While working and studying the field of science one might hear the terms “review article” and “primary source” and the phrase peer reviewing. These are different types of articles and a method of reviewing them. Primary articles are the original scientific reports found in new research’s. These articles are typically peer reviewed to keep all findings accurate to the research. These articles include sections like the introduction, methods, discussion, and results.

     Review articles are articles that include already existing data on certain topics, kind of like a summary of the specific topic in the article. These articles do not include all information on said topic, and are typically used to give the reader a general idea of the topic at hand.

     In order for scientific articles to be published, they must go through a review process. This process is known as the scientific peer review process. This process is aimed to make sure articles published are up to date and have accurate scientific findings. The process starts by sending an article to an editor who will determine if the piece is a good fit for their journal. If the article passes, it is then looked at by professionals in the field to determine if the findings are accurate and scientific. After looking at the article the peers will reject or accept the article and send it back to the editor with the decision they come to. Once the article is back to the editor, they can still decide whether or not it is worthy of publication, and can still make modifications to said article.

     Out of the two articles we were given, I have come to the conclusion that the article on Huntington’s disease mutation by personalized allele-specific CRISPR/CaS is the primary article. I think that this article is the primary article because it is presenting new research and involved some experiments. The article also has the same sections that would be found through a primary article, such as the introduction,

methods, discussion, and the results. After coming to this conclusion I could only assume that the other article was the review article. My reasoning for this conclusion was because Huntington’s Disease: Mechanisms of Pathogenesis and Therapeutic Strategies appeared to be a journal of pre-existing research compiled into one journal about the topic. It was a good article for me to read having known little knowledge on pathogenesis and therapeutic strategies for Huntington’s disease.