Primary vs Secondary Articles
Primary articles and secondary articles are completely different, and each holds significant value to research. Primary articles are written by a scientist on their discoveries and findings. They normally exclude review articles and review main sections. These sections include the introduction, method of discovery, discussion, and references. Each of these holds a significant value to the paper for its own reason. The introduction allows the reader to understand the concept of what was discovered while also enlightening them on the main topic. The method allows other scientists to try this and process their own results. Results and discussion allow for the findings to be accurately portrayed and for them to begin backing up the claims that they found. Finally, references hold an extremely important value to the primary article to exemplify the other researcher’s work that may have tried the same experiment and received different results. Under most circumstances, primary articles are reviewed by an expert before publication. This means that the results and methods are explained in an accurate manner that will allow other scientists to build off these findings.
Review articles are different from peer-reviewed articles and are important for primary articles. A review article can help people understand the scientific literature that is within other forms of articles. It integrates the research from the other article to help readers understand a particular topic. Although review articles hold value due to them not trying to encapsulate the entirety of a research paper but solely depend on describing just the subject.
Through peer review, a primary article is solidified as publishable. Peer review works to pass a test on an article. If the researcher wishes to share his findings, he must go through a form of quality control of researchers that are in the same field. Peer reviewers must ask questions such as whether it is original, important, or even if the methodology is sound. Peer reviewers give their thumbs up or down to the editor and the editor has the final say. It is then passed to university libraries after years and then the university can distribute it.
As we gathered this new knowledge, it can be determined that out of the two articles that were given Permanent inactivation of Huntington’s disease mutation by personalized allele-specific CRISPR/Cas9 would be identified as the primary article. I believe this to be true due to the set conditions of a primary article including set headings such as introductions, results, methods, etcetera. This article includes all of those and goes into depth on each one. It has also been published and peer-reviewed meaning that it made it through the steps of publication for research papers. None of the papers goes into detail to describe a singular subject in great detail as a reviews article would. Whereas the article Huntington’s Disease: Mechanisms of Pathogenesis and Therapeutic Strategies is viewed as a review article for just that. It goes into great depth introducing the idea and never explains methods only ideologies that have been explored. It allows the reader to better grasp what Huntington’s disease is and how it has been treated and will be treated in the future. This is concluded through the previous definitions of what primary and review articles look like and how to identify them.