library:

321 Harborside Boulevard Providence, RI 02905

401-598-1466

• Location and Directions
• Off-Campus Access
• Staff Directory
• Student Employment
• Pay Bills and Fines
• Chat with a Librarian
• Course Reserves
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Study Rooms
• Research Appointment
• Culinary Museum

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

• Formulate a research question
• Develop a protocol
• Search for all relevant studies
• Apply the selection criteria
• Extract the data
• Synthesize the data
• Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

• A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
• If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
• Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
• Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
• Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

• They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
• Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
• They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
• They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

• They’re time-consuming .
• They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

• Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
• Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

• Population(s) or problem(s)
• Intervention(s)
• Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

• What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

• Type of study design(s)
• The population of patients with eczema
• The intervention of probiotics
• In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
• The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
• Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

• What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

• Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
• Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
• Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
• Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
• Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

• Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
• Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
• Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
• Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

• Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
• Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
• Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
• Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

• Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
• Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

• Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
• Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

• Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
• Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

• Abstract : A summary of the review
• Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
• Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
• Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
• Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
• Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review

Last Updated: September 8, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,086,442 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Things You Should Know

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information. [1] X Research source

Preparing to Write Your Review

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

Writing the Article Review

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [10] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

Sample Article Reviews

Expert Q&A

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/proofreading/
• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Oct 25, 2023

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research Roundup: How the Pandemic Changed Management

• Mark C. Bolino,
• Jacob M. Whitney,
• Sarah E. Henry

Lessons from 69 articles published in top management and applied psychology journals.

Researchers recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic that were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology. The review highlights the numerous ways in which employees, teams, leaders, organizations, and societies were impacted and offers lessons for managing through future pandemics or other events of mass disruption.

The recent pandemic disrupted life as we know it, including for employees and organizations around the world. To understand such changes, we recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic. These papers were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology.

• Mark C. Bolino is the David L. Boren Professor and the Michael F. Price Chair in International Business at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business. His research focuses on understanding how an organization can inspire its employees to go the extra mile without compromising their personal well-being.
• JW Jacob M. Whitney is a doctoral candidate in management at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business and an incoming assistant professor at Kennesaw State University. His research interests include leadership, teams, and organizational citizenship behavior.
• SH Sarah E. Henry is a doctoral candidate in management at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business and an incoming assistant professor at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include organizational citizenship behaviors, workplace interpersonal dynamics, and international management.

Partner Center

I tried the new Google. Its answers are worse.

Google’s ai-‘supercharged’ search generative experience, or sge, sometimes makes up facts, misinterprets questions and picks low-quality sources — even after nearly 11 months of public testing..

Have you heard about the new Google ? They “ supercharged ” it with artificial intelligence. Somehow, that also made it dumber.

With the regular old Google, I can ask, “What’s Mark Zuckerberg’s net worth?” and a reasonable answer pops up: “169.8 billion USD.”

Now let’s ask the same question with the “experimental” new version of Google search. Its AI responds: Zuckerberg’s net worth is “$46.24 per hour, or $96,169 per year. This is equivalent to $8,014 per month, $1,849 per week, and $230.6 million per day.”

Um, none of those numbers add up.

Google acting dumb matters because its AI is headed to your searches sooner or later . The company has already been testing this new Google — dubbed Search Generative Experience, or SGE — with volunteers for nearly 11 months, and recently started showing AI answers in the main Google results even for people who have not opted in to the test .

Should you trust that AI?

The new Google can do some useful things. But as you’ll see, it sometimes also makes up facts, misinterprets questions, delivers out-of-date information and just generally blathers on. Even worse, researchers are finding the AI often elevates lower-quality sites as reliable sources of information.

Normally, I wouldn’t review a product that isn’t finished. But this test of Google’s future has been going on for nearly a year, and the choices being made now will influence how billions of people get information. At stake is also a core idea behind the current AI frenzy: that the tech can replace the need to research things ourselves by just giving us answers. If a company with the money and computing power of Google can’t make it work, who can?

SGE merges the search engine you know with the capabilities of a chatbot. On top of traditional results, SGE writes out direct answers to queries, interspersed with links to dig deeper.

Geoffrey A. Fowler

SGE is a response to the reality that some people, including me, are starting to turn to AI like ChatGPT for more complex questions or when we don’t feel like reading a bunch of different sites. Onely , a search optimization firm, estimates that using SGE can make a user’s overall research journey 10 to 20 times shorter by assembling pros and cons, prices and other information into one place.

An all-knowing answer bot sounds useful given our shrinking attention spans. But Google has a lot to work out. We expect searches to be fast, yet Google’s AI answers take a painful second or two to generate. Google has to balance the already fragile economy of the web, where its AI answers can steal traffic from publishers who do the expensive and hard work of actually researching things.

