Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Review article

A review article, also known as a literature review or survey article, is a scholarly publication that synthesizes and critically evaluates existing research on a specific topic within an academic discipline, providing an overview of current knowledge, highlighting key findings, and identifying gaps for future investigation.^[1] Unlike original research articles, which report new empirical data, review articles compile and analyze previously published studies to offer a comprehensive perspective without conducting new experiments.^[2] The primary purposes of review articles include updating readers on the latest developments in a field, preventing redundant research by clarifying resolved questions, and guiding new studies by pointing out unresolved issues or controversies.^[1] They serve as secondary sources that bridge theoretical foundations with practical applications, often influencing policy, clinical practice, or further scholarship by consolidating evidence from diverse studies.^[3]^[4] In academic publishing, review articles are highly valued for their role in advancing knowledge synthesis, with high-impact journals like Nature Reviews or Annual Review of Psychology specializing in them to disseminate authoritative overviews.^[2]^[5]^[6] Review articles vary in methodology and scope, with common types including narrative reviews, which provide a broad, descriptive summary of literature without strict protocols; systematic reviews, which use rigorous, reproducible methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant studies on a question, often including meta-analyses for quantitative integration; and scoping reviews, which map the extent and nature of research on emerging or complex topics.^[7] Other variants, such as umbrella reviews that synthesize multiple systematic reviews or rapid reviews for time-sensitive needs, cater to specific goals like evidence-based decision-making in health or policy.^[8] The choice of type depends on the research question's breadth, available evidence, and intended audience, ensuring reviews remain objective and comprehensive.^[9] Structurally, review articles typically begin with an introduction outlining the topic's significance, followed by a body that organizes literature thematically or chronologically, and conclude with discussions of implications and recommendations.^[2] They undergo peer review to maintain scholarly rigor, contributing to their citation impact—review articles often receive more citations than original research due to their syntheses serving as foundational references.^[2] Overall, review articles play a pivotal role in scientific progress by distilling vast information into accessible insights, fostering interdisciplinary connections, and shaping the direction of ongoing research.^[1]

Definition and Types

Definition

A review article is a scholarly publication that synthesizes, analyzes, and critically evaluates existing literature on a specific topic or research question, without introducing new empirical data or original experiments.^[2] Unlike primary research articles, it aims to consolidate diverse sources into a coherent overview, highlighting key findings, methodologies, and debates within the field.^[10] This form of writing serves as a foundational tool in academic disciplines, particularly in sciences, medicine, and social sciences, where the volume of published research necessitates periodic synthesis.^[11] Review articles emerged in the 19th century with the proliferation of scientific journals, as the growing body of primary literature required mechanisms for summarization and contextualization.^[12] This development paralleled the professionalization of science, enabling researchers to navigate an increasingly complex knowledge landscape without the need for exhaustive personal searches.^[13] The primary purposes of a review article include summarizing the current state of knowledge on a topic, identifying gaps or inconsistencies in the literature, providing essential context for ongoing and future research, and guiding practitioners in applying established findings.^[2] By offering an unbiased and systematic assessment, these articles help funding bodies prioritize areas needing investigation and assist educators in curriculum development.^[14] In scope, review articles can range from broad narrative overviews that cover expansive themes to more focused thematic critiques examining specific sub-areas, typically spanning 5,000 to 20,000 words depending on the journal and discipline.^[15] Various types, such as narrative or systematic reviews, further adapt this format to different analytical needs.^[2]

Types

Review articles encompass various types, each tailored to specific purposes in synthesizing and interpreting existing literature. These types differ in their methodological rigor, scope, and objectives, ranging from broad overviews to targeted analyses that inform theory or practice.^[16] Narrative reviews provide descriptive summaries of the literature on a topic, often incorporating the author's opinions and interpretations to offer a broad, non-exhaustive overview suitable for historical or conceptual explorations. They typically lack strict inclusion criteria and emphasize thematic or chronological synthesis rather than systematic appraisal. In the humanities, narrative reviews are commonly used for topics like literary theory, as seen in examinations of cultural and historical significance in fields such as Blue Humanities.^[17]^[18] Critical reviews involve in-depth evaluations of the strengths, weaknesses, biases, and conceptual contributions of existing studies, aiming to derive new hypotheses, models, or theoretical insights through rigorous analysis. Unlike narrative reviews, they prioritize critical appraisal over mere description, often focusing on significant research items to assess their impact and limitations. In medicine, critical reviews are applied to assess drug efficacy, such as evaluating the benefits and harms in clinical trials to guide therapeutic decisions.^[8]^[17]^[19] Scoping reviews map the extent, nature, and distribution of available literature on emerging or broad topics, identifying key concepts, sources of evidence, and knowledge gaps without conducting deep critical synthesis or quality assessments. They employ a preliminary, tabular approach to clarify terminology and assess the feasibility of future in-depth reviews, typically involving team-based efforts to minimize bias. This type is particularly useful for informing research agendas or policy on underdeveloped areas.^[20]^[17]^[16] Systematic reviews use rigorous, reproducible methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question, often including meta-analyses to quantitatively integrate data and assess heterogeneity. They aim to minimize bias through predefined protocols, comprehensive searches, and quality assessments, providing high-level evidence for clinical guidelines or policy. In health sciences, systematic reviews are common for evaluating interventions, such as the efficacy of treatments for chronic diseases.^[2]^[8] Integrative reviews synthesize diverse sources, including both qualitative and quantitative data from experimental and non-experimental studies, to generate new frameworks, theories, or perspectives on a phenomenon. They follow a structured process of problem identification, comprehensive literature search, data evaluation, and narrative integration, making them applicable to interdisciplinary fields like nursing for analyzing methodological issues or defining concepts.^[20]^[17]^[21]

