The research article had a slightly different set up. For example, instead of using an abstract, it began with a summary that provided the overview of the study. The introduction and proceeding paragraphs were not numbered, but were instead simply stated as ‘Materials and methods’ and ‘Results’. This is most likely because the paragraphs in each section did not need to be organized as precisely as the review paper. Looking at both articles, the review paper had a significantly shorter introduction than the research paper, but this is a consistent pattern with other papers I have looked at.
The in-text citations differed between the two texts. The review paper used citations without the author, while the research paper used citations with the author and publishing year. The review paper cited over 170 papers, therefore, it was not surprising to me that they did not cite the last name of every author throughout the paragraphs. Overall, the review article seemed to have a broader range of information regarding the field of research and thus resulted in a longer paper than the research article. The research article was more specific in one area of study.
Recent comments