And most of all, the new Google has to deliver on the promise that it can consistently and correctly answer our questions. That’s where I focused my testing — and kept finding examples where the AI-supercharged Google did worse than its predecessor.

Putting Google’s AI answers to the test

Often when you’re Googling, what you really want is a short bit of information or a link. On a day-to-day basis, the new Google is often annoying because its AI is so darned chatty.

A goofy example: “What do Transformers eat?”

The AI answer told me that fictional robots don’t really need to eat or drink, though they need some kind of fuel. Meanwhile, old Google had the one-word answer I was looking for: Energon. (It’s a kind of magical fuel.) You got that answer from new Google only by scrolling down the page.

This doesn’t just happen with alien robots. When SE Ranking, a firm dedicated to search engine optimization, tested SGE with 100,000 keyword queries, it found the average answer it generated was 3,485 characters — or roughly a third as long as this column. One of Google’s challenges is figuring out when its AI is better off just keeping quiet; sometimes, SGE asks you to press a “generate” button before it will write out an answer.

Most of all, when we search, we expect correct information. Google claims SGE has a leg up on ChatGPT because its knowledge is up-to-date.

Yet I found the new Google still struggled with recent affairs. Three days after the most recent Academy Awards, I searched for “Oscars 2024.” It told me the Oscars were still to come and listed some nominees.

And nothing undermined my trust in Google’s AI answers more than watching it confidently make stuff up.

That includes facts about yours truly. I asked it about an award-winning series I wrote for The Washington Post, and it attributed it to some stranger — and then gave a link to some other website.

Then there was the time SGE all too happily made up information about something that doesn’t even exist. I asked about a San Francisco restaurant called Danny’s Dan Dan Noodles, and it told me it has “crazy wait times” and described its food.

The problem is that this is an imaginary shop I named after my favorite Chinese dish. Google’s AI had no problem inventing information about it.

So-called hallucinations about real and fake topics are a known problem with current AI. A disclaimer above SGE results says, “Generative AI is experimental,” but that doesn’t solve the problem. Google needs to figure out how to say “I don’t know” when it isn’t confident.

Suspect sources

To give us answers to everything, Google’s AI has to decide which sources are reliable. I’m not very confident about its judgment.

Remember our bonkers result on Zuckerberg’s net worth? A professional researcher — and also regular old Google — might suggest checking the billionaires list from Forbes . Google’s AI answer relied on a very weird ZipRecruiter page for “Mark Zuckerberg Jobs,” a thing that does not exist.

In my tests, suspect sources were a pattern. At the suggestion of Onely, I asked the new Google which was more reliable: Apple iPhones or Samsung phones. As a longtime reviewer, I could tell you lots of good sources of information on this, including professional journalists and repair organizations like iFixit.

Instead, the AI cites random views of people pulled from social media. Beyond the limited usefulness of a single Reddit user’s experience, how does Google know that it wasn’t a fake review posted by the phonemaker?

“Google SGE plays by a different set of rules compared to the traditional search engine we know today,” said Tomek Rudzki, Onely’s head of research and development.

SEO firms have been trying to do quantitative studies of SGE’s values, though they’re limited by Google’s requirements on test accounts. But they’ve found a similar pattern in the disconnect between the sites that the old and new Google link to. The SEO software company Authoritas tested searches with a thousand shopping terms in late March, and found that 77 percent of the time, the domain of the No. 1 traditional search result showed up nowhere in the AI-written answer.

And in its study of 100,000 keyword searches, SE Ranking found that the question-and-answer service Quora is the most-linked source by SGE; LinkedIn and Reddit were fifth and sixth. How often would those sources be acceptable on an eighth-grade term paper?

On searches about tech topics — including lots of “how to” questions — SE Ranking found the most-linked domain was simplilearn.com . I’d never heard of it before; the site describes itself as an “online bootcamp.”

“This trend not only diminishes the quality of search results but also reduces traffic and revenue for many small businesses, including affiliate websites,” says SE Ranking’s head of SEO, Anastasia Kotsiubynska.

A work in progress

Google says SGE is an opt-in experiment. But Google already blew past its expected end last December, and it hasn’t offered any update on when it will come to search for everyone. It’s possible that Google doesn’t think SGE is accurate or fast or profitable enough and that it will end up changing it dramatically.

They are wise to go slow, even if it makes Google look as though it’s behind in the AI race. The rival search engine Bing from Microsoft made a similar AI overhaul in February 2023, but its AI is still best known for going off the rails .

In an interview, Elizabeth Reid, a Google vice president leading SGE, characterized it as a work in progress.

“We’re really focused on ensuring we get the experience really right. There are a lot of different factors on this — things like latency, accuracy, helpfulness,” Reid said. “What we’ve been finding as we’re iterating and learning is that it’s pretty nuanced.” In other words, there are times the AI is helpful and other times it’s not — and Google is still trying to figure out where to draw the line.