Structure and Components

Overall Structure

A review article typically follows a logical organizational framework designed to guide readers through the synthesis of existing literature on a specific topic, ensuring clarity and comprehensive coverage. This structure emphasizes a progression from contextual setup to critical analysis and forward-looking insights, distinguishing it from original research by focusing on integration rather than new data generation.^[22]^[23] The introduction provides essential background on the topic, articulates the rationale for conducting the review—such as addressing knowledge gaps or consolidating fragmented research—and clearly states the objectives and scope. It orients readers, often non-specialists, by explaining the field's significance and outlining the key themes to be explored, while avoiding excessive technical jargon.^[22]^[24] The body forms the core of the article, thematically organizing the literature to demonstrate evolution, connections, and divergences in the research. This section may be structured chronologically to trace historical developments, thematically to group related concepts, or methodologically to compare approaches across studies, with subheadings facilitating navigation. It critically evaluates primary sources, highlighting strengths, limitations, and interconnections rather than merely summarizing.^[22]^[23]^[24] A methods section is typically included in systematic and scoping reviews to describe the literature search strategy, including databases used, keywords, time frame, and inclusion/exclusion criteria, promoting transparency and reproducibility. In narrative reviews, such a section is rare or absent.^[25] The discussion synthesizes findings from the body, identifying overarching trends, controversies, unresolved gaps, and broader implications for theory, practice, or policy. It integrates insights across themes, often contrasting conflicting results and proposing conceptual frameworks to unify the literature.^[22]^[23]^[24] The conclusion recaps the primary insights, reiterates the review's contributions, and offers recommendations for future research, such as unexplored areas or methodological improvements. It avoids introducing new information, instead reinforcing the narrative's key takeaways.^[22]^[23]^[24] Review articles commonly include an abstract of 150–250 words summarizing the topic, objectives, main findings, and implications, followed by 4–8 keywords for indexing and discoverability. References typically range from 50 to 200 citations, drawing heavily from recent peer-reviewed sources to substantiate the synthesis, with formatting adhering to journal-specific styles like APA or Vancouver.^[23]^[22]^[24]

Key Components

Review articles incorporate literature synthesis through structured tables that distill key information from multiple studies, enabling readers to quickly compare methodologies, results, and implications across the field. These tables often feature columns for essential details such as author(s), publication year, study methods, sample size, key findings, and limitations, providing a concise yet comprehensive overview that highlights patterns, contradictions, or gaps in the existing research. For instance, in a review on climate change impacts, a table might summarize 20 studies by listing each author's name and year alongside their analytical approach (e.g., modeling vs. observational) and primary outcomes (e.g., temperature rise projections). This approach not only aids in synthesizing diverse evidence but also enhances the article's analytical depth by facilitating cross-study comparisons.^[26]^[27] Visual aids play a crucial role in clarifying complex narratives within review articles, with figures such as flowcharts depicting the literature selection process and timelines illustrating the historical evolution of a topic. In systematic reviews, the PRISMA flow diagram serves as a standard visual tool, outlining phases like identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of studies, which promotes transparency and reproducibility. Timelines, meanwhile, map milestones in research development—for example, plotting key publications and breakthroughs in genomics from the 1950s to the present—helping readers grasp temporal dynamics and progress. These elements improve accessibility and engagement without overwhelming the text.^[28]^[29] Effective citation practices are foundational to review articles, requiring balanced referencing that draws from a wide array of sources to prevent bias and ensure comprehensive coverage of the literature. Authors must avoid over-citing supportive works while neglecting contradictory evidence, a practice known as citation bias, which can distort scholarly interpretations; instead, citations should proportionally represent diverse viewpoints, methodologies, and geographic origins. Reference management tools like EndNote facilitate this by allowing efficient organization, searching, and formatting of hundreds of citations, integrating seamlessly with word processors to generate bibliographies in various styles. Such tools streamline the process while upholding rigor.^[30]^[31] Ethical considerations underpin the credibility of review articles, mandating explicit declarations of conflicts of interest to disclose any financial, personal, or professional ties that could influence the synthesis or interpretation of the literature. For applicable review types, adherence to standardized reporting guidelines like PRISMA ensures transparent documentation of methods, results, and limitations, fostering trust in the work. These declarations and guidelines are typically stated in dedicated sections, aligning with broader publication ethics standards.^[32]^[33] Supplementary materials extend the utility of review articles by housing detailed appendices, such as extended bibliographies beyond the main reference list or raw data extractions from synthesized studies, which support deeper exploration without encumbering the primary narrative. These materials might include full datasets from meta-analyses or additional tables of excluded studies with rationale, accessible via online links or journal platforms to maintain completeness and verifiability.^[34]

Research and Writing Process

Research Methods

The research methods for compiling a review article vary by type, with systematic reviews employing rigorous, reproducible approaches and narrative or scoping reviews allowing more flexibility in literature selection. For systematic reviews, the process begins with a thorough literature search to identify relevant studies. Authors typically utilize specialized databases such as PubMed for biomedical literature, Scopus for multidisciplinary coverage, and Google Scholar for broad academic indexing to ensure comprehensive retrieval.^[35] Search strategies involve crafting precise queries using keywords related to the topic, combined with Boolean operators to refine results; for instance, combining terms like "climate change AND policy" narrows the focus to intersections of environmental science and governance, while "OR" broadens synonyms such as "global warming OR climate change."^[35] This approach allows reviewers to systematically explore peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and books, often supplemented by hand-searching reference lists of key papers to capture seminal works.^[36] In narrative reviews, searches are often more selective, guided by expert knowledge to provide a broad overview rather than exhaustive coverage. Once potential sources are identified in systematic reviews, authors establish clear inclusion and exclusion criteria to select high-quality, relevant literature. Inclusion criteria commonly emphasize direct relevance to the review's scope, a specific date range such as publications post-2000 to reflect contemporary developments, and rigorous quality standards like peer-reviewed status or impact factor thresholds.^[37] Exclusion criteria, conversely, eliminate studies based on factors such as outdated methodologies, non-empirical content, or low methodological rigor, ensuring the corpus remains focused and credible.^[38] These criteria are predefined in a protocol to maintain transparency and reproducibility, guiding the evaluation of thousands of initial hits down to a manageable set for deeper analysis.^[37] The screening process in systematic reviews follows a multi-stage protocol to efficiently filter sources. It starts with an initial review of titles and abstracts to quickly discard irrelevant items, often conducted independently by multiple reviewers to minimize oversight.^[39] Promising candidates advance to full-text assessment, where methodological soundness and alignment with criteria are scrutinized in detail. Collaborative tools like Rayyan facilitate this by enabling blind screening, conflict resolution, and prioritization, particularly useful for team-based reviews handling large volumes.^[40] To address potential biases in the selected studies for systematic reviews, authors perform risk-of-bias assessments using validated instruments. The ROBINS-I tool, designed for non-randomized studies of interventions, evaluates domains such as confounding, selection bias, and deviations from intended interventions, assigning ratings from low to critical risk.^[41] This step is crucial for narrative and scoping reviews alike, as it informs the weighting of evidence and highlights limitations in the underlying research base, though less formally applied in non-systematic types.^[42] Scoping reviews map the literature using similar but broader searches to identify key concepts and sources, without the depth of quality appraisal seen in systematic reviews. Finally, for systematic reviews, the entire process is documented transparently to allow verification and replication. A PRISMA flow diagram is commonly employed to visualize the search outcomes, illustrating stages such as the initial yield (e.g., 1,000 records from database searches), exclusions at each screening level, and the final included set (e.g., 50 studies), thereby providing a clear audit trail of decisions.^[43] This reporting standard enhances the review's methodological integrity and facilitates reader assessment of completeness.^[33] Narrative reviews may document searches more descriptively without such diagrams.

