The research article is broken up into the level 1 headings of abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. The methods section, for example, has the level 2 headings of study site, field methods, epiphyte field identification and species groupings, and analytical methods. This is particularly useful for clarifying specific parts of a singular experiment. In contrast, the mini-review article has level 1 headings for each question it asks, such as “why should we try to construct models of communities?” and “if press or pulse methods could be applied, could we build a predictive model?” This is useful for addressing broader concepts from multiple different experiments and articles. I am not surprised by this distinction between the two formatting levels, but would also not be surprised to see level 2 headings in other review-style articles for further specification. I think although the formality of many heading levels is more commonplace in research articles than review, it may just be a byproduct of the research articles being more specific about a singular experiment. Depending on the review article, I wouldn’t be surprised to see up to level 3 headings, provided the concepts are multifaceted enough.
Recent comments