When I shared the examples in this column, Reid told me that SGE’s hallucination rates are “very low” and have decreased “meaningfully” since SGE’s May launch, though she declined to be specific.

“I don’t want to minimize it — it is a challenge with the technology” and something “we’re really working on,” Reid said. Putting links right next to the AI answers, she added, is important to enable people to check the facts for themselves.

Here’s a proposal: Because Google acknowledges correct facts are a problem, it ought to disclose its own data on accuracy before it brings SGE to a broader audience. With billions of searches daily, even 0.001 percent can add up to a lot of wrong information.

Another area of Google’s focus is “trying to help ensure that we get to the core of the question as quickly as possible, and then give additional elaboration,” Reid said.

As for citing low-quality sources, Google disputed the outside research on SGE, saying it is based on searches that are more limited than what Google sees in practice. But it declined to share data of its own.

Reid said SGE doesn’t have a different standard than old Google. “We do see more diversity of sources that are coming forth. But the aim is really to continue to put high-quality content at the top,” she said.

Choosing who to believe is hard enough for humans. What makes Google think its current AI tech, known as LLMs, or large language models, is up to the task?

“They’re not perfect,” Reid said. “We want to take this thoughtful approach because the brand of trust that people have with Google is really important.”

The future of our information depends on it.

Help Desk: Making tech work for you

Help Desk is a destination built for readers looking to better understand and take control of the technology used in everyday life.

Take control: Sign up for The Tech Friend newsletter to get straight talk and advice on how to make your tech a force for good.

Tech tips to make your life easier: 10 tips and tricks to customize iOS 16 | 5 tips to make your gadget batteries last longer | How to get back control of a hacked social media account | How to avoid falling for and spreading misinformation online

Data and Privacy: A guide to every privacy setting you should change now . We have gone through the settings for the most popular (and problematic) services to give you recommendations. Google | Amazon | Facebook | Venmo | Apple | Android

Ask a question: Send the Help Desk your personal technology questions .

• Are walking pads worth it? Why I’m never leaving my desk treadmill. 3 hours ago Are walking pads worth it? Why I’m never leaving my desk treadmill. 3 hours ago
• How to turn your iPhone into a bare-bones device April 3, 2024 How to turn your iPhone into a bare-bones device April 3, 2024
• Eclipse tourists should plan for overloaded cell networks April 2, 2024 Eclipse tourists should plan for overloaded cell networks April 2, 2024

Biomaterials Science

Highly-ordered assembled organic fluorescent materials for high-resolution bio-sensing: a review.

* Corresponding authors

a Key Laboratory of Rubber-Plastics of Ministry of Education/Shandong Province (QUST), School of Polymer Science & Engineering, Qingdao University of Science & Technology, 53-Zhengzhou Road, Qingdao, PR China E-mail: [email protected]

Organic fluorescent materials (OFMs) play a crucial role in the development of biosensors, enabling the extraction of biochemical information within cells and organisms, extending to the human body. Concurrently, OFM biosensors contribute significantly to the progress of modern medical and biological research. However, the practical applications of OFM biosensors face challenges, including issues related to low resolution, dispersivity, and stability. To overcome these challenges, scientists have introduced interactive elements to enhance the order of OFMs. Highly-ordered assembled OFMs represent a novel material type applied to biosensors. In comparison to conventional fluorescent materials, highly-ordered assembled OFMs typically exhibit robust anti-diffusion properties, high imaging contrast, and excellent stability. This approach has emerged as a promising method for effectively tracking bio-signals, particularly in the non-invasive monitoring of chronic diseases. This review introduces several highly-ordered assembled OFMs used in biosensors and also discusses various interactions that are responsible for their assembly, such as hydrogen bonding, π–π interaction, dipole–dipole interaction, and ion electrostatic interaction. Furthermore, it delves into the various applications of these biosensors while addressing the drawbacks that currently limit their commercial application. This review aims to provide a theoretical foundation for designing high-performance, highly-ordered assembled OFM biosensors suitable for practical applications. Additionally, it sheds light on the evolving trends in OFM biosensors and their application fields, offering valuable insights into the future of this dynamic research area.

• This article is part of the themed collection: Biomaterials Science Recent Review Articles, 2024

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

Z. Wang, Z. Chen, Z. Zhang, H. Wang and H. Zhang, Biomater. Sci. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3BM02070C

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements

Australian Antarctic Division 'struggling' to use $528 million icebreaker for science voyages, review says

When the RSV Nuyina was first launched in 2021, the state-of-the-art vessel was described as a "Disneyland for scientists".