Writing Methods

Writing a review article involves synthesizing gathered literature into a coherent narrative that advances scholarly understanding. Synthesis approaches vary depending on the review type, with thematic synthesis commonly used to group findings by recurring themes or patterns across studies, facilitating integration without quantitative aggregation.^[44] Meta-narrative synthesis, another approach, traces the historical evolution of research paradigms to highlight shifts in perspectives and methodologies over time.^[45] Framework analysis provides a structured method for mapping data onto predefined categories, enabling systematic comparison and interpretation of qualitative evidence.^[46] Narrative reviews often rely on descriptive summarization rather than formal synthesis methods. The authorial voice in review articles must balance objectivity—through evidence-based summaries—with critical analysis that evaluates strengths, limitations, and gaps in the literature, ensuring the work contributes novel insights rather than mere recapitulation.^[47] To maintain this balance, authors should avoid unsubstantiated opinions while rigorously assessing methodological rigor and contextual relevance across sources.^[48] Avoiding plagiarism is essential, achieved through careful paraphrasing that rearticulates ideas in original wording while providing explicit attribution via citations, often verified using detection tools to keep similarity below 15%.^[49] Proper attribution not only upholds ethical standards but also underscores the synthesized nature of the review.^[47] The revision process typically employs iterative drafting, where initial outlines evolve through multiple cycles of refinement to enhance logical flow and depth.^[48] Co-author peer feedback plays a crucial role, involving collaborative reviews to identify inconsistencies, strengthen arguments, and ensure comprehensive coverage before finalization.^[47] Clarity checks, such as reading aloud or using accessibility tools, further verify that the text remains engaging and comprehensible to a broad academic audience.^[48] Adherence to style guidelines is paramount, with formats like APA or Vancouver dictating citation structure, headings, and reference lists to meet journal expectations.^[47] Word limits vary by publication but commonly constrain abstracts to 150–300 words and full articles to 5,000–10,000 words, necessitating concise expression without sacrificing substance.^[47] Common pitfalls include over-reliance on seminal works, which can skew coverage toward established ideas at the expense of emerging research; mitigation involves systematically including diverse sources from recent literature searches.^[47] Ignoring contradictory evidence risks presenting a biased narrative, addressed by explicitly discussing discrepancies and their implications to foster a nuanced synthesis.^[48]

Publication and Evaluation

Peer Review Process

Upon submission to an academic journal, a review article undergoes initial screening by the editorial office to assess its fit within the journal's scope, originality, and basic quality. This stage often results in desk rejection for approximately 20–50% of submissions, primarily due to misalignment with the journal's focus or lack of novel contributions.^[50]^[51] If the manuscript passes initial screening, the editor selects 2–4 independent experts as peer reviewers, chosen for their expertise in the relevant field. Reviewer anonymity is commonly maintained through single-blind or double-blind processes, where the authors' identities may or may not be concealed from reviewers. Selection follows guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), emphasizing impartiality, conflict-of-interest declarations, and timely responses to invitations.^[52]^[53]^[54] Reviewers evaluate the article based on specific criteria tailored to review articles, including the comprehensiveness of the literature coverage, logical synthesis of existing research, novelty of insights or perspectives offered, and methodological rigor in selecting and analyzing sources. They assess whether the review provides a balanced, critical account that identifies knowledge gaps and advances the field, while avoiding undue repetition of prior reviews. Feedback is constructive, focusing on clarity, structure, and potential biases.^[55]^[56] Following review, the editor synthesizes the comments and issues a decision: acceptance, minor revisions (typically addressing clarifications within 2–4 weeks), major revisions (requiring substantial changes and re-review, often 4–8 weeks total), or rejection. Authors respond to revisions point-by-point, and rejected manuscripts may be appealed if procedural errors or significant misunderstandings are evident, though success rates are low and limited to one appeal per article.^[57]^[58] Post-acceptance, the manuscript enters production, involving copyediting for language, style, and consistency, followed by proofreading by the authors to ensure accuracy before final publication. This phase typically takes 1–3 months, depending on the journal.^[59]

Publishing Pathways

Review articles are typically disseminated through established academic journals that specialize in synthesizing research, with authors selecting venues based on factors such as scope alignment, impact factor, and audience reach. Many review articles are commissioned by journal editors to ensure alignment with the journal's needs, though unsolicited submissions are possible but may have lower acceptance rates.^[60] High-impact series like the Annual Review collections, which cover disciplines from biology to social sciences, prioritize comprehensive reviews that integrate primary literature for broad scholarly benefit.^[61] Similarly, discipline-specific journals such as Psychological Bulletin focus on meta-analyses and integrative reviews in psychology, offering rigorous platforms for advancing field-wide understanding.^[62] Publishing options include traditional subscription models, where access is paywalled and funded by reader subscriptions or institutional licenses, versus open access (OA) approaches that prioritize immediate, free availability to enhance global dissemination. Gold OA, the full immediate-release model, often requires authors to pay article processing charges (APCs) ranging from approximately $2,000 to $5,000 to cover production and peer-review costs, while hybrid models allow selective OA articles within subscription journals.^[63] DOAJ-listed journals, which adhere to strict quality criteria including transparent peer review and licensing, provide benefits like increased visibility, higher download rates, and broader indexing in academic databases.^[64] Beyond journals, review articles can appear in alternative formats to reach diverse audiences or expedite sharing. Book chapters in edited volumes allow for in-depth explorations within thematic collections, often undergoing editorial review rather than full peer assessment, and serve as syntheses for interdisciplinary readers.^[65] Conference proceedings may include review-style overviews presented at specialized events, capturing timely syntheses in fields like computer science or engineering, though they typically receive lighter scrutiny than journal publications.^[66] Online platforms such as ResearchGate enable preprints of review articles, allowing authors to share drafts prior to formal publication for early feedback and citation accrual without peer review.^[67] Copyright management plays a key role in publication, with many journals offering Creative Commons licenses to facilitate reuse and wider sharing while protecting authorship. The CC-BY license, for instance, permits distribution, adaptation, and commercial use as long as proper attribution is provided, promoting open scholarship and compliance with funder mandates.^[68] This approach contrasts with restrictive traditional copyrights, enabling reviews to influence policy, education, and further research more effectively.^[69] The timeline from submission to publication for review articles generally spans 6 to 12 months, encompassing peer review, revisions, and production stages, with delays often longer in prestigious journals due to high submission volumes and thorough evaluation processes.^[70] Positive peer review outcomes can accelerate acceptance, but overall duration varies by venue and field.^[71]

