After looking at the different aspects of the review article and research article given to us, it appears to me that review articles give a much more in depth account on a field of research while research articles are based on original, more specific research. The research article about jumping spiders was much shorter than the review article about spider-ant associations. It makes sense that an original research paper would be shorter than a review article that contains an extensive summary of all the work regarding a specific topic. The review article also had significantly more references than the research article. While both articles contained level one headings, only the review article contained level two headings. Furthermore, the review article numbered their level one and two headings while the research article only used words for their headings. I was surprised that the research article did not contain much data. On the other hand, the review article had tables to show information as well as photos. There were diagrams explaining the experiment, but did not show the results in tables or figures. The two articles both contain a lot of information for readers to absorb, but the presentation of the articles varies.
Recent comments