However, an internal review that the federal government initially refused to release has raised questions about whether Australia's only icebreaker is fulfilling its research capabilities.

In addition to its remit of transporting cargo, fuel and personnel to Antarctic stations, the $528 million ship is supposed to provide 60 days a year of dedicated marine science voyages.

But despite completing multiple resupply missions since coming into service, as well as a rescue operation , the Nuyina has yet to conduct a single expedition focused solely on marine science.

A previously scheduled science voyage to the marginal ice zone was cancelled last year because of delays caused by mechanical problems on the vessel.

It means the first research-focused voyage won't occur until early 2025, when scientists take part in a marine campaign at the Denman Glacier .

The dearth of science-based voyages to date is one of several issues raised in a report the federal environment department declined to release to the ABC.

The report, which was marked as "sensitive", was only made public after Liberal senator Jonathon Duniam successfully moved a motion in the Senate ordering the production of documents.

Prepared by the Department of Finance in February, the report said Australia's reliance on one icebreaker to meet multiple demands is leaving some of the ship's capabilities under-utilised.

"The [Australian Antarctic Division] is struggling to allow sufficient time on the ship to deliver marine science," the report stated.

"This is beginning to (and could continue to) raise concerns within the scientific community."

According to the report, discussions with the government were intended to take place regarding "the suitability of a single vessel operating model for AAD".

"Given Antarctic science is an important benefit that government sought from the investment in the RSV Nuyina, there may be a need to consider whether the single vessel model is going to achieve all that is required from government in the Australian Antarctic Program," it stated.

The report does not include comments about whether a second vessel should be considered to overcome the competing demands.

But Senator Duniam told the ABC alternative options should be on the government's radar.

"If we're serious about being a leader in the region — and the region is not just the Indo-Pacific, but also the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic territories — we need to make sure we do have appropriate resources deployed," he said.

"And if it does mean we need to consider an alternative model to supplement the role of the RSV Nuyina, then we should look to that.

"There are a range of measures that could be deployed, including the chartering of vessels for certain periods of time throughout the calendar year when appropriate."

'Significant impact' if risks transpire

The report is based on a review that examined eight focus areas surrounding the vessel, including governance, risk management and readiness for service.

Overall, the report said it "appears probable" the AAD will be able to realise the Nuyina's anticipated benefits.

However, it flagged several issues that could have significant consequences.

"Remaining questions about the resolution of past propulsion system issues, as well as the incomplete commissioning work (especially in relation to science systems) brings the possibility the vessel is unavailable for key roles," it stated.

The report also suggested the private company contracted to operate the vessel, Serco, could face increased crewing costs, and that "AAD may find itself without an operator for the vessel".

It said the AAD was aware of the issues and had plans in place to respond.

"However, if one or several of these [issues] transpired, they would have a significant impact on the government's ability to achieve the benefits expected from the investment," it said.

The report also flagged "infrastructure gaps" in Hobart and at Antarctic stations that were impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of the use of the ship's capabilities.

One of the gaps relates to the wharf where the Nuyina berths at Hobart's Macquarie Point, which is in need of a significant upgrade.

Another issue is that the ship is unable to refuel in Hobart because, due to safety concerns, it has not been given permission to travel under the Tasman Bridge in order to reach a nearby fuel depot.

It means the Nuyina must travel more than 600 kilometres to Burnie in Tasmania's north-west to refuel , adding almost $1 million to the AAD's annual fuel bill.

The review also noted that the Nuyina was "not well designed to support and re-supply Macquarie Island", where the AAD has a research station.

Work underway to address issues: AAD

The AAD said the Nuyina was one of the most complex scientific icebreakers in the world, and that it would serve Australia's interests for the next three decades.

"Over the past 12 months, RSV Nuyina has supported resupply activities at Australia's research stations including, delivering personnel, cargo and equipment," an AAD spokesperson said.

"The Nuyina has also assisted critical Australian Antarctic Program science activities, including sea floor mapping, the Southern Ocean plankton survey, the deployment of whale and krill monitoring devices and support for the Denman Terrestrial Campaign."

The spokesman also said many of the issues raised in the report were being managed effectively.

"The gateway review found the overall delivery confidence for the project to design and build Nuyina was good," they said.

"It also noted that the AAD has completed work, or has work underway to address all issues."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

What should have been a 4km refuelling trip for australia's icebreaker is now a 660km debacle.

Australian Antarctic icebreaker's $875,000 refuelling debacle revealed in a single image

Stressed former Antarctic researcher had 'four cracked molars', quit on advice from her dentist

Authorities deem new icebreaker unsafe to pass under Tasman Bridge, meaning 700km trip to refuel

• Academic Research
• Earth Sciences
• Marine Biology
• Science and Research Management

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.