Comparisons with Other Articles

Differences from Original Research Articles

Review articles primarily aim to synthesize and critically evaluate existing literature on a specific topic, offering an integrated perspective on the state of knowledge, trends, and unresolved questions within a field, rather than generating new empirical data.^[72] In contrast, original research articles focus on presenting novel findings derived from the authors' own investigations, contributing fresh evidence to advance scientific understanding through primary data or experiments.^[73] This fundamental difference in purpose underscores the complementary roles these article types play in scholarly communication, with reviews providing context and originals driving discovery.^[47] Methodologically, review articles draw exclusively from secondary sources, employing techniques such as narrative synthesis, thematic analysis, or chronological organization to integrate insights from prior studies, without conducting new experiments, surveys, or observations.^[74] Original research articles, however, utilize empirical approaches—including controlled experiments, observational studies, or computational simulations—to collect and analyze primary data, ensuring reproducibility through detailed protocols. These methodological distinctions highlight reviews' role in consolidation versus originals' emphasis on innovation and validation. In terms of structure, original research articles commonly adhere to the IMRAD format—Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion—to systematically report the study's design, execution, outcomes, and implications.^[75] Review articles deviate from this rigidity, typically featuring an introduction outlining the scope, body sections grouped by themes or subtopics with critical appraisals of the literature, and a conclusion highlighting knowledge gaps and future directions.^[23] Reviews often incorporate more interpretive discussion to connect disparate findings, while originals prioritize objective presentation of results. Review articles are generally longer, ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 words to accommodate comprehensive coverage, and rely on extensive bibliographies with 50 to 200 or more references to encompass the reviewed corpus.^[11] Original research articles tend to be more concise, typically 3,000 to 8,000 words, with 20 to 50 citations primarily supporting the methodology and contextualizing the new contributions.^[76] This disparity reflects the synthetic depth of reviews versus the focused reporting in originals. For example, a review article on AI ethics, such as "Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI governance" by Corrêa et al. (2023), synthesizes global policies through thematic analysis without new data.^[77] Conversely, an original research article like "FlashAttention: Fast and Memory-Efficient Exact Attention with IO-Awareness" by Dao et al. (2022) reports experimental benchmarks on a novel algorithm's performance in transformer models.^[78]

Differences from Systematic Reviews

Review articles, commonly known as narrative or traditional reviews, differ from systematic reviews in their methodological rigor and approach to evidence synthesis. Narrative reviews are inherently selective and interpretive, drawing on the author's expertise to highlight key themes, trends, and debates within a body of literature without adhering to a rigid protocol.^[79] In contrast, systematic reviews employ a highly structured process, beginning with a clearly defined research question and predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure transparency and reproducibility. A hallmark of this rigor is the use of frameworks like PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome), which guides the formulation of the review question and the selection of studies from the planning stage onward. The scope and depth of literature searching further distinguish the two. Review articles typically sample a representative subset of the literature, focusing on seminal or illustrative works to provide an accessible overview, which allows for flexibility but risks incomplete coverage. Systematic reviews, however, prioritize comprehensiveness, conducting exhaustive searches across electronic databases, grey literature, and other sources to identify all potentially relevant studies, often minimizing publication bias through strategies like hand-searching reference lists. When quantitative data permit, systematic reviews incorporate meta-analysis to statistically pool results, enhancing the precision of findings beyond what narrative synthesis can achieve.^[80] Bias control represents another key divergence. In review articles, author judgment plays a prominent role in selecting and interpreting studies, which can introduce subjectivity and selection bias, though this interpretive lens often fosters innovative insights. Systematic reviews mitigate such risks through objective tools and processes, including independent dual screening of studies and the application of evidence grading systems like GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), which systematically evaluates factors such as risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision to rate the overall certainty of evidence.^[81] Reporting standards also vary significantly. Review articles follow journal-specific guidelines without a universal framework, leading to heterogeneous presentation that emphasizes narrative flow over exhaustive detail. Systematic reviews, by design, adhere to standardized reporting checklists such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), which ensures complete disclosure of methods, results, and limitations through items like flow diagrams and risk-of-bias assessments. Furthermore, the methodological quality of systematic reviews can be appraised using tools like AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), which evaluates adherence to best practices across 16 domains.^[28] These differences influence their respective use cases in academia and practice. Review articles excel in exploratory contexts, such as emerging fields or conceptual discussions, where they identify knowledge gaps and stimulate future research directions. Systematic reviews, with their emphasis on unbiased aggregation of evidence, are indispensable for informing evidence-based policies, clinical guidelines, and decision-making, as exemplified by the Cochrane Library's database of over 15,000 systematic reviews (as of 2024) that underpin healthcare recommendations worldwide.^[82]

