Research Articles

AKA: Primary Research, Original Research, Edge Articles

Description: A thorough report on the purpose, background, methods, results, and discussion of a research project or study. Research articles are a type of primary source and are one of the foundations of peer-reviewed journals. They are typically long—between 3,000 and 12,000 words depending on the journal and the project. 

Identifying features: 

• “IMRaD” structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). The titles of these sections may change from journal to journal, but are typically present. 
• Long, specific titles that outline the purpose or finding of the study. 

Peer-reviewed: Usually (check the journal). 

Example of a Research Article (Edge Article).

Perspectives 

AKA: Expert Reviews/Expert Opinions/Emerging Research Frontiers

Description: ‘Perspectives’ are defined differently by different journals. However, perspectives typically have a focus on the cutting edge or future of a particular area. In ACS Journals, perspectives are typically a form of original research from a leader in the field—described as “emerging research frontiers”. In other journals Perspectives are a form of review that takes a particularly opinionated stance. 

Identifying Features: 

• May look indistinguishable from other types of reviews or research articles. 
• Often described as ‘speculative.’ 

Example of a Perspective

Peer-Reviewed?: Probably. Check the journal. 

Sub-Category: Theoretical/Conceptual Articles

Description: Original research that focuses on a speculative or theoretical aspect of a field. No methods section. 

Registered Report

AKA: Pre-registered report, registered research

Description: A type of research article. The plan for the study is submitted to the journal before the study is complete. A registered report can look like two separate documents—a proposal/protocol and the research article—but is most often one continuous document. Registered Reports either design an entirely new study or perform a replication study on previous research. Registered Reports help diminish publication bias since the idea is accepted for publication before a report of results. 

Identifying Features: 

• A proposal/protocol and the study
• Study typically follows IMRAD
• May have additional sections for protocol information

Peer Reviewed?: Yes

Viewpoints (ACS)

Description: Like Perspectives, Viewpoints are defined differently by different journals. In some ACS, they tend to be research article length or slightly shorter, written on “a topic of particular interest.” In other journals, including some ACS journals, Viewpoints are much shorter, broadly stated opinions from an expert in the field.

AKA: Worldview, Commentary

Identifying Features: 

• Clearly labeled ‘viewpoint’ by the journal
• No methods section (usually—they may be included in a supplementary information section)

Peer-Reviewed: The longer, article-style Viewpoint may be peer-reviewed. The shorter, editorial-style Viewpoint probably are not. 

Example of an article-style Viewpoint

Example of an editorial-style Viewpoint

Methodologies

AKA: Methods, ”From the Bench” (ACS)

Description: A report of a new or groundbreaking method in a field. Sometimes Methodology articles follow the IMRAD structure and length, and other times, especially in the case of “From the Bench” or “Technical Notes,” articles, they are brief. 

Defining Characteristics: 

• Focus is on method alone. 

Peer-Reviewed?: Maybe, especially for the longer, full articles. 

Example of a Methodology

Communications(ACS)

Description: A report of research limited to topics of “unusual urgency, timeliness, significance, and broad interest.” Communications are typically between 2-4 pages. Methods are included, but as part of the supplementary information as the focus of a Communication is on the results. Note: Communications began as Letters to the Editor and evolved into something closer to a research article. Non-ACS journals may still use ‘Communications’ to refer to more general, non-research discussion. 

Identifying Features: 

• Methods in supplementary information sections
• Labeled as ‘communication’
• Emphasis on something urgent/new

Example of an ACS Communication

Reviews

Description: A description, summary, and analysis of existing primary research on a topic. Reviews are a type of secondary source. Most, but not all, journals publish reviews. Some journals publish only reviews. A review is typically selective and includes major, but not all, sources on its topic. Sometimes they attempt to answer a specific research question, but more often merely summarize and synthesize the included sources. 

Identifying Features: 

• shorter, more general title. 
• long references list (into the hundreds is not unusual). 
• No methods or results sections. 

Peer-reviewed: Usually (check the journal).  

Sub-Category: Focus Reviews

Description: Published in some ACS journals. Focus Reviews have, as the name suggests, a tight focus on one topic or issue rather than a broad focus (as in a general Review). A Focus Review requires an analysis of all significant existing research and discussion of the future. No methods or results sections. Less common than general Reviews.

Systematic Reviews

Description: Though it has “review” in the title, systematic reviews are quite different from a general review. Systematic reviews begin with a specific research question, then collect all of the existing research on that topic. They analyze the research, then provide an answer to their research question based on the strength of the existing evidence. SRs are most common in the health sciences but do appear in other disciplines. 

Identifying Features: 

• Typically say “systematic review” somewhere in the title or abstract. 
• Give a thorough description of the search strategy in the article or in supplemental information. 
• Very often, there is a figure that shows how the evidence was included or discarded, and tables comparing evidence from different sources. 
• They typically have a very long references list since they aim to include all relevant information and, unlike regular reviews, often do include results and conclusions. 

Peer-Reviewed?: Almost always. 

Example of a Systematic Review

Meta-Analyses

Description: Similar to a systematic review, but with data analysis. Meta-analyses collect all the primary and secondary research on their topic, determine which studies have the strongest evidence, and establish statistical significance between different findings. 

Identifying Features: 

• Typically say “meta-analysis” in the title or abstract. 
• Give a thorough description of the search strategy in the article or in supplemental information. 
• Very often, there is a figure that shows how the evidence was included or discarded, and tables comparing evidence from different sources. 
• They typically have very long references lists since they aim to include all relevant information. 
• The Results section will discuss the statistics of their findings. 

Peer Reviewed: Almost always. 

Example of a Meta-Analysis.

Conference Materials

Description: Short, published accounts of posters or oral paper presentations from disciplinary conferences. While typically only the abstract is available, some may link to a larger published ‘proceedings’ paper, which is still shorter than a typical research paper.

Identifying Features: 

• About as long as an abstract, may be a little longer
• Citation information often says “Proceedings” or “Presented at XX Meeting.” 
• Usually no references. 

Peer Reviewed?: No (usually). Sometimes authors of conference proceedings turn them into full peer-reviewed papers published elsewhere. 

Example of a Conference Abstract

Book Review

Description: A short (usually one page or less) review of a newly published book. Not to be confused with a ‘Review Article’, Book Reviews are published to give readers an idea of whether they would like to purchase or read that book. Most often used by teachers, librarians, and scholars to inform purchases. 

Identifying Features: 

• No sections. 
• Title is sometimes the title of the book under review. 
• Publication and purchase details are typically included at the top or bottom of the page. 

Peer-Reviewed: No. 

Example of a Book Review

Letters

AKA: Letters to the Editor

Description: A short, informal response to something the journal has already published. Sometimes a letter to the editor asks a question, raises an issue, or brings another viewpoint. 

Identifying Features: 

• Refers explicitly to a previously published article
• Brief; may or may not include citations

Peer-Reviewed: No

Example of a Letter

Highlight

AKA: Spotlight

Description: A short, easy-to-read explanation of a study and its findings. Typically written in common language with no sections. 

Identifying Features: 

• Just a few paragraphs
• Lay (not scientific) language used
• Link to the full research article 

Peer Reviewed?: No, but the full research article typically is. 

Example of a Highlight