In the research article, the headings consist of the experimental steps of the experiment. They include a summary, introduction, materials and methods, results and a discussion. The reviewed article does not have these as markers. Instead, they can change frequently and are descriptive of what is about to be discussed.
The first paragraph of the research article is the summary section. This serves to set up the experiment that was performed and what they set out to accomplish. It lays out the points that the authors say they found evidence to support. The review article begins with an abstract. This is less focused on a experiment and more on Myrmecomorphs and their resemblance to ants. This explains the type of mimicry they say is at play and why it came about. These two sections are a paragraph apiece, but other sections are longer and compose multiple paragraphs. Some also contain data tables and figures.
The research article uses in text citations with the author and year. It then finishes with a reference page at the very end of the article. The review also uses in text citation but usually mentions the author and then puts the year in parentheses. If there is more than one reference, the author names and year will both be listed in parentheses. This also ends with a reference cited section at the very end of the article.
Both articles seem to have well written paragraphs that flow together. The paragraphs begin with a topic sentence and then flow into more detail. The research article seems to be more abrupt at getting directly into the subject matter and the paragraphs flow together so that the topic sentence of one picks up from the end of the preceding paragraph. Taken alone, they may be less of a standard topic sentence to a paragraph, but the research article is meant to flow from one paragraph to another and when read this way makes sense. The review article takes more liberties in the time it takes to explain something and has paragraphs that can stand independently more often. The review does not have something to cohesively represent like the research article and can therefore take more time in explaining detail that can stand as an independent paragraph. The separate details then make separate paragraphs which serve to inform the reader.
It surprised me that the research was shorter than the review because we often think of research as being expansive and gathering a lot of data. This makes sense however given that the research article is meant to encapsulate the whole experiment and convey those ideas while also being brief. This is not to say that the results are written with a sense of levity but rather an exactness to convey the necessary. It solidified the importance of being able to flow from paragraph to paragraph without necessarily using a new topic sentence but one that continued the train of thought but showed progression in the article. The review was able to take more time in doing this and gave more detail than may be necessary in a research article. The research is meant for other experts in the field, where as the review had information that explained the goings on to those who may not poses the same level of expertise.
Recent comments