Role and Impact in Academia

Relevance in Scholarly Literature

Review articles play a foundational role in scholarly literature by consolidating vast bodies of existing research into coherent syntheses, thereby serving as essential entry points for researchers navigating fields characterized by exponential publication growth. These articles compile, summarize, critique, and integrate prior studies, reducing the cognitive overload associated with fragmented and rapidly expanding knowledge bases, particularly in disciplines like business and management where annual output has surged dramatically.^[83] By providing holistic overviews, they facilitate theory development and enable newcomers to quickly grasp key advancements without sifting through thousands of primary sources.^[84] This consolidation not only advances cumulative knowledge but also ensures that foundational insights are accessible and reliable for ongoing scholarship.^[85] Beyond synthesis, review articles are instrumental in identifying research gaps and unanswered questions, which directly shape future research agendas and influence resource allocation such as grant funding. Through systematic evaluation of the literature, they highlight inconsistencies, understudied areas, and emerging needs, guiding funding organizations like the NIH in prioritizing health research gaps to address unmet priorities.^[83] For instance, by mapping knowledge voids, reviews inform the development of national research agendas, as seen in general practice guidelines where identified gaps from literature syntheses drive stakeholder-driven funding decisions.^[84] This gap-bridging function extends to policy formulation, where reviews provide evidence-based recommendations that steer public and private investments toward high-impact areas. In educational contexts, review articles hold significant value as core components of academic curricula, theses, and policy briefs, offering students and early-career scholars a structured pathway to engage with complex topics. They serve as authoritative starting points for thesis literature reviews, helping learners evaluate theories and build conceptual models essential for advanced study.^[83] Instructors frequently incorporate them into syllabi to contextualize disciplinary debates, fostering critical thinking and interdisciplinary awareness among undergraduates and graduates alike.^[85] Their synthesized format makes dense scholarship approachable, enhancing pedagogical efficiency in resource-constrained environments. Review articles often exhibit distinct citation patterns, functioning as central hubs in scholarly networks and accumulating citations at rates significantly higher than many original research papers—sometimes up to tenfold in certain fields due to their integrative authority. Analyses of millions of publications reveal that reviews, especially those from prestigious series like Annual Reviews, draw subsequent citations toward themselves, consolidating influence within citation ecosystems while occasionally reducing visibility for some originals.^[86] This hub-like role amplifies their impact, as they are repeatedly referenced in subsequent works, reinforcing their status as pivotal nodes that connect disparate studies.^[87] Since the 1990s, review articles have evolved to play an increasingly vital role in interdisciplinary scholarship, bridging disciplinary silos amid rising demands for integrative approaches to complex problems. The surge in interdisciplinary citations during this period, coupled with policy pushes for cross-field collaboration, has elevated reviews as tools for synthesizing insights from multiple domains, such as in library and information science where they now routinely incorporate bibliometric methods to span fields. This evolution reflects broader trends in research funding and academic incentives favoring holistic perspectives, enabling reviews to address multifaceted challenges like sustainability that transcend traditional boundaries.^[85]

Impact Metrics and Influence

The influence of review articles is commonly assessed through citation-based metrics, which quantify their reach and impact within the scholarly community. For authors, the h-index—a metric introduced by Hirsch in 2005 that finds the largest number h such that the author has h publications each cited at least h times—often benefits from review articles, as these works tend to accumulate citations at higher rates than original research due to their synthetic nature.^[88]^[89] For journals, the journal impact factor (JIF), calculated as the average number of citations received in a given year to articles published in the previous two years, is notably high for those specializing in reviews; for instance, Reviews of Modern Physics has a JIF of 45.9 as of the 2023 Journal Citation Reports (released 2024).^[90] Altmetrics complement citation metrics by capturing non-traditional indicators of influence, such as social media shares, downloads, and mentions in policy documents. These are tracked by platforms like PlumX, which aggregates data from sources including Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and news outlets to provide a multifaceted view of a review article's dissemination and public engagement. For example, highly influential reviews in fields like climate science may garner thousands of altmetric scores through policy citations, reflecting their role in informing decision-making beyond academia. Review articles exert long-term influence by synthesizing knowledge and shaping scientific paradigms, often guiding future research directions for decades. More recent reviews, such as those on genomic editing technologies, similarly redefine fields by integrating emerging data and proposing conceptual frameworks.^[91] Despite their value, measuring impact through citations faces challenges, including bias toward positive findings, where studies with statistically significant or favorable results receive more citations than null or negative ones. Citation bias has been documented across biomedical literature, potentially skewing perceptions of evidence strength. To address such issues, initiatives like the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC), launched in 2017, promote unrestricted access to citation data, enabling more transparent and comprehensive analyses of influence without proprietary barriers.^[92] Quantitatively, in biomedicine, review articles account for a disproportionate share of total citations compared to original research, often receiving about three times more citations per article in comparable fields (based on analyses up to 2018).^[89] Recent studies (2020s) indicate that while exact proportions vary, review articles remain a small but highly cited portion of biomedical output, with mislabeling rates around 1.9% in PubMed.^[93]

