The first structural difference that I noticed between the two articles was that the research article detailed the specifics of the project and discussed the intricacies throughout the sections. The research acticle also contained figures to visually display the data they collected throughout the project. On the other hand, the review article skipped around and covered the topics of myrmecomorphy, myrmecophily, and myrmecophagy in spider-ants. It went into detail for each section/subsection, and referenced a wide number different sources. Citations in the research article contained the author and the date that the referenced article was released, while the review article simply used a number assigned to each of the many sources. In both the research article and the review, the citations begin in the introduction and the summary/abstract do not have any.
One thing that jumped out at me was that the review article was open access; the majority of research articles I’ve read are locked behind a paywall that can only be accessed by being on the university campus. I also found it interesting that the review article contained more level 2 headings, but it makes sense since the review is drawing from so many different sources. The structure of the discussion in the research article was different than what I’m used to; the way that it presented a numbered list that answers the questions brought up at the beginning of the article was unique. Furthermore, the writing style of the review came off as more digestible because it was meant to describe a more broad topic. In skimming through these two articles, I’ve found that the absolute structure of a research article is not concrete. Rather, the authors present the information in a way that they believe best showcases their work.