Identifying primary and review articles 

While writing a scientific paper it is important to understand the information you are using and where it’s coming from. We want to be able to write with the most accurate and resourceful information. With that being said it is important to be able to identify and differentiate what a primary source is and what a review source is. Without being able to identify the difference between articles we lose the ability to write with the most appropriate information. 

When hearing the phrase primary article, the thing that comes to mind is “first”. This is ideal because primary articles are “first”, they are the first-hand account of a new topic. They are articles that give information from people who directly worked with the topic of interest. The information from these articles is reviewed by professionals within the appropriate field before even being published. 

For undergraduates in a science major primary articles are one of the main sources used when writing a scientific paper. To physically identify a primary article one thing to look for would be organization, they will follow a format. This format will include having an introduction, abstract, results, discussion, and references. 

To think of what a review article is we essentially just have to take the name for what it is. when thinking of a review article the brain automatically connects to the word review. This is good because it allows us to understand what it is without fully understanding it. We understand something is being reviewed. A review article is essentially a review or summary of an already published primary article. When writing a scientific paper a review article helps to understand your topic without having every single bit of information. It allows you to have an initial impression of a topic before writing about it. 

 Review articles do not follow a certain format, they don’t have to have specific elements to make them an article. These articles can be found in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. 

 The big rule about a primary article is that it must be reviewed by professionals within that field to be published. This process is called the peer review process. This process is very important and tedious. Without this process, the primary article can not be published. 

 This process begins with the researcher or author writing about their findings on their topic of interest. The writing then gets sent to a journal for publication. The editor of the journal then reviews the journal to see if it has potential fitting within their journal. Once this is done it is sent to a group of professionals or experts within the topic of interest. This step is essentially the “peer review process”. Because peers of the editor are looking over the writing for quality, logic, and originality. Once a recommendation is made by the group it is then sent back to the editor to be either approved or rejected. 

 As an undergrad majoring in a scientific topic it is important to be able to differentiate a primary article, a review article, and what the review process is. This is important for when it comes time to write any scientific paper within a science major. 

To understand the three we must understand their differences. A primary article is a published article about an original topic. The difference between a primary article and a review article is that a review article is not original information is essentially a summary of a primary article’s information. 

The peer-review process is the process in which a primary article can be published. This process is not needed for a review article because it is not original information, it doesn’t need to be evaluated. 

When looking at the articles given we can conclude that the article “ Circulating microRNAs in Medicine “ is a primary article. We can see this article is following a structure it includes an introduction and references. We can also see stated in the article when the article was received when it went through the peer review process and when it was accepted. 

This allows us to conclude that the article titled “MicroRNA in diagnosis and therapy monitoring of early-stage triple-negative breast cancer ” is a review article. This article does not follow a specific format like in the primary article.