Applications in Disciplines

Natural and Physical Sciences

In the natural and physical sciences, review articles serve as critical syntheses of rapidly evolving research, integrating theoretical frameworks, experimental data, and methodological advancements to provide researchers with a cohesive overview of complex fields. These articles often emphasize the consolidation of interdisciplinary insights, enabling scientists to identify gaps, replicate protocols, and pivot toward novel hypotheses without sifting through thousands of primary publications. Unlike more narrative-driven reviews in other disciplines, those in STEM prioritize precision and reproducibility, frequently drawing on quantitative models and empirical benchmarks to substantiate trends.^[94] In physics and chemistry, review articles frequently focus on theoretical syntheses that bridge fundamental principles with practical applications, such as the development of advanced materials. For instance, publications in Chemical Reviews have synthesized progress in nanomaterials, detailing their synthesis routes, structural properties, and potential in catalysis and electronics, as seen in comprehensive overviews of nanoparticle chemistry that highlight controlled fabrication techniques and their theoretical underpinnings. These reviews often integrate density functional theory calculations to predict material behaviors, aiding chemists in designing experiments that align with computational predictions. Similarly, in physics, journals like Advances in Physics publish authoritative critiques on topics such as quantum materials, consolidating theoretical models with observational data to forecast material innovations.^[95]^[96]^[97] Biology and earth sciences leverage review articles to emphasize experimental trends, particularly in synthesizing vast datasets from high-throughput technologies. In biology, journals such as Trends in Ecology & Evolution compile genomic data to trace evolutionary patterns, as exemplified by reviews on experimental evolution that analyze microbial and population-level adaptations under controlled conditions, revealing polygenic bases for traits like thermal tolerance. In earth sciences, these articles synthesize paleogenomic and climatic records to model ecosystem responses, such as how genomic insights inform conservation strategies amid biodiversity loss. This approach highlights replicable experimental protocols, from sequencing pipelines to field sampling, to guide large-scale studies.^[98]^[99] Review articles in these fields adopt a highly technical style, incorporating equations sparingly to clarify core concepts, such as Schrödinger equations in quantum mechanics overviews or logistic growth models in ecological syntheses, while prioritizing visual aids like phase diagrams and phylogenetic trees for clarity. Annual updates are common in dedicated series, such as the Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, which provides yearly snapshots of breakthroughs in solid-state phenomena, ensuring researchers stay abreast of incremental advances without annual exhaustive searches. This structured periodicity contrasts with ad-hoc reviews, fostering a rhythmic knowledge dissemination that supports grant proposals and curriculum development.^[100] A unique role of these review articles lies in guiding experimental design by consolidating protocols and highlighting scalable methodologies, thereby influencing hardware and infrastructure development. For example, reviews on quantum computing have shaped hardware innovations by summarizing error-correction schemes and qubit stability protocols, as detailed in analyses of superconducting and trapped-ion systems that informed scalable architectures at institutions like Princeton. Such syntheses reduce trial-and-error in labs, with consolidated benchmarks—such as coherence times exceeding 1 millisecond (as of 2025)—directly impacting prototype fabrication. Recent breakthroughs, including Princeton's 2025 development of a superconducting qubit with three times longer coherence than prior bests, underscore how these reviews accelerate progress toward fault-tolerant systems.^[101]^[102]^[103]^[104] Post-2010, amid the AI boom, review articles have increasingly summarized computational modeling advancements, integrating machine learning with physical simulations to accelerate discoveries in natural sciences. This trend is evident in physics and chemistry, where neural network-based models now predict molecular dynamics, as reviewed in bibliometric studies showing a surge in AI adoption across 333 research fields since 2010, with over 20% annual growth in hybrid physics-ML applications. In biology, these summaries address genomic modeling challenges, while earth sciences reviews incorporate AI-driven climate projections, emphasizing ethical data integration to mitigate biases in predictive tools.^[105]^[106]^[107] In the social, behavioral, and health sciences, review articles often serve as interpretive tools that synthesize diverse theoretical perspectives and empirical findings, emphasizing narrative critiques rather than purely quantitative aggregation. Unlike more experimental disciplines, these fields adapt review methodologies to integrate qualitative data, stakeholder experiences, and contextual nuances, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue on human behavior and societal dynamics. In psychology and sociology, review articles frequently critique and evolve theories through narrative synthesis, highlighting evolving societal influences on mental and social processes. For instance, a 2020 review in the Annual Review of Psychology examined social media elements, ecologies, and effects, critiquing theories like social comparison and displacement while integrating studies to argue for nuanced impacts on well-being, including among adolescents. Similarly, sociological reviews in journals like the Annual Review of Sociology have narratively dissected theories of inequality, such as those on racial dynamics, by weaving qualitative ethnographies with quantitative trends to challenge monolithic frameworks.^[108] In health sciences, review articles prioritize evidence synthesis to inform clinical and public health guidelines, often blending epidemiological data with behavioral insights for practical application. Overviews published in The Lancet synthesize global evidence to recommend integrated strategies for non-communicable diseases, underscoring the role of reviews in bridging research and policy. These syntheses typically emphasize patient-centered outcomes, incorporating meta-narratives from diverse healthcare settings to guide evidence-based protocols. Review articles in these domains exhibit distinct stylistic emphases, placing greater weight on qualitative integration—such as thematic analysis of lived experiences—and ethical implications, including equity in research representation. Interdisciplinary approaches are common, drawing from fields like anthropology or economics to holistically address behavioral determinants; for example, reviews often incorporate ethical discussions on informed consent in vulnerable populations. Unique challenges in crafting these reviews include navigating cultural biases embedded in global literature, where Western-centric studies may overshadow indigenous perspectives, requiring authors to employ decolonial frameworks for balanced synthesis. Post-2020, there has been a surge in pandemic-related reviews, such as those analyzing behavioral responses to COVID-19 lockdowns in behavioral science journals, which integrate real-time data to explore resilience and mental health disparities across cultures. A notable impact of such reviews is their influence on policy formulation; for example, behavioral economics reviews since 2008, including seminal syntheses on nudge theory in outlets like the Journal of Economic Perspectives, have shaped applications in public policy, such as designing incentives for healthier behaviors in national health campaigns.

References

[1]
What Is a Review Article and What Are Its Purpose, Attributes, and ...
Aug 10, 2025 · A review article is a scholarly paper that synthesizes and summarizes existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the ...
[2]
How to write a review article? - PMC - NIH
The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic ...
[3]
Writing a good review article | Author Services Blog
Nov 17, 2022 · A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research.
[4]
Common Types of Reviews
Oct 4, 2023 · The six common types of reviews are: Narrative, Scoping, Systematic, Rapid, Umbrella, and Clinical Practice Guidelines.
[5]
LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: Types of Reviews - Duke University
Review types include systematic, scoping, realist, narrative, state of the art, meta-ethnography, critical, and integrative reviews.
[6]
Types of Review Articles (Literature, Scoping and Systematic)
Oct 30, 2025 · The types of review articles discussed are literature (narrative), scoping, and systematic reviews.
[7]
What Is a Review Article and What Are Its Purpose, Attributes, and ...
Mar 21, 2022 · The overall purpose of a review article should be to provide a valuable, solid, informative, critical summary of a well-defined topic/area to ...Are All Review Articles Useful... · How Do We Define a Review... · Conclusion
[8]
How to write a good scientific review article - Dhillon - FEBS Press
Jul 6, 2022 · 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.
[9]
History of Nature
The first issue of Nature was published on 4 November 1869. Many earlier publishing adventures in science had failed dismally.
[10]
Nature at 150: evidence in pursuit of truth
Nov 6, 2019 · On 4 November 1869, the first issue of Nature made its way into the world. Its ambition was intellectually bold and commercially risky: to bring ...
[11]
History of scientific journals | Royal Society
Philosophical Transactions pioneered the concepts of scientific priority and peer review which, together with archiving and dissemination, provide the model for ...Missing: literature | Show results with:literature
[12]
Review articles: purpose, process, and structure | Journal of the ...
Oct 2, 2017 · Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the ...Review Articles: Purpose... · Purpose Of Review Papers · Jams' Review Paper Editorial...<|control11|><|separator|>
[13]
Submissions | Journal of Data Science and Intelligent Systems
Oct 27, 2025 · Review Article: Critically examines ... For Review Articles should exceed 5,000 words but be less than 20,000 words and include references.
[14]
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4
[15]
Types of Literature Reviews - Research Guides - LibGuides
Aug 25, 2025 · Narrative reviews are best for summarizing the literature in a way that is not exhaustive (compared to systematic reviews or scoping reviews).
[16]
Tracing the depths: A narrative review on Blue Humanities and ...
Oct 17, 2025 · This review paper explores the emerging field of Blue Humanities, which examines the cultural, historical, and ecological significance of ...
[17]
Challenges in Systematic Reviews That Evaluate Drug Efficacy or ...
Jun 21, 2005 · Reviewers should formulate questions that adequately capture the outcomes (benefits and harms), intended therapeutic aims, relevant clinical ...
[18]
Evidence Synthesis Service: What Type of Review is Right for You?
Apr 7, 2025 · A scoping review "provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature.Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
[19]
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_2-200506211-00006
[20]
How to write an excellent Review article - Nature
Nov 11, 2024 · Writing a Review article offers a unique opportunity to reflect on a field and deepen your understanding of core concepts. The process might ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[21]
Learn how to write a review article - Author Services - Taylor & Francis
Writing your title, abstract and keywords Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative. For more information and guidance on ...How To Write A Review... · What Researchers Say · Before You Submit Your...
[22]
None
### Summary of Format and Structure Guidelines for a Review Paper
[23]
How to write the methods section of a systematic review - Covidence
The methods section of your systematic review describes what you did, how you did it, and why. Covidence shares some tips on how to do it.
[24]
Is it required for a review paper to include a methodology and ...
Jan 31, 2023 · Review papers rarely include a method section since they do not report on original research. Instead, review papers summarize and evaluate the findings of ...
[25]
Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing ...
A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information ...
[26]
Literature Table and Synthesis - Nursing Literature Reviews
Aug 8, 2025 · The first few columns should include the basic info about the article (title, authors, journal), publication year, and the purpose of the paper.
[27]
PRISMA statement
PRISMA provides authors with guidance and examples of how to completely report why a systematic review was done, what methods were used, and what results were ...
[28]
PRISMA Flow Diagram - Literature Reviews: working systematically
Oct 8, 2025 · The PRISMA Flow Diagram is a tool that can be used to record different stages of the literature search process--across multiple resources.
[29]
Citation bias: questionable research practice or scientific misconduct?
Citation bias occurs when authors preferentially cite research that supports their own findings or claims, or research that showed what they had hoped to find ...
[30]
Choosing the Right Citation Management Tool: Endnote, Mendeley ...
Jul 1, 2018 · Popular tools include RefWorks, EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley, and F1000 Workspace. This review will cover the first four.
[31]
Ethical Declarations During Research Submission | Editage Insights
Sep 18, 2018 · Authors should declare any personal conflict of interest including any association with consultancies; employment details; participation in ...
[32]
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting ...
Mar 29, 2021 · The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and ...
[33]
Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles
Sep 24, 2018 · Supplementary materials might provide additional results from a study or the detail needed to replicate the methods or present formulas, ...
[34]
Literature search for research planning and identification of research ...
[4] Another strategy is combining keywords with Boolean operators. It is important to keep a note of keywords and methods used in exploring the literature ...
[35]
Literature Searching: Step 4 - Combine concepts using Boolean ...
Feb 28, 2025 · Boolean Operators. Boolean operators (AND, OR) are used to combine concepts and search terms in a database. It focuses the search, particularly ...
[36]
Inclusion and exclusion criteria in research studies - NIH
Inclusion criteria are defined as the key features of the target population that the investigators will use to answer their research question.
[37]
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria - Systematic Reviews - MUSC Library
Oct 29, 2025 · Exclusion criteria are the elements of an article that disqualify the study from inclusion in a literature review. For example, excluded studies ...
[38]
Study Selection or Screening - Systematic Reviews - HMSOM Library
Oct 22, 2025 · Two independent reviewers should screen all studies, starting with a title and abstract screen, followed by a full-text screen. A third reviewer ...
[39]
Abstract screening using the automated tool Rayyan - NIH
Jun 2, 2022 · In the current paper, we aim to assess Rayyan's effectiveness for screening title/abstract of records in three systematic reviews conducted by ...
[40]
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised ...
Oct 12, 2016 · We developed a tool for assessing risk of bias in the results of non-randomised studies of interventions that addresses weaknesses in previously ...Peer review · Related content · Metrics · All rapid responses
[41]
ROBINS-I | Cochrane Bias
The ROBINS-I is a tool developed to assess the risk of bias from an individual non-randomized study that examines the effect of an intervention on an outcome.
[42]
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram
The flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. It maps out the number of records identified, included ...
[43]
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in ...
This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies.
[44]
Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative ...
We developed a new method-meta-narrative review-for sorting and interpreting the 1024 sources identified in our exploratory searches.
[45]
Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in ...
Sep 18, 2013 · The Framework Method is a systematic and flexible approach to analysing qualitative data and is appropriate for use in research teams.
[46]
Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for ...
A title length between 10 and 15 words is recommended, since longer titles can be more challenging to comprehend. Paiva et al. [53] observed that articles ...3. Types Of Review Articles · 3.1. Narrative Reviews · 3.4. Bibliometric Review
[47]
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review - PMC
Jul 18, 2013 · In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student.
[48]
Knowing and Avoiding Plagiarism During Scientific Writing - PMC
This article reviews plagiarism at different levels, consequences, guidelines to avoid plagiarism and benefits from avoiding plagiarism.
[49]
Give your academic paper its best chance of being accepted
Oct 23, 2023 · Desk rejection rates range from 20 per cent to 50 per cent, and recent studies have proposed hypotheses regarding the underlying causes and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[50]
Common Pitfalls in Writing Theory Papers and How to Avoid Them
Oct 12, 2022 · At AMR, historically (over the past five years, 2017–2021)—on average—approximately 44% of papers get desk rejected, and an additional 41% get ...
[51]
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers | COPE
Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication.
[52]
How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? - PMC - NIH
Jan 14, 2020 · 18 Thus, with a commonly used number of three reviewers assigned to each manuscript received, a journal with an 80% rejection rate will need 15 ...
[53]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7055491/
[54]
[PDF] Peer Review Checklist | Editor Resources
REVIEW ARTICLES. Is there any content which has been previously presented in a review? Does it focus on recent advances in research? Is it a balanced and ...
[55]
Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript - Wiley Author Services
Our step-by-step guide to conducting a review will help you through the processes of reviewing the paper, structuring your report, providing criticisms andKey Considerations During... · Section By Section Guidance · How To Structure Your Report
[56]
Q: How many peer reviews to expect before publishing how long do ...
Nov 4, 2021 · Typically, when a paper is considered for peer review, each round of peer review takes approximately 45-90 days.
[57]
Peer review appeals and complaints from authors
Editors will consider one appeal per article and all decisions on appeals are final. The timely review and decision-making process for new submissions will take ...
[58]
Peer Review Process - Wiley Author Services
The length of the peer review process varies by journal, so consult with the journal's editors or staff for details of the process for that particular journal.Possible outcomes of peer... · Common reasons for rejection
[59]
Annual Reviews
Our 2025 Impact Report includes details about our organization and recent OA milestones. Knowledge Unlatched 2025 Pledging now available! Check out the ...Journals · What We Do · About · Journal Impact FactorsMissing: overview | Show results with:overview
[60]
Psychological Bulletin
Psychological Bulletin publishes research reviews and interpretations of issues in scientific psychology. Learn about APA's top cited journal.Sample Articles · Leveraging systematic review... · Pricing and individual access
[61]
https://www.annualreviews.org/
[62]
Why index your journal in DOAJ?
Indexing your journal in DOAJ will likely increase website traffic and give greater exposure to your published content. Traffic to a journal website typically ...
[63]
What are the difference between conference paper, journal paper ...
Feb 4, 2022 · Usually, Journal and conference articles are based on the research work done by the authors while as Book chapter is based on research works ...Publishing a research article as a book chapter or in a peer ...What is the value of publishing a book or writing a book chapter for ...More results from www.researchgate.net
[64]
Guest Post - Everything* You Ever Wanted to Know about ...
Jan 30, 2020 · Conference proceedings contain original research results, peer-reviewed, and are not journals or books, but a separate genre. They are often ...
[65]
Preprints - ResearchGate Help
May 22, 2025 · A preprint is an author's own original or draft version of their paper before any peer review has taken place and before they publish it.
[66]
About CC Licenses - Creative Commons
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator.Made with Creative Commons · Made with CC Community · Use & remix
[67]
Creative Commons Licenses - Office of Scholarly Communication
Creative Commons (CC) licenses are a way for creators to encourage broad dissemination of their work by indicating to readers that the work can be reused.
[68]
The length it takes from submission to publication | Andrew Wheeler
May 9, 2018 · The six month lag is the best case scenario in which your paper is accepted at the first journal you submit to.
[69]
When will I get my paper back? A replication study of publication ...
The mean publication time from author submission to posting on PubMed was 263.55 days (SD = 157.61; median = 228). The mean acceptance time from author ...
[70]
What is the difference between a research paper and a review paper?
A research paper is based on original research, while a review paper is based on other published articles and does not report original research.
[71]
Types of research article | Writing your paper - Author Services
Unlike original research articles, review articles are considered as secondary literature. This means that they generally don't present new data from the ...
[72]
Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles - Scholarly ...
Sep 21, 2025 · Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, ...
[73]
Structure of a Research Paper : Home - guides
Nov 15, 2024 · IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, [and] Discussion) is a mnemonic for the major components of a scientific paper. These elements are ...
[74]
How Many References in a Research Paper? - Wordvice
Oct 1, 2022 · The average number of references per article was the highest for the social sciences, physics, and astronomy, and arts & humanities (roughly 54 ...
[75]
Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and ...
Oct 13, 2023 · This paper conducts a meta-analysis of 200 governance policies and ethical guidelines for AI usage published by public bodies, academic institutions, private ...
[76]
FlashAttention: Fast and Memory-Efficient Exact Attention with IO ...
May 27, 2022 · We propose FlashAttention, an IO-aware exact attention algorithm that uses tiling to reduce the number of memory reads/writes between GPU high bandwidth memory ...
[77]
Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals - NIH
Its original citation is: Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative ... doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; 15 ...
[78]
What's the difference between a narrative review, a literature review ...
Dec 4, 2023 · Unlike a systematic review, a narrative review does not require a clearly defined research question, does not follow explicit methodology, and ...
[79]
GRADE - Cochrane
GRADE is a systematic approach to rating the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses.
[80]
https://mcgill.libanswers.com/health-sciences/faq/211884
[81]
https://www.cochrane.org/learn/courses-and-resources/cochrane-methodology/grade
[82]
https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-024-02531-2
[83]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
[84]
Citation metrics covary with researchers' assessments of the quality ...
Mar 1, 2023 · Review articles are particularly known to be, on average, more frequently cited than ordinary articles (Mendoza, 2021; Miranda & Garcia- ...
[85]
About Reviews of Modern Physics
Reviews of Modern Physics metrics. 33. Published Papers. 65,614. Total Citations. 44.8. Journal Impact Factor. 91.1. CiteScore. 93. h5-index. 6.07832.
[86]
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122421996323
[87]
The impact of review articles - PubMed
The impact of review articles. Lab Invest. 2007 Dec;87(12):1174-85. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700688. Epub 2007 Oct 22. Authors. Catherine M Ketcham , James M ...
[88]
Chemical Reviews Journal - ACS Publications
Chemical Reviews publishes comprehensive, authoritative, critical reviews of important advances in organic, inorganic, physical, analytical, theoretical, and ...ASAP (As Soon As Publishable) · List of Issues · Current Issue · About the Journal
[89]
Introduction: Nanoparticle Chemistry | Chemical Reviews
Sep 28, 2016 · In this review, we discuss a personal selection of papers dedicated to nanoparticle research, which we believe provide an illustrative ...Author Information · Biographies · References
[90]
Recent Advances in 2D Material Theory, Synthesis, Properties, and ...
May 23, 2023 · Here, we review recent advances in the theory, synthesis, characterization, device, and quantum physics of 2D materials and their heterostructures.
[91]
Learn about Advances in Physics
The journal publishes the following article types: Long-form review articles (typically invited); Regular review articles; Perspectives – provocative short ...
[92]
Species conservation in the era of genomic science | BioScience
Nov 16, 2023 · We outline three dimensions of management concern that arise when facing new and potentially conflicting interpretations of genomic data.
[93]
Evolutionary genomics can improve prediction of species' responses ...
Here, we argue that it is possible to use genomic data to understand a species' evolutionary potential and then use this to improve prediction models that can ...Niche Persistence By... · Niche Evolution By Genetic... · Space-For-Time Approach
[94]
Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics
AIMS AND SCOPE OF JOURNAL: The Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics describes the most important advances in condensed matter physics and related subjects.
[95]
An elementary review on basic principles and developments of ...
Mar 18, 2024 · The recent rapid development of quantum computing hardware has reached a stage where simple quantum algorithms and various proofs of concepts ...
[96]
Materials advances are key to development of quantum hardware
Apr 19, 2021 · A new study outlines the need for materials advances in the hardware that goes into making quantum computers.
[97]
[PDF] Artificial intelligence adoption in the physical sciences, natural - arXiv
Jun 15, 2023 · In this study we examine worldwide adoption of AI technology within 333 fields of research during 1960-2021. We do this by using bibliometric ...
[98]
Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of ...
This paper offers insights into the diffusion and impact of artificial intelligence in science. More specifically, we show that neural network-based ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
[99]
AI will transform science — now researchers must tame it - Nature
for better and for worse.